jamesb

Be careful, the Nexus models (also known as replicants in popular slang) have been known to go rogue.

Long hair, long beard, move to the wilderness and don't go near civilization for a few years. How do you know? They get into your brain if you don't wear your tinfoil. Tinfoil!

Although a creepier way. Microsoft just wanted all your money. Apple want to control your gadgets. Google want to know every single facet of your life so that they can sell you to advertisers who will then know as much as Google do. Are there any comfortable caves on Dartmoor? I've just realised I've somehow developed long hair and a beard along with paranoia, so should probably become a luddite hermit.

I believe the issue is that English voters have not been given the choice to devolve.

My last homebrew was a little stronger than expected, more liquer than wine. Wonder if it'd be worth starting an edugeek group about this, since a lot of people are talking about starting? More importantly, would anyone be interest in exchanging homebrew samples to get a greater variety?

I suppose they're just voting for the party closest to their views, even if that's just the least-worst option.

And if there is none, or you do not believe in any of the candidates standing? Choosing one closest to your own views is all well and good if there is a party or candidate who is close. If they are not close, or you disagree equally with all the candidates (or, say, believe them to be corrupt and not suitable candidates) then you should not select the one who is least worst, but indicate that you feel that none are suitable by casting a ballot which will be rejected.

Very few work for that entire time, but that's irrelevant. Let's assume that the majority of those who came later work standard hours. That means they finish around five o'clock. Call it a half-hour commute for them to get home, 5:30. Then it's not unreasonable for them to eat before going to the polling station, particularly if they're expected to wait a long time, call it 6:30. They then get to the station at 7:00 pm. I leave for work before 7 in the morning, so voting before work wasn't an option for me. I didn't get much of a lunch break, so going back and voting then was not an option. I then had to work a little late. Since I live right next door to my polling station I was lucky in that I could just stop in on my way back, plus my polling station did not have a queue. If it had done, I would have continued home, eaten, and tried again later rather than queing. What, exactly, about any of the above is unreasonable or 'stupid' exactly? The process is very simple. Go to polling station during the opening hours. Vote. Leave. The problem comes when queing is thrown in, and it is not unreasonable to expect that to be accounted for in the process rather than by the individuals trying to express their fundamental right to vote. Calling them stupid shows incredible ignorance and prejudice.

Half an hour before the polls close could not reasonably be described as the last minute. Many had been queing longer than that, figures of up to four hours were quoted. In some cases people had been queing in the rain, doesn't change the facts but does show that they were actually eager to vote. When hundreds are turned away, saying that they must all have turned up with a few minutes to spare is a little unreasonable. Some turned up early, saw the queues and so left hoping for a quieter period later. Then came back again, and repeat, before eventually giving in and joining the queue for an hour. After this they were turned away. I agree completely that those turning up after 10pm should not be able to vote, the rules are quite clear on that, however you are suggesting that if the polling station happens to be unable to handle the number of voters, or has a rush at a certain point, or delays in clearing people to vote - essentially if there is any problem at all - then you are perfectly justified in taking away the one chance in four years that these people have to express their democratic right to vote.

Nope, they wouldn't help determine a majority for anyone. Effective they're a vote against all standing candidates, meaning that the increase the error in the count, and so the number of votes that a successful candidate would require for the result to be considered a clear win. What there cannot be is a draw - in this situation the returning officer can draw lots of flip a coin. If there is no clear winner however, this is not a draw but calls the result into question and most likely results in it being recalled.

When the majority is in doubt the results get questioned. This matters in places where the vote is close. So, let's say 1000 people vote for Party A, 900 vote for Party B, and 200 ballot papers are rejected after recounts. The majority is then in doubt and can be challenged As for the whole question of it there are 'enough' votes, that's a matter for the Electoral College, who most likely have bigger fish to fry at the moment, having turned people away from polling stations.

I have no sympathy for those who chose not to vote at all. I would like to see the actual percentage of spoiled ballot papers included in the stats, since these people have put in the effort to make their voice known. They do count them, as evidenced by the fact that they report the number, so why isn't this included in all of the fancy graphs we get shown? I also have sympathy for those who, for whatever reason, were unable to vote.

Total percentage of the vote to labour in the 2005 election - 35.3%, so 64.7% of the country being effectively ignored.

You're just trying to make me an optimist, aren't you?

And what if that lesser party gets in? Rejected ballots are counted. If there are enough of them to put the result in doubt, then it does put the result in doubt. Thus spoiling a ballot paper is sending a very clear message, more so than voting for a so-called 'protest' party. This is, of course, with the exception of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, who when they have won seats do tend to put in a good showing. I'd love to, however there isn't any party I'd be happy standing for at the moment. I have considered standing as an independent but I do not have the money to spare for the deposit, nor the resources to campaign properly. I did actually vote, but it was pretty much guaranteed to be a wasted vote no matter which way I went. My constituency is too safe for it to be otherwise.

Judging by previous hung parliaments, assuming it'll last 24 months to another election might be a bit optimistic. The shortest was what, three days?

Well, it may be that we actually get PR for the next election, since people will have to cut deals. I'm actually looking forward to the wheeling and dealing between parties - it looks like the Lib Dems may have more influence than the number of seats they hold suggest. They'll be the deciding factor in any votes of no confidence. Not only that, but individual MPs are going to have a lot more influence (I hope). However it is quite obvious that the system is broken - the number of people actually turned away from polling stations demonstrates that quite nicely. It'll be very interesting to see if any challenges to the results do occur because of that.

I notice Edugeek's in there. Anywhere it's not turning up these days?

Having re-read the story on another site, it seems that no one has been arrested or charged, but an eighteen year old did go into a police station in order to allege common assault against Bobby. And he's not an MP yet, hopefully won't ever be.

It sounded the same to me, I've watched it several times since getting home. This quote from Nick made me feel ill - "campaign of hatred and dehumanisation against any group of people, in this case us" The campaign of hatred has certainly not been on the part of the boys there. It looked to me as though Bob Bailey called out to them, began the swearing, and threw the first punch. True he was spat at, but equally he is a politician who evidently felt quite comfortable making the situation worse, and more importantly to me kicking a teenager repeatedly while he was on the ground after throwing the first punch at him. The only bit I really can't understand is why he is still walking around freely while apparently one of the boys has been taken in.

Hate to say it, but I can't see any difference between those two. Am I missing something?

Just put a batch of strawberry wine on a few days ago which I've got high hopes for. I did make some chocolate wine before, which came out quite well (despite fermentation restarting after bottling and resulting in my kitchen ceiling being spattered with the result of a couple of bottles exploding). Usually comes out quite well and makes brilliant gifts. I need to invest in some labelling equipment though.

Apparently mentioning ME while working for Microsoft is pretty much taboo. Written out of history.

I don't know if this is any use?

As an interesting point - a large part of the reason Trident is a very effective deterent is because unlike land-based missiles it is much harder to target or saboutage. A large part of this is due to the secrecy, and the fact that mobile subs are harder to find than big missile silos. So, the harder your deterent is to find and target, the better it is, and the less likely to actually be fired. Carrying on from that, for a mere £1 000 000 I can design and build a perfect deterent which will be impossible for our enemies to find and destroy. So long as it never needs to be used, it will function perfectly. If it does need to be used we'll all be dead anyway, but I'll have had £1 000 000 and our defense budget will have been nicely slashed.