Forum menu
Jamba as my mate Bob the Hartlepool fork lift truck driver is the perfect example voted out as he wants a £30k salary for moving palletts - he is going to sit on his arse and wait, he is not going to create jobs, start a business or f**g export. But just you wait get is gonna whine like * when it doesn't materialise. Hardly going to retrain as a Cyber security consultant
Why do you think referenda is the plural of referendum?
[quote=mefty ]But that is a self selecting survey, statistically as useful as a chocolate teapot.
I worked as a senior analyst for a market research company for many years. It's ALL bollocks, trust me.
In the same way that agenda is the plural of agendum.
One chlamydium I can live with, it's a bunch of chlamydia that starts to get a bit irritating.
referenda is the correct plural - its latin(?) root?
Referendums is accepted by many tho but its wrong.
Chambers Dictionary 2014 gives the plural as either referenda or referendums,so why are you arguing ?
Ah, but agendum is a noun in Latin, referendum is a gerund, nouns have plurals, gerunds - verbal nouns or -ing words - don't. So in Latin referendum is a word that can't have a plural so referenda is just made up by people who aren't as well educated as they think they are. (You could try and argue that referenda is a plural gerundive, adjectival verb, but then the singular would be referendus.)
god not this referendum was not pluralisable in Latin as it was not a noun Either is acceptable [ due to usage] but the puritans prefer referendums.
TBH as its a latin word that is used in english applying a Latin rule to it seems a bit daft personally but either one is fine with meas we know what the person means and the whole point of words is to convey meaning and they both achieve that
Just reminded me, I need to buy a bag of pla to make a pudding this evening.
How about "referendum - and another one"?
god not this referendum was not pluralisable in Latin as it was not a noun Either is acceptable [ due to usage] but the puritans prefer referendums.
First, a man with your typographical history is perhaps not the best judge. But the more important point is that using classical plurals is a bit poncy in the first place and often unnecessary. Therefore using an incorrect one is unforgivable - it is all very well being poncy but you need to be correct.
First, a man with your typographical history is perhaps not the best judge
Don't be such a sneery twerp.
Don't be such a sneery twerp.
Junkyard wears his typos like a bodge of honour, I'm sure he wouldn't take a fence.
😀
Ah, but agendum is a noun in Latin, referendum is a gerund, nouns have plurals, gerunds - verbal nouns or -ing words - don't. So in Latin referendum is a word that can't have a plural so referenda is just made up by people who aren't as well educated as they think they are. (You could try and argue that referenda is a plural gerundive, adjectival verb, but then the singular would be referendus.)
I give in - you win. I have no idea what a gerund is apart from this
[img] 
[/img]
Mefty - the Oxford English Dictionary (which is good enough for me) allows either referenda or referendums and I happen to prefer referenda.
Clearly this is a matter of high principle and I think pistols at dawn are called for. I don't like large pistols or small ones so shall we use two media. 😉
(Even I don't like that plural of medium - and I suspect it is incorrect)
I'm looking forward to my gerania flowering this year.
[quote=mefty ]Don't be such a sneery twerp.
Junkyard wears his typos like a bodge of honour, I'm sure he wouldn't take a fence.
[s]True[/s] Flounces
I am lazy not ignorant - its nothing like it used to be and I do try harder these days.
[img] 
[/img]
Go Tarzan.
slowoldman - Member
(referring to the letter and assuming it is real).
Is that how you apologise Lord Heseltine?
Know you place Lord Heseltine you are Not above the will of the people and the role of Prime Minister.
Bow to the people will.
Bow to the Prime Minister.
Bow to Prime Minister May.
As intelligent and as senior (in govt) as you are you show no respect to the will of the people. Hence, you shall receive none.
You're fired.
Go in peace ... go stir your coffee.
Something tells me that was not so much an apology, but an eloquent way off saying eff off.
He knew damn well he'd probably get the boot for standing by his opinion, it's called integrity, something that May lacks.
Remember this? Curiously it's been removed from Google image search. I can't imagine why. Clearly she's more interested in keeping her nose in the trough than either doing the right thing or sticking to her principles.
[img] 
[/img]
mattyfez - Member
Something tells me that was not so much an apology, but a polite way off saying eff off.
Makes no difference.
He could have a better legacy but instead he got fired for trying to double cross the people will.
He will be remember as person who is willing to destroy the people will for his own objective.
You see the problem is that nobody wants his opinion but he insists on giving. That's not integrity that's an underhand tactics.He knew damn well he'd probably get the boot for standing by his opinion, it's called integrity, something that May lacks.
Remember this? Curiously it's been removed from Google image search. U can't imagine why. Clearly she's more interested in keeping her nose in the trough than either doing the right thing or sticking to her principles.
Yes, she might have started in a different direction but common sense prevail so she returns to integrity by leading the people with their will, while Lord Heseltine change from a person with integrity to one that back stabs his own party leader.
He has vanity, not integrity.
chewkw - You see the problem is that nobody wants his opinion but he insists on giving.
No one wants your opinion.
So she's allowed to change her stance for personal betterment, but denies the people she serves the same luxury?
The hypocrisy is strong with May.
[quote=mattyfez ]So she's allowed to change her stance for personal betterment, but denies the people she serves the same luxury?
The irony is strong.
Really ? Change her stance or respect the referendum outcome ? If you asked her if she'd have preferred the referendum to have turned out "remain" then do you think she'd say no ?
She's moved on, others seem stuck in the past.
kelvin - Member
chewkw - You see the problem is that nobody wants his opinion but he insists on giving.
No one wants your opinion.
I ain't offering nor insisting.
Let's see if you can guess what that means. 😛
mattyfez - Member
So she's allowed to change her stance for personal betterment, but denies the people she serves the same luxury?The hypocrisy is strong with May.
Where in this world can you find a politician that does not want personal betterment? Even living saints want personal betterment.
Of course she is allowed to change [b]to align with the will of the people[/b].
Yes it's genuine.
No it's not an apology - who would think one is required.
Oh and he does represent a large percentage of the population in this respect (including at one time, as he pointed out, the PM).
Of course she is allowed to change to align with the will of the people.
lest she become [b]an enemy of the people[/b] and sent to one the glorious Brexitland re-education and realignment camps
Let's be honest, it was the will of 52% of people, that's not the people, it's about half of them.
Many have had a time to think about it now, so the 'will of the people' is really unknown at the moment.
Maybe we should ask them. Give the electorate the same luxury she's given herself, and allow them to rethink thier stance.
slowoldman - Member
Yes it's genuine.
No it's not an apology - who would think one is required.
Oh and h[b]e does represent a large percentage of the population[/b] in this respect (including at one time, as he pointed out, the PM).
He assumed ... he just assumed.
My lefty commie colleague would rather eat his hat then to align his interest with the Lord and there are many of them (the like minded lefty) ... 😆
kimbers - Member
lest she become an enemy of the people ...
Only to those with different views to that of the majority ...
mattyfez - Member
Let's be honest, it was the will of 52% of people, that's not the people, it's about half of them.
😆 Does that mean you want the other half to rule?
Many have had a time to think about it now, so the 'will of the people' is really unknown at the moment.Maybe we should ask them. Give the electorate the same luxury she's given herself, and allow them to rethink thier stance.
😆 That's not the way to run a country innit.
Oh come off it, 52% is margin of error territory. Especially in light of the media propaganda and lies.
It's not will and it's not a mandate. You can repeat that mantra as often as you like.
Only to those with different views to that of the majority ...
and in your glorious future they must be silenced, [b]all praise the brexit bureaucracy[/b]
You've spent too long in the Brockwell again chewkw.
I am lazy not ignorant - its nothing like it used to be and I do try harder these days.
This is true, I was going to make a comment on it, but succinctness overcame politeness.
The line "will of the people" is a joke with regard to that referendum as is anyone who thinks it gives a mandate for the ridiculous extremism the government is pedalling.
But you all know that already. Even Chewkw
I think nicely sums up or state of preparedness for the whole Brexit s***storm....
and it just keeps getting better.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-investment-idUKKBN16O280
Let's be honest, it was the will of 52% of people, that's not the people, it's about half of them.Many have had a time to think about it now, so the 'will of the people' is really unknown at the moment.
Said many times before but that is exactly why a second referendum should occur when we are closer to seeing what sort of situation we will actually be in in 2 years.
First referendum was gauging peoples wishes based on many, many unknowns. Second would be based on a much clearer position.
Goes both ways. Remainers could change their mind too if the deal actually looks good. I am a remainer but only because it seems a waste of time, effort and money to bother leaving for no obvious gain. However, if some great deal was done I would think again.
Said many times before but that is exactly why a second referendum should occur when we are closer to seeing what sort of situation we will actually be in in 2 years.
I don't think so. It means half the country don't like the current situation, so obviously it deserves some thought. Lurching to another situation which a different half of the population don't want is idiotic.
Lurching to another situation which a different half of the population don't want is idiotic.
Apart from it would not be that. It would be clearly stated and understood what you were going to get from the vote, i.e. the complete opposite of the first vote.
Ah no I wasn't referring to taking another vote. I was making the point that accepting the current vote as binding leaves us in as bad a situation (in terms of acceptability by the public) as the present state. It's not another referendum that is needed, it's some proper leadership leading to a generally acceptable consensus position - which is what should be the outcome of such a close result in an advisory, non-binding referendum.
Well this is a all going swimmingly