The Forum Jokes Thread

[luckymucklebackit]

I've just got one of those Humpty Dumpty toys from Aldi for my grandson.

It's brilliant.

 

 

 

It comes with Aldi King's horse's and Aldi King's men 

[exmoordave]

We must all do what we can for the planet. I just unplugged a row of cars that no-one was using.....

[The Johnster]

19 hours ago, kevinlms said:

We have a referendum coming up later in the year and the answer requested is to write 'either YES or NO' in the box.

 

 

This is very bad electoral practice, as there will always be a number of voters who will vote 'yes' because they think it is the more positive response.  A referendum on a devolved parliament in Wales in the 70s was set up so that a 'yes' vote was against the proposal and a 'no' for it; the proposal was rejected by a significant enough majority to suggest that this gerrymandering had not affected the result, but even so it was very bad practice.  Referendum or any other voting should always be 'for' this or alternatively 'for' that, signified by an X entered in the appropriate box.  Many modern elections are decided on quite small majorities and bad practice of this wor can genuinely swing results and mar the validity of the vote.

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

This is very bad electoral practice, as there will always be a number of voters who will vote 'yes' because they think it is the more positive response.  A referendum on a devolved parliament in Wales in the 70s was set up so that a 'yes' vote was against the proposal and a 'no' for it; the proposal was rejected by a significant enough majority to suggest that this gerrymandering had not affected the result, but even so it was very bad practice.  Referendum or any other voting should always be 'for' this or alternatively 'for' that, signified by an X entered in the appropriate box.  Many modern elections are decided on quite small majorities and bad practice of this wor can genuinely swing results and mar the validity of the vote.

The idea should NOT be to confuse people. A referendum should be 'YES' to pass it, 'NO' to keep things the same. A government that allows the question to be unclear is disrespectful.

Don't forget that Australian voting is entirely different.

 

1/ It is compulsory - more than 90% do actually vote. It has been 100 years since voting first became compulsory (which really means getting your name crossed off, because a secret ballot means no one knows how or if you actually voted).

2/ Apart from referendums (which by its nature is a choice of 2), we have a preference vote system.

 

Both combined means that we do get a reasonable representation of what we want. None of this nonsense that if all the people who hadn't voted, means that there wasn't a true majority. Those that don't vote, should only have the right to remain silent and not complain about the result.

[Vistisen]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

This is very bad electoral practice, as there will always be a number of voters who will vote 'yes' because they think it is the more positive response.  A referendum on a devolved parliament in Wales in the 70s was set up so that a 'yes' vote was against the proposal and a 'no' for it; the proposal was rejected by a significant enough majority to suggest that this gerrymandering had not affected the result, but even so it was very bad practice.  Referendum or any other voting should always be 'for' this or alternatively 'for' that, signified by an X entered in the appropriate box.  Many modern elections are decided on quite small majorities and bad practice of this wor can genuinely swing results and mar the validity of the vote.

Reminds me of this classic clip: 

 

[kevinlms]

The ABC in Australia have produced a similar show called 'Utopia'.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(Australian_TV_series)#Awards_and_nominations

 

I believe it is available on Netflix.

[andytrains]

10 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Those that don't vote, should only have the right to remain silent and not complain about the result.

And go back to gaol.

[exmoordave]

I've got very sensitive teeth.............................they'll probably be upset now I've told you.....

[The Johnster]

If you make voting compulsory (which is IMHO a very good idea), you have to cater for those voters who want to register abstentions or, as an alternative, to vote against rather than for candidates.  This would prevent the current situation where the last half-dozen or so UK governments claim a mandate from the electorate because they won, but perhaps seventy or eighty percent of the electorate did not vote for them,  and usually only around thirty or so percent of the those that voted at all in low turnouts did vote for them.  This makes a mockery of the democratic principle that governments are of, by, and for, the majority of the people when they are nothing like that. 

 

(But then, the UK has a semi-democratic system at best, with an upper house that still contains hereditary and ecclesiastical peers that are given their positions by virtue of nothing more than status and tradition, and life peers that are appointed rather than elected, and this archaic body can and does veto measures voted for by the democratically elected lower house.  We have no formal constitution or bill of rights, and are unable to own land unless we are royal, of the nobility, or the established church (this is a technicality, we can and do own the right to hold property on land owned by the crown, nobility, or church, leasehold for a set period and freehold in perpetuity), but it's an important one; mineral and other rights reside with the actual owner.  Strike oil in your back garden in the US or many other countries and you're rich; do it here and you simply have a mess to clear up.)

 

I'm not blaming political parties or governments for this, it's a result of voter apathy and the electorate are themselves responsible, but it does seem to me that it is only parliament that can remedy the situation, and that compulsory voting of the sort I described where abstentions and votes against are recorded might allow the party with the most votes for, or the least against, to be first past the post and win, but would not allow them to claim any sort of mandate; 'the nation has spoken, and it clearly endorses our policies',, well, no, it hasn't, if only twenty percent of the electorate voted for you and sixty percent voted against you but you were still first past the post, so bear that in mind when you implement your policies against the stated will of the majority of the people.

 

Of course, I accept that some people may find it off-puttingly complex, but the same can be said of proportional representation, and plenty of countries do fine with that.

 

Rant over, for now...

[Joseph_Pestell]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

If you make voting compulsory (which is IMHO a very good idea), you have to cater for those voters who want to register abstentions or, as an alternative, to vote against rather than for candidates.  This would prevent the current situation where the last half-dozen or so UK governments claim a mandate from the electorate because they won, but perhaps seventy or eighty percent of the electorate did not vote for them,  and usually only around thirty or so percent of the those that voted at all in low turnouts did vote for them.  This makes a mockery of the democratic principle that governments are of, by, and for, the majority of the people when they are nothing like that. 

 

(But then, the UK has a semi-democratic system at best, with an upper house that still contains hereditary and ecclesiastical peers that are given their positions by virtue of nothing more than status and tradition, and life peers that are appointed rather than elected, and this archaic body can and does veto measures voted for by the democratically elected lower house.  We have no formal constitution or bill of rights, and are unable to own land unless we are royal, of the nobility, or the established church (this is a technicality, we can and do own the right to hold property on land owned by the crown, nobility, or church, leasehold for a set period and freehold in perpetuity), but it's an important one; mineral and other rights reside with the actual owner.  Strike oil in your back garden in the US or many other countries and you're rich; do it here and you simply have a mess to clear up.)

 

I'm not blaming political parties or governments for this, it's a result of voter apathy and the electorate are themselves responsible, but it does seem to me that it is only parliament that can remedy the situation, and that compulsory voting of the sort I described where abstentions and votes against are recorded might allow the party with the most votes for, or the least against, to be first past the post and win, but would not allow them to claim any sort of mandate; 'the nation has spoken, and it clearly endorses our policies',, well, no, it hasn't, if only twenty percent of the electorate voted for you and sixty percent voted against you but you were still first past the post, so bear that in mind when you implement your policies against the stated will of the majority of the people.

 

Of course, I accept that some people may find it off-puttingly complex, but the same can be said of proportional representation, and plenty of countries do fine with that.

 

Rant over, for now...

 

Not quite sure what this is doing on the "Jokes thread" (or even RMWeb at all). Other, of course, that the UK parliamentary system is a farce.

[Ian J.]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Not quite sure what this is doing on the "Jokes thread" (or even RMWeb at all). Other, of course, that the UK parliamentary system is a farce.

 

This is true of course. Our electoral & parlimentary system desperately needs total overhaul, but the people never vote for it, and the politicians (of all colours) gain from leaving it as is once they're in power.

[Colin_McLeod]

On 23/08/2023 at 20:49, F-UnitMad said:

 

Probably a Granny & Eggs moment this, but the close-up photo of the rail is from this incident.....

 

No, NOT caused by 6 'hot' girls 🙄🤣 but a mid-train helper loco on an American railroad - the train came to a halt but that loco had the wheels of one truck (bogie) still spinning away due to an MU fault.

I just can't find the article about it on google, right now.

 

Personally I prefer the six hot girls explanation 👭👭👭

[Colin_McLeod]

On 23/08/2023 at 20:43, KeithMacdonald said:

 

That poor wee lass!

It must have taken a lot of hard rubbing backward and forwards to wear down the rail that much.

I hope she used lots of lubricant.

 

That's why code 75 was invented! 😂

[The Pilotman]

I can’t believe that after four days nobody’s mentioned flange greasers. 

[J. S. Bach]

13 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 ...snip... Strike oil in your back garden in the US or many other countries and you're rich ...snip...

Not so. In a lot of areas, the mineral rights belong to someone else; "who that may be" is plainly stated in the deed.

[lapford34102]

Deleted as already posted

Stu

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by lapford34102
Duplication

[J. S. Bach]

That was posted yesterday by:

 

 Night Train         Posted Thursday at 16:58

[Leicester Thumper]

A man goes to the opticians, he says "I need anew set of glasses, I've lost my set" 

 

"Sir, you are wearing them"

 

And with that, the man had made a spectacle of himself....

[Leicester Thumper]

I don't know why they call it a Pot Noodle,

 

I've never found any terracotta in mine. 

[BR60103]

21 hours ago, The Johnster said:

If you make voting compulsory (which is IMHO a very good idea), you have to cater for those voters who want to register abstentions or, as an alternative, to vote against rather than for candidates.  This would prevent the current situation where the last half-dozen or so UK governments claim a mandate from the electorate because they won, but perhaps seventy or eighty percent of the electorate did not vote for them,  and usually only around thirty or so percent of the those that voted at all in low turnouts did vote for them.  This makes a mockery of the democratic principle that governments are of, by, and for, the majority of the people when they are nothing like that. 

The government could also claim that 70% of the electorate did not vote against them.

 

[aardvark]

My first home had 1 metre high ceilings. I couldn’t stand living there.

 

[Nick C]

16 hours ago, J. S. Bach said:

Not so. In a lot of areas, the mineral rights belong to someone else; "who that may be" is plainly stated in the deed.

From what I understand there's even quite a lot of areas of the US where you don't even own the water rights, so you can't store the rainwater for your own use.

[33C]

29 minutes ago, Nick C said:

From what I understand there's even quite a lot of areas of the US where you don't even own the water rights, so you can't store the rainwater for your own use.

The land of the free, where nothing is...

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, 33C said:

The land of the free, where nothing is...

Except for the 2nd Amendment- usually spelt as 'ammendment'. 

[proton]

22 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

That's why code 75 was invented! 😂

Not code 69?