This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In case anyone’s interested, someone has pulled together all the info they could find on the candidates:
https://medium.com/@SJHolloway/this-is-everything-i-discovered-about-all-of...
In reply to Bob Kemp:
tl:dr "A lot of them aren’t ‘bad boys of Brexit’; they’re just shit human beings."
8
2
In reply to Bob Kemp:
Who the f*ck is S. Holloway and what makes him an authority on ... anything, really?
So he's posted a big list on the internet, whoopy f*cking do!
3
40
In reply to Lusk:
Ooh someone is getting cross. Don't you like it when the curtains are pulled back?
28
4
In reply to Lusk:
He's someone who's done the Google legwork you can't be bothered with. Great piece of messenger-shooting too!
Post edited at 21:03
23
1
In reply to Bob Kemp:
LOL. I have read some of the info, but this is the most complete that I've read recently! lolol
In reply to Lusk:
Keep your hair on Mr Lusk!
Everything he stated was backed up with references and links. I'm inclined to agree with his views. We shouldn't be voting for these villains they belong in the gutter not elected officials.
18
1
In reply to Bob Kemp:
Unfortunately that article seems to be desperately trying to find anything, however tenuous, to claim the people involved are the antichrist.
Yes, they're deeply unpleasant people, and a lot of it is true. However the article links to a number of wiki pages, which when you click on the citation links lead to dead links.
Also "his wife's sister once went out with a bloke who worked at Sellafield and so is a climate change denier" statements aren't doing the credibility of the author much good. Likewise the "he's ugly, spotty and smells of wee" portraits of the candidates. Was it written by an angry 14 year old?
Other than having a good old rant, what was the point of it? Brexiteers won't be listening, Remainers know they're a bunch of twunts. The undecided might even think it's a smear job and start supporting Farage.
12
2
What's the problem really? This puts a lot of material that's out there anyway into one place. Some of it is even positive about a few of them, like the bloke who didn't approve of Farage's immigrants poster.
Can I also suggest that you don't buy into the contemporary redefining of 'smear' as 'any inconvenient fact that might discredit me', rather than its traditional meaning of lies and half truths deployed to discredit.
[Edit] I meant to say that I agree with you that it's not likely to change many minds, but I still have a touching faith in the idea that the more informed we are the better.
Post edited at 21:40
4
In reply to Bob Kemp:
The problem is Farage is already playing the conspiracy theory card over the various ongoing investigations, and his supporters are lapping it up.
Unfortunately a large swath of the population love a story about shadowy oppressive forces supressing tbe 'truth'. We just need someone to claim the McDs milkshake fell at 'free-fall speed' and Farage will have a number of new fans.
To be blunt, it's a bit of shit article that plays right into Farages hands, IMHO.
Post edited at 21:43
5
In reply to Ridge:
I really can't see how this makes much difference to Farage's conspiracy theory card. He doesn't need any evidence for that. And there's nothing here that suppresses the truth, so I don't see how this will add to Farage's fans.
I don't see how this plays into Farage's hands either. You seem to be crediting him with 'super-villain' powers here.
In reply to Bob Kemp:
> In case anyone’s interested, someone has pulled together all the info they could find on the candidates:
It’s really going to annoy you when lots of these people become MEPs, isn’t it?
4
8
In reply to Bob Kemp:
It's a pretty poor article. Yes, he identifies some nefarious activity (most of it quite well known) and some pretty weird views but he also cites controversial accusations as fact. Most feebly he appears to regard anyone who disagrees with him as morally flawed (or "shit" in his language)
It's not self evident, whatever he may think , that working in fossil fuels or nuclear power, that being libertarian, that being pro-GM crops, against multiculturalism (like that well know fascist Trevor Philips), pro-lower taxes, pro fracking, against gay marriage, etc etc makes anybody "shit".
That he appears to believes these beliefs are self evidently bad reflects both on the narrowness of both his world view and the narrow social world that he must inhabit. More to the point, it will just mean more votes against such arrogance.
5
2
In reply to baron:
> It’s really going to annoy you when lots of these people become MEPs, isn’t it?
Why are you personalising this? I posted a link to an article. That's all. To make assumptions about me on that basis is just unpleasant, pointless and stupid.
5
1
In reply to Bob Kemp:
> Why are you personalising this? I posted a link to an article. That's all. To make assumptions about me on that basis is just unpleasant, pointless and stupid.
I am assuming that you’re not a Brexit party supporter, are you?
And you’re possibly a remainer?
And you posted this article to support your political aim of remaining?
Or did you just happen to come across the article by chance and out of the decency of your heart decide to share it with this forum?
You didn’t happen to come across similar articles for other political parties did you?
Sorry, I’m assuming again.
11
13
In reply to Bob Kemp:
> Can I also suggest that you don't buy into the contemporary redefining of 'smear' as 'any inconvenient fact that might discredit me', rather than its traditional meaning of lies and half truths deployed to discredit.
OK. Lets look at one bit of the article:
> Fordham is described as a physicist and engineer. More tellingly, he has worked for Schlumberger Ltd, the world’s largest oilfield services company (link), and is involved in using Nuclear Power to extract oil (a method known as NMR or EOR — in other words advanced methods for obtaining crude oil, which is linked to increases in oil prices, and causes toxic and radioactive substances to surface) (link).
Unfortunately Schlumberger doesn't use Nuclear Power to extact oil. NMR is nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (MRI scanning), which is used in the lab for analysing samples. But lets get the 'N' word in here (and throughout the article) because it's scary and is somehow linked to climate change denial. EOR is basically pumping water and chemicals into spent oilfields to extract oil. No nuclear power involved. (I did the googling so the author didn't have to bother).
> Schlumberger have a history of losing radiactive canisters, hydraulic acid spills, and releasing chlorine compounds into the environment (link).
So lets follow the link:
> In 2009, Newsweek released their "Green Rankings" [38] a ranking of the 500 largest corporations on track records on a number of environmental issues. Schlumberger was ranked 118th out of 500 overall, and 3rd out of 31 in their industry. Newsweek remarked that to mitigate global warming Schlumberger has invested in carbon sequestration which involves long-term storage of CO2 and that the company's seismic survey ships are 20% to 25% more fuel-efficient than those of other seismic contractors from using fuels that emit less pollution and towing equipment that creates less drag on the vessels.[39]
OK so they're big Oil, but they seem better than the competition on the carbon capture front.
> Radioactive Sources
> In 2006, a radioactive canister imported by Schlumberger was recovered in the Western Australian outback desert.[40] The canister had been lost by the company's transport partner, when the improperly secured container fell off the trailer on which it was being transported.[41]
> In 2010, the Aberdeen Sheriff court fined Schlumberger Oilfield UK £300,000 for losing a radioactive source on the rig floor on the Ensco 101 mobile drilling rig in the North Sea for 4 hours.[42]
Unfortunately those links are dead, but we have a global company that has temporarily lost two unspecified radioactive sources. Not good, but not quite the serial dumper of nuclear material portrayed in the article.
> Spills
> In 2009, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection fined Chesapeake Appalachia LLC and Schlumberger Technology Corp. more than $15,500 each for a hydrochloric acid spill in February 2009 at Chesapeake's Chancellor natural gas well site in Asylum Township, Bradford County, Pennsylvania. Officials said the leak did not contaminate groundwater.[43]
> Brownfields
> In 2006, as the current owner of a facility in Pickens, South Carolina, Schlumberger agreed to pay $11.8 million to federal and state agencies for a problem caused by the previous owner, Sangamo-Weston, a capacitor manufacturing plant. The cause of the problem was from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) released into the environment by Sangamo-Weston from 1955 to 1987.
> According to the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, an additional agreement by Schlumberger to purchase and remove dams will directly improve the Twelvemile Creek, South Carolina ecosystem and provide significant environmental benefits for the affected communities.[44]
One acid spill, (bad), and cleaning up historical contamination on a site they took over.
> Deepwater Horizon
> Schlumberger was contracted to perform wireline logging on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. However, the wireline log was cancelled and the Schlumberger standby crew was released by BP and left the rig earlier on the same day of the Deepwater Horizon explosion.[45]
So they had a crew on a rig. Didn't do anything, and happened to be lucky enough to leave before something completely unrelated to them happened.
I don't want to get any deeper into this, as we both seem to be on the same side here. Farage and his cohorts are deeply umpleasant and manipulative creatures out to line their own pockets.
However this article seems hastily put together and clutches at straws and half truths to make it's point.
That's not too far from "lies and half truths deployed to discredit" IMHO, and it devalues the good information in the article.
Post edited at 22:47
18
In reply to Postmanpat:
The main reason I posted this link was because the article pulled together a lot of material into one convenient location. I haven't seen a better version although I'm sure it could be improved in various ways. If you don't like the slant he gives this material, why don't you find something yourself that does the same job? Perhaps you could put something together?
Post edited at 22:44
1
2
In reply to Bob Kemp:
I don't need this article, I live in the North West of England. Three words tell me all I need to know about the Brexit Party - Claire f*cking Fox.
10
1
In reply to baron:
Yes, you're assuming. And personalising something that didn't need to be personalised.
3
2
In reply to Bob Kemp:
> Yes, you're assuming. And personalising something that didn't need to be personalised.
Sorry, didn’t mean to upset you.
2
In reply to Ridge:
I'm sure this article was hastily put together, and I'm sure it's not the source I'd like to share. But it's the only one that collates a lot of information about all the candidates, and I think it's useful as a result. We are grown-ups, we should be able to find our own information about candidates we might vote for and to fact-check, as you've ably shown. But sometimes it's handy to have a starting point. That's the main reason I posted this.
3
1
In reply to baron:
No problem. As I mentioned before, I believe that the more information we all have, regardless of political affiliation, the better.
1
In reply to Ridge:
Also on the same side. As a chemist though, the wild misinterpretation of NMR stood out like a sore thumb and made me wonder how accurate the rest of the article was. Not that it matters. Standing for the brexit party is enough on its own, any other reasons not to send votes their way are just a bonus.
4
2
In reply to Bob Kemp:
Kudos to Ridge for showing balance and honesty even though it doesn't fit with his own desires.
Now if only the author of this shite article, together with all political parties, especially the Tories and UKIP, had done the same thing three years ago......
3
In reply to baron:
> It’s really going to annoy you when lots of these people become MEPs, isn’t it?
Me, yes but ho hum, that's democracy with its flaws glinting in harsh light.
Our MEPs are a key part of our voice in Europe, they are elected represent us and advocate for our interests. When we send feckless wankers, halfwits and cranks not only are we are paying them handsomely for a service they do not provide (see UKIP's dismal historic attendance record, policy and committee contributions vs other MEPs) but they embarrass us by actively impeding the beneficial activities of the EU while bolstering the abhorrent far-right populist groups they align with.
Would you vote for a nazi candidate, no. Have you proudly voted for a revolutionary communist IRA sympathiser who will almost certainly align with eastern european nazis in your name? BREXIT! If it wasn't so dangerous the almost unbelievable stupidity of all this would be hilarious.
jk
5
1
3
In reply to jkarran:
Does the Brexit party have the monopoly on candidates who we might find obnoxious because of their beliefs and/or behaviour?
3
1
In reply to Bob Kemp:
Seems they are in good company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal
Chris Hume...Fiona Onasanya etc....
1
In reply to baron:
> Does the Brexit party have the monopoly on candidates who we might find obnoxious because of their beliefs and/or behaviour?
No, I think UKIP has one or two as well
1
2
In reply to baron:
> Does the Brexit party have the monopoly on candidates who we might find obnoxious because of their beliefs and/or behaviour?
No but Farage really has gone out of his way to field an all-star cast of bastards, has-beens, dimwits, shills and idiots.
jk
1
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...