Hmmm, shows the “activists” up in a good light….

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32009961

I would not condone any such behavior under any circumstances.

But it is not just anti-UKIP people who can threaten and intimidate. The following is of course second hand ( but from a reliable source!) and perhaps an isolated incident. However….
My parents live in the Eastleigh constituency. When they had the byelection in 2013, my 80 year old mother was accosted on the street by UKIP supporters ‘asking’ for her support. When she replied that she wasn’t interested the vitriol that came her way was appalling. Her comments were to the effect that they were out of area thugs, little more. She also assumed they were desperate to get a win at a byelection as the result was so close in the polls they were willing to go ‘that extra mile’ to get votes.
This is one reason ( but not the only one ) why I will never support them.

Prospective UKIP councillors have also tried scaremongering tactics in the past, but not with the threat of physical violence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11342000/Disagree-with-Ukip-Get-ready-for-some-angry-mail.html

The thick spar visible in the wreckage and the fuselage contours certainly look right for a DVII

It has happend to me a couple of times in the past week or so as well.

investment in the capital as the main driver of the economy is arguably the best option.

Moggy

I would argue differently, hence my original point. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy if all investment goes to London because that’s where everything happens. Hence the premise for HS2. Not that that is necessarily the best way to encourage investment in the regions.

I hate visiting London, avoid the place if at all possible:rolleyes:

Large infrastructure projects like building a large number of nuclear power stations to enable energy self sufficiency and remove the reliance on russian gas.

True self sufficiency requires energy from sources produced in the UK. Most Uranium for reactors comes from the open market, most commonly from Canada, Australia and Russia. Whilst two of those countries are likely to continue to supply the European market in the longer term it does mean we are as reliant on external sources for nuclear as we are for gas and to a certain extent oil. The new nuclear power stations that are to be built at Hinkley point are 90% owned by a consortium roughly equally split between EDF (which is 80% owned by the French Government), and a company wholly owned by the Chinese Government.

So, whilst building such infrastructure projects may well boost the economy in the short term, long term they are not necessarily adding to the country’s assets or self-sufficiency

For more detail ( much, much more!)

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/United-Kingdom/

What I do find scandalous personally is the amount of money being spent on rail and transport infrastructure in London is approximately 20 times per head compared to that being spent in the regions. ( IIRC roughly £5500 in London compared to £220 in the North East)

Talking of chickens coming home to roost, it would appear that UKIP are in yet another expenses fraud scandal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11484159/Ukip-MEP-sacked-over-serious-financial-allegations.html

Nigel appears to be “shocked”. Fewer of the people I know would be.

How was that for discrimination ? So we went to war. Took us a while but, we won and the competition was withdrawn.

I am genuinely glad that you were willing to oppose discrimination in one form at least.
I would also hope that you would do the same if a competition was limited to male white authors?

In this context, who are the “we” who fought the war?

The decision about whether or not something is offensive is entirely subjective. Someone might cause offence to someone with a trivially “casual” remark made in total innocence and another might make a potentially offensive remark which offends no one at the time.

Tolerance and common sense are required. Yes there are people who go out of their way to be offensive and there are others who go out of their way to be offended. Worse are those who are not offended themselves but on behalf of others who have not even heard the remark.

I almost entirely agree. Perhaps my above post was misleading as I was tying to simplify my position. I do however think it important, as part of the tolerance and common sense, to challenge things that are, for want of a better phrase, extremely likely to cause offence to others due to race, disability etc. I was positively encouraged to do this as part of my job so I may be more sensitive than others as a result.