fugtifino

I can't work out if you think the Windrush thing went too far, or not far enough. For me there are far too many possible unintended consequences, as we have seen. It also reminds me of a bloke I used to work with, bit of a rough diamond but without the diamond bit. Depending where he was and who he was with, he was known to spit in his beer and he made sure he was seen to do it. He could then leave it unguarded without the fear that someone else would take it. If you make somewhere less of a place that people want to be, you're gonna end up with somewhere that's a but rubbish. "...think we covered Cambridge Analytica elsewhere, as being a complete red herring...." Well you may think we did, but that's just your opin...oh, never mind. Still, what's wrong with a bit of electoral manipulation so long as you get the result you want eh?

Main issue is people being targeted with tailored information to influence their voting behaviour without their knowledge or consent: this is not the same method used by Corbyn or Obama. Vote Leave may have exceeded the amount of spending that is allowed for this kind of activity. It's easily sidestepped by me 'cos I don't go anywhere near Faceache. How much influence this had has yet to be determined, and some think it's minimal (the same people seem to be overly concerned about voter fraud, which we know is minimal), but you've only got to look at the people behind these companies (eg Robert Mercer) to smell a rat. And why, if the influence is minimal, would Vote Leave choose to spend around half their campaign budget on this (around (£4m).

"Generally accepted opinion..." But that's still only generally accepted opinion in your opinion. And it's still bugger all to do with the Windrush thing. Then there's all that Cambridge Analytica stuff in all those elections you mention.

"...the majority of the public view it as a priority." In your opinion.

Ah, so this is yet another thread about your favourite hobby horse not so cunningly disguised as a thread about something else. One. Trick. Pony.

And this relates to Windrush in what way?

Don't see why you should consider that's what I'm doing, I'd genuinely like to know why you believe what you do. Guess it's your prerogative to keep schtum though.

Nope, you're all still here, merrily crapping all over the boards. See above.

"So yes you did, in effect, call me a liar" So, you can see the difference;it was an implication, not an accusation. You see, I don't think it's your lie, I don't think you've dreamed it up yourself, you've got it from somewhere and you obviously, for some reason, believe it. And, for all the brickbats I get on here, I'd say that's pretty tame. Bored or unable to support your case?

"No such thing as "facts" at the end of the day..." I'm just gonna park that there. Mind you, it does explain all the pigeon chess on here.

I don't provide links as gospel, I provide them as evidence or information to support my view. What I find amusing are people who will not shift their position when presented with overwhelming evidence contrary to their opinion. Oh, and those who get all their "information" off the telly. As I've said here more than once, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. If you conflate facts and opinions or regard facts as opinions, that's where you could be going wrong.

I linked to four articles and posted relevant extracts to save you the trouble of reading them. I didn't call you a liar. So, have you got anything to support your view that voter fraud is endemic?

It's nothing to do with not liking what you say or just disagreeing with you. You're wrong about this. I've shown you that you're wrong about this. Yet you continue wanting to be wrong. It's as if you want to believe the lies. Either that's wilful ignorance, or it's for some kind of reason. Of course you don't have to explain yourself to me, but if you don't then I'm going to form my own opinions.

Of course you do - you're pushing the right wing agenda. You said voter fraud was endemic in both the US and here and that's demonstrably untrue. Perhaps you could explain why you or anyone would do such a thing.

I think I have quite a bit more than you do, and that’s because what you’re peddling here is a lie. In the US, for example, “…it is more likely, …that an American “will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.” https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth No doubt you’re familiar with Kris Kobach: “There has been no epidemic of noncitizens voting, despite Mr. Trump’s baseless claim (endorsed by Mr. Kobach) that he lost the popular vote only because of millions of illegal voters.” https://nyti.ms/2FTkkwP In the UK, a 2014 Electoral Commission report found that: “…there is no evidence to suggest that there have been widespread, systematic attempts to undermine or interfere with recent elections through electoral fraud.” https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/164609/Electoral-fraud-review-final-report.pdf A report published by Democratic Audit just last month, found that out of 30 million votes cast at two general elections and the Brexit referendum, only seven people were convicted of voter fraud: http://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/03/08/voter-id-at-british-polling-stations-learning-the-right-lessons-from-northern-ireland/ Endemic you say? Don’t think so. Still, good Brexiteer that you are, you’ve no compunction about spreading lies in order to achieve your aims. I don't think I'm the one struggling to face reality.