Crime
| TOP STORIES |  | | | | | | | FEATURES | | | | | | MAYOR NEWS | | | | TRAVEL | | | | COMPETITIONS | | |
|
|
|
SOUTH WOODFORD: Woman starved dog to death
 |
| A vet tried to save the dog by feeding her with a tube |
A teaching assistant has been found guilty of callously starving her elderly mother's dog to death.
Alexandra Zochios, 49, of Elmhurst Drive in South Woodford, appeared at Redbridge Magistrates Court accused of neglecting the female shiatsu, called Zoe, until veterinary staff had no choice but to put it out of its misery.
Zochios' 87-year-old mother, who lived just a few doors away, kept Zoe as a companion but after being diagnosed with severe Alzheimer's, was unable to care for herself or the pet properly.
Denied food and medical treatment, the dog was dismissed as a ball of fluff' by the heartless mother-of-five until it weighed only 2kg.
RSPCA Inspector Dawn Avery told the court of the appalling sight she encountered upon entering the house on November 6, last year.
She said: "The dog was lying on the bed in a very poor condition. All her ribs and bones were showing, her eyes were gungy and she was gasping for breath so I believed her to be dying."
Inspector Avery immediately took the dog to Goddards Vet Practice in Wanstead where she was treated in a desperate attempt to save her life, but eventually had to be put down after going into cardio-vascular arrest.
Vet Martin Lawton performed the autopsy on behalf of the RSPCA and said he believed it would have taken at least three months to reach that level of emaciation.
He added: "It was starving and the suffering was unnecessary as I could find no medical reason why this dog was unable to maintain its weight. It was almost like a skeleton preparation. The bones could be seen and it was almost transparent in places."
Zochios denied the charges and claimed she had put out a tin of dog food every evening for Zoe but, as she did not stay to watch it be eaten, could only presume that her mother was clearing the plate away without thinking.
She added: "The dog would always be under my mother's arm. I would go back later and everything would be washed up and I assumed it had been eaten. She wasn't my dog and I only brought it food as a favour as I care about my mum."
Presiding magistrate John Miller decided Zochios was guilty of both charges - of failing to provide the animal with adequate nutrition and failing to seek out medical attention when it was her responsibility to do so.
Zochios was bailed to return on April 22 for sentencing, pending the preparation of probation service reports.
Inspector Avery said she was delighted that justice was done, adding: "This was a shocking case as if somebody had asked for help then it wouldn't have reached this point and this little dog wouldn't have died.
"This should serve as a reminder that when an animal's owner is incapable of looking after themself that those caring have a responsibility to look after their pets as well."
7:43am Thursday 10th April 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Croyboy on 8:20am Thu 10 Apr 08
We must bear in mind that in Alexandra Zochios' country of origin this sort of disregard for the suffering of animals is probably normal.
We must bear in mind that in Alexandra Zochios' country of origin this sort of disregard for the suffering of animals is probably normal.
Posted by: s-j, uk on 8:58am Thu 10 Apr 08
This is such a heartless person to let a dog suffer like this, what went through her mind she is sick. she could have taken the dog to a vet or a animal home. this woman should be sued. never to have animals.
This is such a heartless person to let a dog suffer like this, what went through her mind she is sick. she could have taken the dog to a vet or a animal home. this woman should be sued. never to have animals.
Posted by: KD, London on 9:49am Thu 10 Apr 08
Oh please Croyboy, give it a rest. Does the story not matter to you at all, just where the subject of the story is from?
Absolutely disgusting, she should get a sentence for this.
Oh please Croyboy, give it a rest. Does the story not matter to you at all, just where the subject of the story is from?
Absolutely disgusting, she should get a sentence for this.
Posted by: Croygirl, London on 10:50am Thu 10 Apr 08
Croyboy, please inform us as to what the woman's 'country of origin' is.
It's not mentioned in the article.
Are we to assume that every person with a vaguely foreign-sounding name was not born in this country (and, therefore is the root of all evil in your tiny little brain)?
Croyboy, please inform us as to what the woman's 'country of origin' is.
It's not mentioned in the article.
Are we to assume that every person with a vaguely foreign-sounding name was not born in this country (and, therefore is the root of all evil in your tiny little brain)?
Posted by: Jock, London on 12:03pm Thu 10 Apr 08
Given his pathetic comments recently on other articles, I can only assume that "croyboy" is, indeed, a new word meaning "insular xenophobe".
Given his pathetic comments recently on other articles, I can only assume that "croyboy" is, indeed, a new word meaning "insular xenophobe".
Posted by: Marie, London on 4:31pm Thu 10 Apr 08
It's a pity that the papers only print what they want you to read and not the actual facts. It was Mrs Zochios that got in touch with the RSPCA, and i might add the dog came back with a clean bill of health 6 weeks prior to dying. If Mrs Zochios was guilty of this why did she contact the RSPCA herself and get into this situation. I believe all facts were not printed.
It's a pity that the papers only print what they want you to read and not the actual facts. It was Mrs Zochios that got in touch with the RSPCA, and i might add the dog came back with a clean bill of health 6 weeks prior to dying. If Mrs Zochios was guilty of this why did she contact the RSPCA herself and get into this situation. I believe all facts were not printed.
Posted by: Croyboy on 4:35pm Thu 10 Apr 08
[quote][bold]KD[/bold] wrote:
Oh please Croyboy, give it a rest. Does the story not matter to you at all, just where the subject of the story is from?
Absolutely disgusting, she should get a sentence for this. [/quote] "Absolutely disgusting", as you say, KD - to [italic]me[/italic] and maybe to [italic]you[/italic], but that's a result of cultural conditioning; it would be a mistake to believe that those of other cultures should automatically think in the same way.
I was merely trying to find some explanation for the otherwise inexplicable, that's all. Actually, one discovers that in many such cases - the hundred-odd horses and donkeys found in appalling conditions at Spindles Farm, Amersham, springs to mind - the culprits are acting according to foreign values. (The gentleman responsible at Amersham was of "traveller" origins, I believe.)
KD wrote:
Oh please Croyboy, give it a rest. Does the story not matter to you at all, just where the subject of the story is from?
Absolutely disgusting, she should get a sentence for this.
"Absolutely disgusting", as you say, KD - to
me and maybe to
you, but that's a result of cultural conditioning; it would be a mistake to believe that those of other cultures should automatically think in the same way.
I was merely trying to find some explanation for the otherwise inexplicable, that's all. Actually, one discovers that in many such cases - the hundred-odd horses and donkeys found in appalling conditions at Spindles Farm, Amersham, springs to mind - the culprits are acting according to foreign values. (The gentleman responsible at Amersham was of "traveller" origins, I believe.)
Posted by: KD, London on 4:46pm Thu 10 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Croyboy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]KD[/bold] wrote: Oh please Croyboy, give it a rest. Does the story not matter to you at all, just where the subject of the story is from? Absolutely disgusting, she should get a sentence for this. [/quote] "Absolutely disgusting", as you say, KD - to [italic]me[/italic] and maybe to [italic]you[/italic], but that's a result of cultural conditioning; it would be a mistake to believe that those of other cultures should automatically think in the same way. I was merely trying to find some explanation for the otherwise inexplicable, that's all. Actually, one discovers that in many such cases - the hundred-odd horses and donkeys found in appalling conditions at Spindles Farm, Amersham, springs to mind - the culprits are acting according to foreign values. (The gentleman responsible at Amersham was of "traveller" origins, I believe.) [/quote] As I said: Please give it a rest...
Croyboy wrote:
KD wrote: Oh please Croyboy, give it a rest. Does the story not matter to you at all, just where the subject of the story is from? Absolutely disgusting, she should get a sentence for this.
"Absolutely disgusting", as you say, KD - to me and maybe to you, but that's a result of cultural conditioning; it would be a mistake to believe that those of other cultures should automatically think in the same way. I was merely trying to find some explanation for the otherwise inexplicable, that's all. Actually, one discovers that in many such cases - the hundred-odd horses and donkeys found in appalling conditions at Spindles Farm, Amersham, springs to mind - the culprits are acting according to foreign values. (The gentleman responsible at Amersham was of "traveller" origins, I believe.)
As I said: Please give it a rest...
Posted by: Croyboy on 4:53pm Thu 10 Apr 08
Croygirl wrote: [quote]Croyboy, please inform us as to what the woman's 'country of origin' is.[/quote]
Don't know - but it's not [italic]here[/italic].
Croygirl wrote: [quote]Are we to assume that every person with a vaguely foreign-sounding name was not born in this country (and, therefore is the root of all evil in your tiny little brain)?[/quote]
What's "born in this country" got to do with it? Maybe I was born in a French airliner flying between Australia and Indonesia: so what? Wherever my mother happened to be at the time, I'm English.
And "evil"? ...Try "different".
BTW, just [italic]love[/italic] your handle. Am I developing a fan club? If so, do try to keep up the English standard: "tiny little" is [italic]so[/italic] tautological!
Croygirl wrote:
Croyboy, please inform us as to what the woman's 'country of origin' is.
Don't know - but it's not
here.
Croygirl wrote:
Are we to assume that every person with a vaguely foreign-sounding name was not born in this country (and, therefore is the root of all evil in your tiny little brain)?
What's "born in this country" got to do with it? Maybe I was born in a French airliner flying between Australia and Indonesia: so what? Wherever my mother happened to be at the time, I'm English.
And "evil"? ...Try "different".
BTW, just
love your handle. Am I developing a fan club? If so, do try to keep up the English standard: "tiny little" is
so tautological!
Posted by: Croygirl, London on 5:17pm Thu 10 Apr 08
If we're being picky mate, explain to me how the sentence 'the root of all different' makes sense.
Also, in terms of her country of origin, how do you 'know it's not here'?
There seems to be a fair bit of assumed knowledge (I use the word knowledge loosely) on your part.
And there's a difference between 'having a fan club' and what is actually the case. That being, people who read these pages regularly, see your pathetic contributions and choose to take the p*ss out of you.
By the way, strange how your posts on the Damilola story disappeared isn't it?
It seems I'm not the only one who finds your words repulsive.
If we're being picky mate, explain to me how the sentence 'the root of all different' makes sense.
Also, in terms of her country of origin, how do you 'know it's not here'?
There seems to be a fair bit of assumed knowledge (I use the word knowledge loosely) on your part.
And there's a difference between 'having a fan club' and what is actually the case. That being, people who read these pages regularly, see your pathetic contributions and choose to take the p*ss out of you.
By the way, strange how your posts on the Damilola story disappeared isn't it?
It seems I'm not the only one who finds your words repulsive.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 10:57pm Thu 10 Apr 08
Verminous scum Croyboy,
Your fear and hatred has left you devoid of any conscience or compassion, two things that set us apart from animals.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but when you use stories like the death of Mrs Taylor or the death of an infant, to vent your immigration obsessed drivvle, it just shows what a disgusting, subhuman creature you actually are.
Verminous scum Croyboy,
Your fear and hatred has left you devoid of any conscience or compassion, two things that set us apart from animals.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but when you use stories like the death of Mrs Taylor or the death of an infant, to vent your immigration obsessed drivvle, it just shows what a disgusting, subhuman creature you actually are.
Posted by: Croyboy on 9:00am Fri 11 Apr 08
Croygirl wrote: [quote]If we're being picky mate, explain to me how the sentence 'the root of all different' makes sense.[/quote]
Certainly! Your original sentence was "Are we to assume that every person with a vaguely foreign-sounding name was not born in this country (and, therefore is the root of all evil in your tiny little brain)?" ...and I was making the point that foreign people have - naturally enough - [italic]different[/italic] values, standards, and norms, rather than being just "evil".
Is that clear..."mate"?
Croygirl wrote: [quote]Also, in terms of her country of origin, how do you 'know it's not here'?[/quote]
Answer that one yourself: how many English people do you know whose surname begins with "Z"?
Croygirl wrote: [quote]By the way, strange how your posts on the Damilola story disappeared isn't it?
It seems I'm not the only one who finds your words repulsive.[/quote]
"Strange"? Not at all: the truth is rarely popular with those in any sort of position of power. If you think of all the regimes past and present which have censored the media, then I'm in good company.
Croygirl wrote:
If we're being picky mate, explain to me how the sentence 'the root of all different' makes sense.
Certainly! Your original sentence was "Are we to assume that every person with a vaguely foreign-sounding name was not born in this country (and, therefore is the root of all evil in your tiny little brain)?" ...and I was making the point that foreign people have - naturally enough -
different values, standards, and norms, rather than being just "evil".
Is that clear..."mate"?
Croygirl wrote:
Also, in terms of her country of origin, how do you 'know it's not here'?
Answer that one yourself: how many English people do you know whose surname begins with "Z"?
Croygirl wrote:
By the way, strange how your posts on the Damilola story disappeared isn't it?
It seems I'm not the only one who finds your words repulsive.
"Strange"? Not at all: the truth is rarely popular with those in any sort of position of power. If you think of all the regimes past and present which have censored the media, then I'm in good company.
Posted by: Croyboy on 9:12am Fri 11 Apr 08
Yogi wrote: [quote]Verminous scum Croyboy,[/quote]
Oops! ...Careful, Yogi. Please refer to the rules below, especially the bit which says "Please treat other people with respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent, unlawful or defamatory".
Yogi wrote: [quote]Your fear and hatred has left you devoid of any conscience or compassion, two things that set us apart from animals.[/quote]
Oh, I don't know, Yogi. A little harsh, isn't it? ...But I must admit I sometimes hate - and certainly despise - our "representatives" in Westminster who have brought about the sorry state of our society today.
Yogi wrote: [quote]Everyone is entitled to their opinions...[/quote]
Thank you, it's [italic]awfully[/italic] good of you to concede that much.
Yogi wrote:
Verminous scum Croyboy,
Oops! ...Careful, Yogi. Please refer to the rules below, especially the bit which says "Please treat other people with respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent, unlawful or defamatory".
Yogi wrote:
Your fear and hatred has left you devoid of any conscience or compassion, two things that set us apart from animals.
Oh, I don't know, Yogi. A little harsh, isn't it? ...But I must admit I sometimes hate - and certainly despise - our "representatives" in Westminster who have brought about the sorry state of our society today.
Yogi wrote:
Everyone is entitled to their opinions...
Thank you, it's
awfully good of you to concede that much.
Posted by: Croygirl, London on 9:14am Fri 11 Apr 08
Ha ha ha..
I expected a lot better than that...mate.
Back to the drawing board me thinks.
Ha ha ha..
I expected a lot better than that...mate.
Back to the drawing board me thinks.
Posted by: AL, london on 3:01pm Fri 11 Apr 08
croyboy your a ****. i dont really give a **** if the rules say "Please treat other people with respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent, unlawful or defamatory". you dont deserve any respect. your comments are ****. your just another moron that acts tough from behind a keyboard. having to continuously quote and explain evereything because you dont really have anything good to say. your a loser, i bet you have no friends.
croyboy your a ****. i dont really give a **** if the rules say "Please treat other people with respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent, unlawful or defamatory". you dont deserve any respect. your comments are ****. your just another moron that acts tough from behind a keyboard. having to continuously quote and explain evereything because you dont really have anything good to say. your a loser, i bet you have no friends.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 7:30pm Fri 11 Apr 08
Looks like my comments were within the "rules", seeing as they havent been removed unlike your comments corncerning the death of Mrs Taylor.
Perhaps others saw my remarks regarding you, as just fair and reasonable descriptions.
I think you have "issues" when it comes to understanding what "normal" people find morally acceptable and what they dont.
Looks like my comments were within the "rules", seeing as they havent been removed unlike your comments corncerning the death of Mrs Taylor.
Perhaps others saw my remarks regarding you, as just fair and reasonable descriptions.
I think you have "issues" when it comes to understanding what "normal" people find morally acceptable and what they dont.
Posted by: Anon, London on 11:12pm Fri 11 Apr 08
Please note:- Ms Zochios did NOT contact the RSPCA for help, despite having help from them last Summer.
Please note:- Ms Zochios did NOT contact the RSPCA for help, despite having help from them last Summer.
Posted by: AJ, London on 7:34am Sat 12 Apr 08
Croyboy, is a boring loser with a massive chip on his shoulder.
I note that he spends alot of time posting on these sites, I wonder if he actually works for a living. I could just imagine him being the Keith Miller from eastenders type, filthy and lazy. Someone who doesnt work and sits in his armchair all day watching too many documentaries, reading facist books whilst all the time being bitter and twisted. You seem to think the English are a superior race, untouchable, uncapable of such crimes u talk about. You are living in a facist, bitter world Croyboy, you are pathetic, go and get a life or a job for that matter because you spend way too much on here!
Croyboy, is a boring loser with a massive chip on his shoulder.
I note that he spends alot of time posting on these sites, I wonder if he actually works for a living. I could just imagine him being the Keith Miller from eastenders type, filthy and lazy. Someone who doesnt work and sits in his armchair all day watching too many documentaries, reading facist books whilst all the time being bitter and twisted. You seem to think the English are a superior race, untouchable, uncapable of such crimes u talk about. You are living in a facist, bitter world Croyboy, you are pathetic, go and get a life or a job for that matter because you spend way too much on here!
Posted by: Croyboy on 11:57am Sat 12 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Croygirl[/bold] wrote:
Ha ha ha..
I expected a lot better than that...mate.
Back to the drawing board me thinks.[/quote] Really, "mate"?
I think the unbiased observer would conclude differently.
...And it's "methinks" (one word), by the way.
Croygirl wrote:
Ha ha ha..
I expected a lot better than that...mate.
Back to the drawing board me thinks.
Really, "mate"?
I think the unbiased observer would conclude differently.
...And it's "methinks" (one word), by the way.
Posted by: Croyboy on 1:08pm Sat 12 Apr 08
AJ wrote: [quote]Croyboy, is a boring loser with a massive chip on his shoulder.[/quote]
Oh, come now, AJ: I think I'm rather an [italic]entertaining[/italic] loser - at least on my better days. As for the chip on the shoulder bit, perhaps you might have noticed from the posts here that [bold]I[/bold] am not the one making personal attacks. (That's all your post consisted of - nothing about the article itself.) I suggest it's those who are unable to debate the issues (for whatever reasons!) who are the ones that display an inferiority complex.
AJ wrote: [quote]I could just imagine him being the Keith Miller from eastenders type, filthy and lazy.[/quote]
Actually I'm not familiar with "Keith Miller"; in fact, I never watch soaps at all: I'm not "Someone who doesnt work and sits in his armchair all day watching too many" rubbishy TV programmes.
[quote]You seem to think the English are a superior race...[/quote]
Do I? What makes you think that? (BTW, the English aren't a "race" at all!)
[quote]...go and get a life or a job for that matter because you spend way
too much on here![/quote]
Really? How would you know how much time I spend on here - unless you're doing the same?
AJ wrote:
Croyboy, is a boring loser with a massive chip on his shoulder.
Oh, come now, AJ: I think I'm rather an
entertaining loser - at least on my better days. As for the chip on the shoulder bit, perhaps you might have noticed from the posts here that
I am not the one making personal attacks. (That's all your post consisted of - nothing about the article itself.) I suggest it's those who are unable to debate the issues (for whatever reasons!) who are the ones that display an inferiority complex.
AJ wrote:
I could just imagine him being the Keith Miller from eastenders type, filthy and lazy.
Actually I'm not familiar with "Keith Miller"; in fact, I never watch soaps at all: I'm not "Someone who doesnt work and sits in his armchair all day watching too many" rubbishy TV programmes.
You seem to think the English are a superior race...
Do I? What makes you think that? (BTW, the English aren't a "race" at all!)
...go and get a life or a job for that matter because you spend way
too much on here!
Really? How would you know how much time I spend on here - unless you're doing the same?
Posted by: Croyboy on 9:31am Sun 13 Apr 08
Terribly sorry, Yogi: I missed your post first time around (Well, in all fairness, your efforts [italic]do[/italic] tend to read similarly, don't they?).
Yogi wrote: [quote]Looks like my comments were within the "rules", seeing as they havent been removed unlike your comments corncerning the death of Mrs Taylor.[/quote]
Actually, anyone reading this board's rules can see you clearly overstepped the mark, and whether or not "others saw my remarks regarding you, as just fair and reasonable descriptions" is irrelevant. However, as it happens I made no complaint, because once a person resorts to epithets and insults, it shows they're in effect conceding the point.
On the matter of the death of Mrs Taylor, I only posed a question concerning the lady's immigration status, and thus was well within the rules. My post's having been removed suggests I hit a nerve somewhere.
I wonder what that could have been?
As for "I think you have "issues"..." etc., I haven't the slightest interest what you - or anyone else - thinks about me personally, and I'm sure any third parties reading this find the opinions of an unknown (to them) individual about another unknown individual something less than riveting.
Terribly sorry, Yogi: I missed your post first time around (Well, in all fairness, your efforts
do tend to read similarly, don't they?).
Yogi wrote:
Looks like my comments were within the "rules", seeing as they havent been removed unlike your comments corncerning the death of Mrs Taylor.
Actually, anyone reading this board's rules can see you clearly overstepped the mark, and whether or not "others saw my remarks regarding you, as just fair and reasonable descriptions" is irrelevant. However, as it happens I made no complaint, because once a person resorts to epithets and insults, it shows they're in effect conceding the point.
On the matter of the death of Mrs Taylor, I only posed a question concerning the lady's immigration status, and thus was well within the rules. My post's having been removed suggests I hit a nerve somewhere.
I wonder what that could have been?
As for "I think you have "issues"..." etc., I haven't the slightest interest what you - or anyone else - thinks about me personally, and I'm sure any third parties reading this find the opinions of an unknown (to them) individual about another unknown individual something less than riveting.
Posted by: Bill, London on 11:29am Sun 13 Apr 08
Croyboy, have you got any friends?
Croyboy, have you got any friends?
Posted by: Dave, London on 11:47am Sun 13 Apr 08
Croyboy, as you're obviously a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to grammar and spelling, I thought I'd better point out a couple of things.
1. You should never start a sentence with the word 'and'. This is bad English.
2. When you use brackets, they should remain within an existing sentence. You should not begin a new sentence using brackets. This is also bad English.
3. "My post's". You have used an apostrophe incorrectly.
4. "BTW" is, I believe, 'text speak' used by children. If you are a child, I apologise, but I wouldn't expect an educated adult (as you so clearly are) to use such unsophisticated language.
There are a few more examples I could mention but I don't want to make you feel too bad about yourself.
If you have any questions, [italic]do[/italic] let me know.
Croyboy, as you're obviously a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to grammar and spelling, I thought I'd better point out a couple of things.
1. You should never start a sentence with the word 'and'. This is bad English.
2. When you use brackets, they should remain within an existing sentence. You should not begin a new sentence using brackets. This is also bad English.
3. "My post's". You have used an apostrophe incorrectly.
4. "BTW" is, I believe, 'text speak' used by children. If you are a child, I apologise, but I wouldn't expect an educated adult (as you so clearly are) to use such unsophisticated language.
There are a few more examples I could mention but I don't want to make you feel too bad about yourself.
If you have any questions,
do let me know.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 3:15pm Sun 13 Apr 08
[quote]Terribly sorry, Yogi: I missed your post first time around (Well, in all fairness, your efforts do tend to read similarly, don't they?).[/quote]
Oh I forgot your posts are full of such great variety.I mean it is not as if they all have exactly the same theme, is it?
[quote]On the matter of the death of Mrs Taylor, I only posed a question concerning the lady's immigration status, and thus was well within the rules. My post's having been removed suggests I hit a nerve somewhere.
I wonder what that could have been?[/quote]
Yeh I agree ,they probably hit a lot of "normal" people`s "common decency" nerve, the one you clearly dont possess. Even people sharing your views on the "unholy" non indigenous population, would probably be able to realise it inappropriate to post their rubbish in response to the sad death of a lady, who had suffered much tragedy in her life(well if they are human anyway).
[quote]As for "I think you have "issues"..." etc., I haven't the slightest interest what you - or anyone else - thinks about me personally, and I'm sure any third parties reading this find the opinions of an unknown (to them) individual about another unknown individual something less than riveting.[/quote]
Who cares about what you think about what I think of you? LOL,
and who cares about whether my posts are "riveting" reading or not?
Crawl back under that stone from whence you came , Verminboy.
Terribly sorry, Yogi: I missed your post first time around (Well, in all fairness, your efforts do tend to read similarly, don't they?).
Oh I forgot your posts are full of such great variety.I mean it is not as if they all have exactly the same theme, is it?
On the matter of the death of Mrs Taylor, I only posed a question concerning the lady's immigration status, and thus was well within the rules. My post's having been removed suggests I hit a nerve somewhere.
I wonder what that could have been?
Yeh I agree ,they probably hit a lot of "normal" people`s "common decency" nerve, the one you clearly dont possess. Even people sharing your views on the "unholy" non indigenous population, would probably be able to realise it inappropriate to post their rubbish in response to the sad death of a lady, who had suffered much tragedy in her life(well if they are human anyway).
As for "I think you have "issues"..." etc., I haven't the slightest interest what you - or anyone else - thinks about me personally, and I'm sure any third parties reading this find the opinions of an unknown (to them) individual about another unknown individual something less than riveting.
Who cares about what you think about what I think of you? LOL,
and who cares about whether my posts are "riveting" reading or not?
Crawl back under that stone from whence you came , Verminboy.
Posted by: Croyboy on 9:43am Mon 14 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Bill[/bold] wrote:
Croyboy, have you got any friends?[/quote] Sure, Bill.
Why? Do you want to join the club?
Bill wrote:
Croyboy, have you got any friends?
Sure, Bill.
Why? Do you want to join the club?
Posted by: Croyboy on 9:46am Mon 14 Apr 08
Hi, Dave. Thanks for your observations on my - supposedly - sub-quality English.
"1. You should never start a sentence with the word 'and'. This is bad English."
Ah, yes: I well remember that one! Depends in what (written) context it is. In a formal document or letter, yes, in something of [italic]this[/italic] nature, most would find it acceptable. ...Unless one is an irredeemable pedant.
"2. When you use brackets, they should remain within an existing sentence."
Generally speaking I'd agree. If you'll cast your eagle-eye over the last example of such in my post to Yogi, you might notice that a full-stop follows the closing bracket, thus indicating that it does indeed fall within the sentence. As for "You should not begin a new sentence using brackets", again I'd argue that it depends on what type of additional information it contains. Also, if said "new sentence" is wholly contained
within the brackets, why not?
"3. "My post's". You have used an apostrophe incorrectly."
Oh dear, Dave... "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", is it not? In the sentence "My post's having been removed..." the word "having" is a [bold]gerund[/bold] (i.e. a "verbal noun" - just to save your having to look it up!), and thus the apostrophe you mention is the mark of a [bold]genitive[/bold] (as in "possessive") e.g. "My bicycle's saddle"; I've also given an example earlier in this sentence, viz. "your having to look it up", so you'll recognise it in the future.
"4. "BTW" is, I believe, 'text speak' used by children. If you are a child, I apologise, but I wouldn't expect an educated adult (as you so clearly are) to use such unsophisticated language."
Ah, yes, Dave: there you've got me! My only excuse is that I'm trying to make some of my interlocutors feel more at home: it's the sort of thing their used too, after all. But is an abbreviation necessarily "unsophisticated language"? What would the BBC say, I wonder? A debatable point, surely.
If you have any questions, do let me know.
Hi, Dave. Thanks for your observations on my - supposedly - sub-quality English.
"1. You should never start a sentence with the word 'and'. This is bad English."
Ah, yes: I well remember that one! Depends in what (written) context it is. In a formal document or letter, yes, in something of
this nature, most would find it acceptable. ...Unless one is an irredeemable pedant.
"2. When you use brackets, they should remain within an existing sentence."
Generally speaking I'd agree. If you'll cast your eagle-eye over the last example of such in my post to Yogi, you might notice that a full-stop follows the closing bracket, thus indicating that it does indeed fall within the sentence. As for "You should not begin a new sentence using brackets", again I'd argue that it depends on what type of additional information it contains. Also, if said "new sentence" is wholly contained
within the brackets, why not?
"3. "My post's". You have used an apostrophe incorrectly."
Oh dear, Dave... "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", is it not? In the sentence "My post's having been removed..." the word "having" is a
gerund (i.e. a "verbal noun" - just to save your having to look it up!), and thus the apostrophe you mention is the mark of a
genitive (as in "possessive") e.g. "My bicycle's saddle"; I've also given an example earlier in this sentence, viz. "your having to look it up", so you'll recognise it in the future.
"4. "BTW" is, I believe, 'text speak' used by children. If you are a child, I apologise, but I wouldn't expect an educated adult (as you so clearly are) to use such unsophisticated language."
Ah, yes, Dave: there you've got me! My only excuse is that I'm trying to make some of my interlocutors feel more at home: it's the sort of thing their used too, after all. But is an abbreviation necessarily "unsophisticated language"? What would the BBC say, I wonder? A debatable point, surely.
If you have any questions, do let me know.
Posted by: Dave, London on 10:19am Mon 14 Apr 08
Just a couple more points:
You keep including exclamation marks and question marks within brackets (an example being your desperate bid to explain your use of the apostrophe).
This is bad English.
Also, I am a little concerned that someone who holds everything English so dear seems somewhat dismissive when it comes to the written word on these pages.
Examples include:
'Most would find it acceptable.'
'Generally speaking, I'd agree.'
'A debatable point, surely.'
If we allow the langauge to lapse, what will be next Croyboy?
Just a couple more points:
You keep including exclamation marks and question marks within brackets (an example being your desperate bid to explain your use of the apostrophe).
This is bad English.
Also, I am a little concerned that someone who holds everything English so dear seems somewhat dismissive when it comes to the written word on these pages.
Examples include:
'Most would find it acceptable.'
'Generally speaking, I'd agree.'
'A debatable point, surely.'
If we allow the langauge to lapse, what will be next Croyboy?
Posted by: Croyboy on 8:33am Tue 15 Apr 08
"Just a couple more points", Dave? I [italic]am[/italic] disappointed! Nothing to say about your previous "points"? I wonder why that is? But wait! ...What's this?
Dave wrote: [quote]You keep including exclamation marks and question marks within brackets (an example being your desperate bid to explain your use of the apostrophe).[/quote]
Absolutely nothing wrong with such inclusion in the right context. I could give you plenty of examples, but I shan't bother as you're obviously neither interested in constructive dialogue, nor open enough to learn anything.
As for "your desperate bid to explain your use of the apostrophe", it so happens I'm completely correct, and you were utterly wrong. Also, I take it from your comment that you simply don't know what a gerund construction is.
A proverb for you to think on, Dave: "A moment of embarrassment is better than a lifetime of ignorance".
"Just a couple more points", Dave? I
am disappointed! Nothing to say about your previous "points"? I wonder why that is? But wait! ...What's this?
Dave wrote:
You keep including exclamation marks and question marks within brackets (an example being your desperate bid to explain your use of the apostrophe).
Absolutely nothing wrong with such inclusion in the right context. I could give you plenty of examples, but I shan't bother as you're obviously neither interested in constructive dialogue, nor open enough to learn anything.
As for "your desperate bid to explain your use of the apostrophe", it so happens I'm completely correct, and you were utterly wrong. Also, I take it from your comment that you simply don't know what a gerund construction is.
A proverb for you to think on, Dave: "A moment of embarrassment is better than a lifetime of ignorance".
Posted by: Croyboy on 8:49am Tue 15 Apr 08
Yogi wrote: [quote]Oh I forgot your posts are full of such great variety.I mean it is not as if they all have exactly the same theme, is it?[/quote]
...In questioning the wisdom of allowing my country to be flooded with foreigners, you mean? What would you think of a doctor who spent fifty percent of his time on
treating the athlete's foot problems of his stomach-cancer patient? It's a question of overriding priorities, Yogi. ...And anyway, I do [italic]try[/italic] to introduce variety in the way I criticise, ask questions, or make points.
On the matter of Mrs.Taylor, "a lady, who had suffered much tragedy in her life", my apposite question would be why she chose to send her son from Nigeria to live in the UK. By doing that, didn't she share in the guilt about what happened to him? And could that have contributed to her demise?
Why don't people like you start trying to answer such questions, rather than clumsily attacking those who raise them? ...Or is it simply because you [italic]have[/italic] no answers?
Yogi wrote: [quote]Who cares about what you think about what I think of you? LOL[/quote]
My point precisely ("LOL" etc.)
Yogi wrote: [quote]...and who cares about whether my posts are "riveting" reading or not?[/quote]
Well, there are [italic]my[/italic] feelings to consider, of course: I feel obliged to plough through them, seeing as they're addressed to me. Also, you have to think about our hosts on this board: the news media are now more or less a branch of entertainment, so we ought to make an effort to amuse the punters.
Yogi wrote:
Oh I forgot your posts are full of such great variety.I mean it is not as if they all have exactly the same theme, is it?
...In questioning the wisdom of allowing my country to be flooded with foreigners, you mean? What would you think of a doctor who spent fifty percent of his time on
treating the athlete's foot problems of his stomach-cancer patient? It's a question of overriding priorities, Yogi. ...And anyway, I do
try to introduce variety in the way I criticise, ask questions, or make points.
On the matter of Mrs.Taylor, "a lady, who had suffered much tragedy in her life", my apposite question would be why she chose to send her son from Nigeria to live in the UK. By doing that, didn't she share in the guilt about what happened to him? And could that have contributed to her demise?
Why don't people like you start trying to answer such questions, rather than clumsily attacking those who raise them? ...Or is it simply because you
have no answers?
Yogi wrote:
Who cares about what you think about what I think of you? LOL
My point precisely ("LOL" etc.)
Yogi wrote:
...and who cares about whether my posts are "riveting" reading or not?
Well, there are
my feelings to consider, of course: I feel obliged to plough through them, seeing as they're addressed to me. Also, you have to think about our hosts on this board: the news media are now more or less a branch of entertainment, so we ought to make an effort to amuse the punters.
Posted by: Dave, London on 9:33am Tue 15 Apr 08
Calm down Croyboy, we're not [italic]all[/italic] laughing at you (well, we [italic]are[/italic] actually!!!!!!!!!).
Just thought I'd better point out, you haven't managed to mention race, immigration or Hitler etc for [italic]at least[/italic] five posts now.
What's going on (?!) !?
Thanks for the proverb, by the way. You're obviously familiar with the Karate Kid films.
Is it a proverb you hold dear to your heart?
Ignorance, embarrassment...
...two words I instantly associate with your posts.
While you've been expertly dealing with this thread you've probably missed a plethora of posts on which you could peddle your xenophobia.
Be careful not to take your eye off the ball!
Calm down Croyboy, we're not
all laughing at you (well, we
are actually!!!!!!!!!).
Just thought I'd better point out, you haven't managed to mention race, immigration or Hitler etc for
at least five posts now.
What's going on (?!) !?
Thanks for the proverb, by the way. You're obviously familiar with the Karate Kid films.
Is it a proverb you hold dear to your heart?
Ignorance, embarrassment...
...two words I instantly associate with your posts.
While you've been expertly dealing with this thread you've probably missed a plethora of posts on which you could peddle your xenophobia.
Be careful not to take your eye off the ball!
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 2:28pm Tue 15 Apr 08
[quote]...In questioning the wisdom of allowing my country to be flooded with foreigners, you mean? What would you think of a doctor who spent fifty percent of his time on
treating the athlete's foot problems of his stomach-cancer patient? It's a question of overriding priorities, Yogi. ...And anyway, I do try to introduce variety in the way I criticise, ask questions, or make points.[/quote]
As I stated earlier, even idiots like you are entitled to their opinion, but I find it somewhat hypocritical when you accuse others of monotony, when you are openly admitting that your posts all have the same core theme. And as I highlighted earlier, you dont seem to understand when it is appropriate and when it isnt to peddle your garbage.
On [quote]the matter of Mrs.Taylor, "a lady, who had suffered much tragedy in her life", my apposite question would be why she chose to send her son from Nigeria to live in the UK. By doing that, didn't she share in the guilt about what happened to him? And could that have contributed to her demise?
Why don't people like you start trying to answer such questions, rather than clumsily attacking those who raise them? ...Or is it simply because you have no answers?[/quote]
Who is guilty of a "clumsy attack"?
Who was the person, using the death of a very unfortunate lady, as a vehicle to spout their putrid,immigration obsessed drivvle?
That could not possibly be construed as being a "clumsy attack", could it?
You are a hypocritical buffoon Verminboy.
...In questioning the wisdom of allowing my country to be flooded with foreigners, you mean? What would you think of a doctor who spent fifty percent of his time on
treating the athlete's foot problems of his stomach-cancer patient? It's a question of overriding priorities, Yogi. ...And anyway, I do try to introduce variety in the way I criticise, ask questions, or make points.
As I stated earlier, even idiots like you are entitled to their opinion, but I find it somewhat hypocritical when you accuse others of monotony, when you are openly admitting that your posts all have the same core theme. And as I highlighted earlier, you dont seem to understand when it is appropriate and when it isnt to peddle your garbage.
On
the matter of Mrs.Taylor, "a lady, who had suffered much tragedy in her life", my apposite question would be why she chose to send her son from Nigeria to live in the UK. By doing that, didn't she share in the guilt about what happened to him? And could that have contributed to her demise?
Why don't people like you start trying to answer such questions, rather than clumsily attacking those who raise them? ...Or is it simply because you have no answers?
Who is guilty of a "clumsy attack"?
Who was the person, using the death of a very unfortunate lady, as a vehicle to spout their putrid,immigration obsessed drivvle?
That could not possibly be construed as being a "clumsy attack", could it?
You are a hypocritical buffoon Verminboy.
Posted by: Croyboy on 8:36am Wed 16 Apr 08
Dave wrote: [quote]Just thought I'd better point out, you haven't managed to mention race, immigration or Hitler etc for at least five posts now.[/quote]
Mm, and I'd "better point out" that you seem to have given up posing as an authority on English grammar. Just as well: I'm sure that only the less charitable amongst us were laughing at you. BTW, have you Googled "gerund", yet? You really ought to learn such things in order to avoid future [italic]faux pas[/italic].
As for such things as "race" and "Hitler", you've obviously not been paying attention (No surprises there!): you'll find others are far more obsessed with these subjects than I. (Try reading Yogi's posts.)
Immigration? Sure, I - along with the vast majority of Britons (84%) - feel it's not in the interests of our country. So what?
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/pages/live/ar
ticles/news/news.htm
l?in_article_id=5591
26&in_page_id=1770
Dave wrote: [quote]While you've been expertly dealing with this thread...[/quote]
I'm pleased to reassure you, Dave, that I don't need to deal "expertly" with your queries. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Dave wrote:
Just thought I'd better point out, you haven't managed to mention race, immigration or Hitler etc for at least five posts now.
Mm, and I'd "better point out" that you seem to have given up posing as an authority on English grammar. Just as well: I'm sure that only the less charitable amongst us were laughing at you. BTW, have you Googled "gerund", yet? You really ought to learn such things in order to avoid future
faux pas.
As for such things as "race" and "Hitler", you've obviously not been paying attention (No surprises there!): you'll find others are far more obsessed with these subjects than I. (Try reading Yogi's posts.)
Immigration? Sure, I - along with the vast majority of Britons (84%) - feel it's not in the interests of our country. So what?
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/pages/live/ar
ticles/news/news.htm
l?in_article_id=5591
26&in_page_id=1770
Dave wrote:
While you've been expertly dealing with this thread...
I'm pleased to reassure you, Dave, that I don't need to deal "expertly" with your queries. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
Posted by: Croyboy on 8:53am Wed 16 Apr 08
Hi, Yogi.
[quote]Who is guilty of a "clumsy attack"?[/quote]
You are.
My final say on the matter to you, Yogi. Your last post contained these words and phrases: " idiots like you", "peddle your garbage", "putrid,immigration obsessed drivvle" ([bold]one[/bold] "v", by the way!), "hypocritical buffoon", and "Verminboy".
I today read on another thread to which I contribute, this post (The names are of those with whom I've previously crossed swords):
"Bridgewalker" wrote: [quote]When you have the truth on your side, you do not need to indulge in personal abuse of your opponent. Not having the truth on their side, Trish, Lord Fauntleroy and Co can only resort to name-calling of CroyBoy.[/quote]
There's really nothing to add.
Hi, Yogi.
Who is guilty of a "clumsy attack"?
You are.
My final say on the matter to you, Yogi. Your last post contained these words and phrases: " idiots like you", "peddle your garbage", "putrid,immigration obsessed drivvle" (
one "v", by the way!), "hypocritical buffoon", and "Verminboy".
I today read on another thread to which I contribute, this post (The names are of those with whom I've previously crossed swords):
"Bridgewalker" wrote:
When you have the truth on your side, you do not need to indulge in personal abuse of your opponent. Not having the truth on their side, Trish, Lord Fauntleroy and Co can only resort to name-calling of CroyBoy.
There's really nothing to add.
Posted by: Dave, London on 9:34am Wed 16 Apr 08
Googled? Not a word that exists in the English language, I'm afraid old chap.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Well done on gerund, by the way. Shame about the numerous other errors.
As for immigration...
Oooh, an article from the Daily Mail.
It's an open and shut case then! Ha ha ha
A right-wing leaflet read by a TINY (but oh so nauseating) proportion of the population (who are, thankfully, slowly dying out).
As for Hitler, come on, I bet you've got a poster of him on your wall - next to one of Enoch Powell and the latest BNP spring picnic.
Don't be shy, just admit it...
Googled? Not a word that exists in the English language, I'm afraid old chap.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Well done on gerund, by the way. Shame about the numerous other errors.
As for immigration...
Oooh, an article from the Daily Mail.
It's an open and shut case then! Ha ha ha
A right-wing leaflet read by a TINY (but oh so nauseating) proportion of the population (who are, thankfully, slowly dying out).
As for Hitler, come on, I bet you've got a poster of him on your wall - next to one of Enoch Powell and the latest BNP spring picnic.
Don't be shy, just admit it...
Posted by: Croyboy on 5:43pm Wed 16 Apr 08
Dave wrote: [quote]Googled? Not a word that exists in the English language, I'm afraid old chap.[/quote]
Oh yes it does, "old chap"
(Dated public-school affectations too, Dave. You [italic]are[/italic] in a mess!)
Seems like it was included in the OED on 15 June, 2006.
[quote]The verb to google (also spelled to Google) refers to performing a search, typically a web search, and principally though not exclusively when using the Google search engine to obtain information on the Web. For example, "Mary googled for recipes." A neologism arising from the popularity and dominance of the eponymous search engine, the American Dialect Society chose it as the "most useful word of 2002." It was officially added to the Oxford English Dictionary on June 15, 2006, and to the 11th edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary in July 2006. The first recorded usage of google used as a verb was on July 8, 1998, by Larry Page himself, who wrote on a mailing list: "Have fun and keep googling!"[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Google_(ver
b)
Dave wrote: [quote]Oooh, an article from the Daily Mail. It's an open and shut case then! Ha ha ha[/quote]
Well, yes - the Daily Mail - but written by Rageh Omaar in connection with his currently-screened investigation on Channel 4, "Immigration: The Inconvenient Truth". I hope you're not dismissing what he says because he's of Somali descent.
Looks like you've made a couple more boo-boos, Dave ("Ha ha ha")!
Come on: why don't you "just admit" you're right out of your league?
Dave wrote:
Googled? Not a word that exists in the English language, I'm afraid old chap.
Oh yes it does, "old chap"
(Dated public-school affectations too, Dave. You
are in a mess!)
Seems like it was included in the OED on 15 June, 2006.
The verb to google (also spelled to Google) refers to performing a search, typically a web search, and principally though not exclusively when using the Google search engine to obtain information on the Web. For example, "Mary googled for recipes." A neologism arising from the popularity and dominance of the eponymous search engine, the American Dialect Society chose it as the "most useful word of 2002." It was officially added to the Oxford English Dictionary on June 15, 2006, and to the 11th edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary in July 2006. The first recorded usage of google used as a verb was on July 8, 1998, by Larry Page himself, who wrote on a mailing list: "Have fun and keep googling!"
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Google_(ver
b)
Dave wrote:
Oooh, an article from the Daily Mail. It's an open and shut case then! Ha ha ha
Well, yes - the Daily Mail - but written by Rageh Omaar in connection with his currently-screened investigation on Channel 4, "Immigration: The Inconvenient Truth". I hope you're not dismissing what he says because he's of Somali descent.
Looks like you've made a couple more boo-boos, Dave ("Ha ha ha")!
Come on: why don't you "just admit" you're right out of your league?
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 9:47pm Wed 16 Apr 08
RE Vermi.. I mean Croyboy
Firstly, my chosen "words and phrases" concerning you here ,were not "personal abuse", rather just acccurate, fair descriptions, perhaps a little colourful, but wasnt it you that said we should aim to "entertain the punters" a little.
Oh ,and on the subject of "who is guilty of a clumsy attack ?"
Your response of "you are",
brilliant as it was, didnt quite persuade me that my alleged "attack" on you, even came close to scaling the "clumsiness" heights that your "attack" on the immigration status of Mrs Taylor did.
An attack made before the poor lady had even been burried....
Do you actually realise these stories involve real people with families, who no doubt do not want to read your immigration obsessed garbage , following a story reporting the tragic death of their mother, wife or daughter etc.
So you can see why I believe Verminboy etc is fair description of you rather than insult.
RE Vermi.. I mean Croyboy
Firstly, my chosen "words and phrases" concerning you here ,were not "personal abuse", rather just acccurate, fair descriptions, perhaps a little colourful, but wasnt it you that said we should aim to "entertain the punters" a little.
Oh ,and on the subject of "who is guilty of a clumsy attack ?"
Your response of "you are",
brilliant as it was, didnt quite persuade me that my alleged "attack" on you, even came close to scaling the "clumsiness" heights that your "attack" on the immigration status of Mrs Taylor did.
An attack made before the poor lady had even been burried....
Do you actually realise these stories involve real people with families, who no doubt do not want to read your immigration obsessed garbage , following a story reporting the tragic death of their mother, wife or daughter etc.
So you can see why I believe Verminboy etc is fair description of you rather than insult.
Posted by: Dave, London on 9:37am Thu 17 Apr 08
Ooh, just as you were doing so well, you go and use a capital letter for the word 'dated' (and, again, poor use of brackets).
You really must iron out these imperfections old chap.
As for Rageh Omaar, surely he shouldn't be here in the first place should he?
Or is it OK when it fits in with your twisted agenda?
I must say, old chap, I'm more and more amused that someone in such a 'higher league' than me continues to bite on every piece of bait I leave.
Ha ha ha!
Ooh, just as you were doing so well, you go and use a capital letter for the word 'dated' (and, again, poor use of brackets).
You really must iron out these imperfections old chap.
As for Rageh Omaar, surely he shouldn't be here in the first place should he?
Or is it OK when it fits in with your twisted agenda?
I must say, old chap, I'm more and more amused that someone in such a 'higher league' than me continues to bite on every piece of bait I leave.
Ha ha ha!
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 2:44pm Thu 17 Apr 08
Croyboy wrote:
[quote]Immigration? Sure, I - along with the vast majority of Britons (84%) - feel it's not in the interests of our country. So what?[/quote]
84% of all Brits eh?
is this figure relating to an opinion poll?
How many people took part in this poll?
And what kind of cross section of society did it intake?
Wasnt this poll connected in some way to the tv programme "immigration the inconvenient truth"....Title sounds very unbiased, hmmmm I wonder what slant on immigration this programme will have.....???
I also have the results from a "poll"...Its called the general election and as far as I know it intakes a far larger number and wider cross section of society than any other "poll" in the UK, I believe 27 million or so took part in the last one.
And do you know what?...........
Actually, only 0.7% of Britons voted for the parties that "agree" with your ideas on immigration( bnp and national front).
Perhaps a lot of people do have concerns and worries about immigration in this country.
But I dont think you can really claim that the "majority of Britons" share your views on immigration, not when that vision includes "repatriating" all existing non indigenous citizens.....
I wouldnt exactly call 0.7% the "majority" would you?
Croyboy wrote:
Immigration? Sure, I - along with the vast majority of Britons (84%) - feel it's not in the interests of our country. So what?
84% of all Brits eh?
is this figure relating to an opinion poll?
How many people took part in this poll?
And what kind of cross section of society did it intake?
Wasnt this poll connected in some way to the tv programme "immigration the inconvenient truth"....Title sounds very unbiased, hmmmm I wonder what slant on immigration this programme will have.....???
I also have the results from a "poll"...Its called the general election and as far as I know it intakes a far larger number and wider cross section of society than any other "poll" in the UK, I believe 27 million or so took part in the last one.
And do you know what?...........
Actually, only 0.7% of Britons voted for the parties that "agree" with your ideas on immigration( bnp and national front).
Perhaps a lot of people do have concerns and worries about immigration in this country.
But I dont think you can really claim that the "majority of Britons" share your views on immigration, not when that vision includes "repatriating" all existing non indigenous citizens.....
I wouldnt exactly call 0.7% the "majority" would you?
Posted by: Croyboy on 5:08pm Thu 17 Apr 08
Dave wrote: [quote]Ooh, just as you were doing so well...[/quote]
What's this, Dave? A tacit admission? I assume it's about "to google", which you authoritatively(?) stated is "Not a word that exists in the English language..."
Dave wrote: [quote]As for Rageh Omaar, surely he shouldn't be here in the first place should he?[/quote]
Shouldn't he? There again, maybe [italic]you[/italic] shouldn't be here; that [italic]would[/italic] go some way to explaining the gaps in your knowledge.
And "...your twisted agenda"?
I take it that means "I don't agree with you". Where did you learn such intolerance? Surely not at that public school you affect to have attended! Mm, but then boys - especially those from the ex-colonies - [italic]do[/italic] often try to be "more English than the English". Am I getting warm, Dave?
Dave wrote: [quote]I'm more and more amused that someone in such a 'higher league' than me...[/quote]
Well, thank you. I'm gratified that at least you've recognised the obvious.
Oh, yes! As for the pieces of bait you kindly leave for me, it might be a good idea to remove your fingers before I bite them.
Dave wrote:
Ooh, just as you were doing so well...
What's this, Dave? A tacit admission? I assume it's about "to google", which you authoritatively(?) stated is "Not a word that exists in the English language..."
Dave wrote:
As for Rageh Omaar, surely he shouldn't be here in the first place should he?
Shouldn't he? There again, maybe
you shouldn't be here; that
would go some way to explaining the gaps in your knowledge.
And "...your twisted agenda"?
I take it that means "I don't agree with you". Where did you learn such intolerance? Surely not at that public school you affect to have attended! Mm, but then boys - especially those from the ex-colonies -
do often try to be "more English than the English". Am I getting warm, Dave?
Dave wrote:
I'm more and more amused that someone in such a 'higher league' than me...
Well, thank you. I'm gratified that at least you've recognised the obvious.
Oh, yes! As for the pieces of bait you kindly leave for me, it might be a good idea to remove your fingers before I bite them.
Posted by: Croyboy on 5:34pm Thu 17 Apr 08
Yogi wrote: [quote]84% of all Brits eh? is this figure relating to an opinion poll?
How many people took part in this poll?
And what kind of cross section of society did it intake?[/quote]
No, 84% of those who were questioned; I don't know the size of the sample.
Yes, these figures [italic]are[/italic] from an opinion poll - one undertaken by YouGov for "Dispatches", the Channel 4 programme concerned, according to Mr.Omaar.
You can read it yourself on
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/pages/live/ar
ticles/news/news.htm
l?in_article_id=5591
26&in_page_id=1770
However, I've already explained this on the other thread where we were debating.
Yogi wrote:
84% of all Brits eh? is this figure relating to an opinion poll?
How many people took part in this poll?
And what kind of cross section of society did it intake?
No, 84% of those who were questioned; I don't know the size of the sample.
Yes, these figures
are from an opinion poll - one undertaken by YouGov for "Dispatches", the Channel 4 programme concerned, according to Mr.Omaar.
You can read it yourself on
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/pages/live/ar
ticles/news/news.htm
l?in_article_id=5591
26&in_page_id=1770
However, I've already explained this on the other thread where we were debating.
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 7:17pm Thu 17 Apr 08
[quote]No, 84% of those who were questioned; I don't know the size of the sample.[/quote]
Firstly, well done for correcting your error.
I did think this would more likely be the case, rather than your origional claim of:
[quote]I - along with the vast majority of Britons (84%) - feel it's not in the interests of our country.[/quote]
The problem with reading too much into the results of these types of opinion polls is that they rarely involve more than a few hundred participants, making it not too difficult for the undertakers of such polls to target specific sections of society more likely to give "opinions" that help create whichever picture the undertakers are trying to paint. Given that the poll was carried out in conjuction with a programme tittled "Immigration the inconvenient truth".It doesnt take a genius to work out what picture they are trying to paint.
Thats the good thing about the General election "poll" as the whole population is invited to partake ,thus being a far more accurate indicator of what the "british people" think, and as I stated earlier this poll shows there is only 0.7% support for parties sharing your immigration views.
No, 84% of those who were questioned; I don't know the size of the sample.
Firstly, well done for correcting your error.
I did think this would more likely be the case, rather than your origional claim of:
I - along with the vast majority of Britons (84%) - feel it's not in the interests of our country.
The problem with reading too much into the results of these types of opinion polls is that they rarely involve more than a few hundred participants, making it not too difficult for the undertakers of such polls to target specific sections of society more likely to give "opinions" that help create whichever picture the undertakers are trying to paint. Given that the poll was carried out in conjuction with a programme tittled "Immigration the inconvenient truth".It doesnt take a genius to work out what picture they are trying to paint.
Thats the good thing about the General election "poll" as the whole population is invited to partake ,thus being a far more accurate indicator of what the "british people" think, and as I stated earlier this poll shows there is only 0.7% support for parties sharing your immigration views.
Posted by: Croyboy on 8:32am Fri 18 Apr 08
Yogi wrote: [quote]Firstly, well done for correcting your error.[/quote]
No "error". I was correcting [italic]your[/italic] choice of words which were - please check back - "84% of all Brits eh?". I never said [bold]"all"[/bold]. However, I think that 84% is a pretty accurate reflection of feelings on the subject of the huge foreign presence in the country amongst British people (with a capital "B").
Yogi wrote: [quote]The problem with reading too much into the results of these types of opinion polls is that they rarely involve more than a few hundred participants...[/quote]
Firstly, it depends what you mean by "too much". Secondly, neither of us knows the size of the sample. Thirdly, in my own experience this is - as I've said above - an accurate reflection.
As for conducting the poll in a way "making it not too difficult...to target specific sections of society more likely to give "opinions" that help create whichever picture the undertakers are trying to paint", I'd only say YouGov is a reputable company in this field, so it wouldn't be in their interests to risk compromising their reputation.
Yogi wrote: [quote]Thats the good thing about the General election "poll" as the whole population is invited to partake..."[/quote]
Yes, well I've addressed this before, haven't I? Although the [italic]electorate[/italic] (not the "whole population") might well be invited to partake in it, the choice more often than not is between grey, light grey, and dark grey. Any party needs serious money, contacts, organisational infrastructure, expertise, and access to the media
to contest seats nation-wide. Then, of course, there is the cosy, self-serving, back-scratching alliance among our "representatives" at Westminster.
It reminds me of the old anarchist slogan: "If elections changed anything, they'd be illegal".
Yogi wrote: [quote]I stated earlier this poll shows there is only 0.7% support for parties sharing your immigration views.[/quote]
If you really believe that, why are you so concerned?
Yogi wrote:
Firstly, well done for correcting your error.
No "error". I was correcting
your choice of words which were - please check back - "84% of all Brits eh?". I never said
"all". However, I think that 84% is a pretty accurate reflection of feelings on the subject of the huge foreign presence in the country amongst British people (with a capital "B").
Yogi wrote:
The problem with reading too much into the results of these types of opinion polls is that they rarely involve more than a few hundred participants...
Firstly, it depends what you mean by "too much". Secondly, neither of us knows the size of the sample. Thirdly, in my own experience this is - as I've said above - an accurate reflection.
As for conducting the poll in a way "making it not too difficult...to target specific sections of society more likely to give "opinions" that help create whichever picture the undertakers are trying to paint", I'd only say YouGov is a reputable company in this field, so it wouldn't be in their interests to risk compromising their reputation.
Yogi wrote:
Thats the good thing about the General election "poll" as the whole population is invited to partake..."
Yes, well I've addressed this before, haven't I? Although the
electorate (not the "whole population") might well be invited to partake in it, the choice more often than not is between grey, light grey, and dark grey. Any party needs serious money, contacts, organisational infrastructure, expertise, and access to the media
to contest seats nation-wide. Then, of course, there is the cosy, self-serving, back-scratching alliance among our "representatives" at Westminster.
It reminds me of the old anarchist slogan: "If elections changed anything, they'd be illegal".
Yogi wrote:
I stated earlier this poll shows there is only 0.7% support for parties sharing your immigration views.
If you really believe that, why are you so concerned?
Posted by: Dave, London on 8:51am Fri 18 Apr 08
Ha ha ha!
I wondered how long it would take you to crack.
'It might be a good idea to remove your fingers before I bite them'
Ha ha ha. That's got to be your best line yet old chap. And no mention of immigration. See, you can do it.
And me, from the ex colonies? If you count living in North London all my life as being from the ex colonies, then yes!
I must confess I can't be sure that my heritage is 100% English (nice pure and white like yours).
Go on old chap, have a bite!
Go on, you know you can't resist it!
Ha ha ha!
I wondered how long it would take you to crack.
'It might be a good idea to remove your fingers before I bite them'
Ha ha ha. That's got to be your best line yet old chap. And no mention of immigration. See, you can do it.
And me, from the ex colonies? If you count living in North London all my life as being from the ex colonies, then yes!
I must confess I can't be sure that my heritage is 100% English (nice pure and white like yours).
Go on old chap, have a bite!
Go on, you know you can't resist it!
Posted by: Yogi, Beartown on 3:58pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote]No "error". I was correcting your choice of words which were - please check back - "84% of all Brits eh?". I never said "all". However, I think that 84% is a pretty accurate reflection of feelings on the subject of the huge foreign presence in the country amongst British people (with a capital "B").[/quote]
LOL..Ok lets break this down, you claimed:
[quote]Immigration? Sure, I - along with the vast majority of Britons (84%) - feel it's not in the interests of our country. So what?[/quote]
to which I asked :
[quote]84% of all Brits eh?".[/quote]
your response was :
[quote]No, 84% of those who were questioned;[/quote]
Now correct me if Im wrong(lol), but I am certain that your 2nd statement here, is a clear ammendment of your 1st statement, rather than being any kind of correction to the "chosen words" from my question.
Your origional statement of "The vast majority of Britons(84%)", since there is no suggestion of any exclusions in this sentence, it does imply that you are talking about 84% of [bold]ALL[/bold] Britons.
[quote]Firstly, it depends what you mean by "too much". Secondly, neither of us knows the size of the sample. Thirdly, in my own experience this is - as I've said above - an accurate reflection.
As for conducting the poll in a way "making it not too difficult...to target specific sections of society more likely to give "opinions" that help create whichever picture the undertakers are trying to paint", I'd only say YouGov is a reputable company in this field, so it wouldn't be in their interests to risk compromising their reputation.[/quote]
What I meant by not reading too much into the results of such polls was;
a)we dont know the sample size, and
b)we have no idea how random a cross section of society this poll intook.
With such limited information, it is impossible to know with any kind of certainty that the "results" from such a poll are in any way ,an accurate reflection of mass opinion.
Whereas with the General election we know the sample size(27 million) and we know for certain that people from every section of society are equally invited to take part.
Do you see why the results of the latter poll are likely to be a far more reliable indicator of public opinion than the results from the former?
Croyboy:
[quote]If you really believe that, why are you so concerned?[/quote]
This is your comment in response to my statement of;
[quote]I stated earlier this poll shows there is only 0.7% support for parties sharing your immigration views.[/quote]
This has nothing to do with what I believe , it is "fact."
In the last general election the parties sharing your views on immigration, ( nf and bnp) managed a combined total of 0.7% of the vote.
As far as I am aware, there are no other parties,(that figured in the last election) that advocate "repatriation" of non indigenous citizens, is there?
No "error". I was correcting your choice of words which were - please check back - "84% of all Brits eh?". I never said "all". However, I think that 84% is a pretty accurate reflection of feelings on the subject of the huge foreign presence in the country amongst British people (with a capital "B").
LOL..Ok lets break this down, you claimed:
Immigration? Sure, I - along with the vast majority of Britons (84%) - feel it's not in the interests of our country. So what?
to which I asked :
84% of all Brits eh?".
your response was :
No, 84% of those who were questioned;
Now correct me if Im wrong(lol), but I am certain that your 2nd statement here, is a clear ammendment of your 1st statement, rather than being any kind of correction to the "chosen words" from my question.
Your origional statement of "The vast majority of Britons(84%)", since there is no suggestion of any exclusions in this sentence, it does imply that you are talking about 84% of
ALL Britons.
Firstly, it depends what you mean by "too much". Secondly, neither of us knows the size of the sample. Thirdly, in my own experience this is - as I've said above - an accurate reflection.
As for conducting the poll in a way "making it not too difficult...to target specific sections of society more likely to give "opinions" that help create whichever picture the undertakers are trying to paint", I'd only say YouGov is a reputable company in this field, so it wouldn't be in their interests to risk compromising their reputation.
What I meant by not reading too much into the results of such polls was;
a)we dont know the sample size, and
b)we have no idea how random a cross section of society this poll intook.
With such limited information, it is impossible to know with any kind of certainty that the "results" from such a poll are in any way ,an accurate reflection of mass opinion.
Whereas with the General election we know the sample size(27 million) and we know for certain that people from every section of society are equally invited to take part.
Do you see why the results of the latter poll are likely to be a far more reliable indicator of public opinion than the results from the former?
Croyboy:
If you really believe that, why are you so concerned?
This is your comment in response to my statement of;
I stated earlier this poll shows there is only 0.7% support for parties sharing your immigration views.
This has nothing to do with what I believe , it is "fact."
In the last general election the parties sharing your views on immigration, ( nf and bnp) managed a combined total of 0.7% of the vote.
As far as I am aware, there are no other parties,(that figured in the last election) that advocate "repatriation" of non indigenous citizens, is there?
Posted by: Croyboy on 2:54pm Sat 19 Apr 08
Dave wrote: [quote]Ha ha ha!
I wondered how long it would take you to crack.[/quote]
Well, Dave, considering the maniacal laughter with which you pepper your posts, perhaps it might be wiser for you to steer clear of the word "crack", and its derivatives!
Dave wrote:[quote]Ha ha ha. That's got to be your best line yet old chap. And no mention of immigration. See, you can do it.[/quote]
Naa, that's nothing! ("Ha ha ha" etc.) And you seem to have given up on "correcting" my grammar, too. See, you can do it!
(BTW, if one's using the imperative mood, an exclamation mark [italic]is[/italic] usual.)
So, you've lived in North London all your life! ..."David", from North London. Mm.
I hope you'll forgive my speculation. It's just that your manner bears all the hallmarks of the inferiority complex of the outsider/autodidact; he who is forever looking in the window at the party, or waiting in vain to be invited to sit at High Table, all the while shaking with anger at the lack of recognition he perceives to be his right, and striving to keep the hysteria out of his voice as he declares "[bold]I[/bold] don't care! I'll show them all, just you see! Ha ha ha!".
Oh, dear, Dave. ...Oh, [italic]dear[/italic]!
Dave wrote:
Ha ha ha!
I wondered how long it would take you to crack.
Well, Dave, considering the maniacal laughter with which you pepper your posts, perhaps it might be wiser for you to steer clear of the word "crack", and its derivatives!
Dave wrote:
Ha ha ha. That's got to be your best line yet old chap. And no mention of immigration. See, you can do it.
Naa, that's nothing! ("Ha ha ha" etc.) And you seem to have given up on "correcting" my grammar, too. See, you can do it!
(BTW, if one's using the imperative mood, an exclamation mark
is usual.)
So, you've lived in North London all your life! ..."David", from North London. Mm.
I hope you'll forgive my speculation. It's just that your manner bears all the hallmarks of the inferiority complex of the outsider/autodidact; he who is forever looking in the window at the party, or waiting in vain to be invited to sit at High Table, all the while shaking with anger at the lack of recognition he perceives to be his right, and striving to keep the hysteria out of his voice as he declares "
I don't care! I'll show them all, just you see! Ha ha ha!".
Oh, dear, Dave. ...Oh,
dear!
Posted by: Croyboy on 2:57pm Sat 19 Apr&nb
