Peoples Vote/Second Referendum?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt Dave, and put your inane ramblings down to arrogance rather than stupidity. As I suspected, you proved me wrong and it is now apparent that your main problem is sheer stupidity. You have filled up a large proportion of this very large thread with little other than copying and pasting, and the comments made by you which I reproduced above were mostly directed towards other people. You seem to forget that your childish insults have been directed at virtually everyone who does not share your opinions.

Steve does this post do anything other than repeat your previous post?

Give it a rest, fella. Starting to make yourself look and sound like a certain other Forum Troll who is never wrong right now!

/yawn

this is something that always gets thrown in when reasoned argument is abandoned and abuse has is looking silly.

There is no way you can prove I am someone else and there is no way I can prove I am not.

Give it a rest, fella. Starting to make yourself look and sound like a certain other Forum Troll who is never wrong right now!

/yawn

this is something that always gets thrown in when reasoned argument is abandoned and abuse has is looking silly.

There is no way you can prove I am someone else and there is no way I can prove I am not.

We actually agree on something Dave. Abuse and condescending statements get thrown around when a reasoned argument is abandoned/lost. Try looking back on this thread. Almost from the begining, these were the tactics you adopted, and for most of your posts thereafter. Strange that everything you accuse us of doing is exactly the same as you have already done tenfold. A bit like the pot calling................

Give it a rest, fella. Starting to make yourself look and sound like a certain other Forum Troll who is never wrong right now!

/yawn

this is something that always gets thrown in when reasoned argument is abandoned and abuse has is looking silly.

There is no way you can prove I am someone else and there is no way I can prove I am not.

We actually agree on something Dave. Abuse and condescending statements get thrown around when a reasoned argument is abandoned/lost. Try looking back on this thread. Almost from the begining, these were the tactics you adopted, and for most of your posts thereafter. Strange that everything you accuse us of doing is exactly the same as you have already done tenfold. A bit like the pot calling................

I have always answered the post I have responded to.

The only posts I have made that were abusive have been either in response to abuse or where the response have be absurd.

Can you say the same Steve?

In fact I have been the only person contributing over the last 2-3 pages the rest have been just trying to discredit me.

I may have missed some - I do not bother to try to read the ones that where you cannot figure out how to quote somebody (I really don't know how you manage to fail at this so often).[/quote]

Aw Dave, don’t be like that. It became apparent, that after 11+ years of free education(at great cost to the taxpayer), something was wrong. You’re now aware, and that’s the greatest contribution a citizen can make to his fellow man.

Give it a rest, fella. Starting to make yourself look and sound like a certain other Forum Troll who is never wrong right now!

/yawn

this is something that always gets thrown in when reasoned argument is abandoned and abuse has is looking silly.

There is no way you can prove I am someone else and there is no way I can prove I am not.

We actually agree on something Dave. Abuse and condescending statements get thrown around when a reasoned argument is abandoned/lost. Try looking back on this thread. Almost from the begining, these were the tactics you adopted, and for most of your posts thereafter. Strange that everything you accuse us of doing is exactly the same as you have already done tenfold. A bit like the pot calling................

I have always answered the post I have responded to.

The only posts I have made that were abusive have been either in response to abuse or where the response have be absurd.

Can you say the same Steve?

In fact I have been the only person contributing over the last 2-3 pages the rest have been just trying to discredit me.

Don't think anyone really needed to try and discredit you Dave. You needed no help at all in that department.

so your saying the polls were accurate but opinion then changed ….so ,if your many copy and paste polls do happen to be correct ,the chances are they would no longer be if there was another vote and campaigns..
isnt that the exact opposite of everything you have previously argued..?

Polling Myths

The Janet and John version......

An opinion poll is a snapshot of public opinion over short a period of time (1-2 days). It is based on a sample usually about 1000 people who are picked to represent the country as a whole in terms of demographics (sex; social class; previous voting; newspapers read etc)

A poll is typical accurate within the margin of Error +-3% dependent on sample size. Although you will get rogue polls or outliers which can be wildly off but are rare.

In answer to your question they are a snapshot of opinion at a moment in time. Opinions are fluid.

If you still don't understand then get someone else to explain it to you.

well ive asked you...and you have not answered .
i am aware what a poll is...and so is everyone else without having to consult and have their minds blown away by the Wikipedia explanation.
i am aware of the claim about the 3% which of late is a false claim...bit shocked that anyone still uses the 3% ,not sure the polling companies claim this at the moment..
and yes i am aware opoinions are fluid...its you that struggle with the last one because you keep posting opinion polls of a non existent election that nobody is actually campaigning on as if Moses has written a result for this fictional election in stone..all while being fully aware that opinions change during campaigns { tad contradictory ? }.that is what I would like explained and its a bit pointless asking anyone else on here because they have brains that work normally.
the more i read your posts the more i am thinking wind up.
way to stupid to be roath tbh..maybe that fella that miss spelled thicker when he joined up though...

Aw Dave, don’t be like that. It became apparent, that after 11+ years of free education(at great cost to the taxpayer), something was wrong. You’re now aware, and that’s the greatest contribution a citizen can make to his fellow man.

What are you saying here?

Education should not be free?
The taxpayer (ie everyone) should not pay for education?
What am I aware of?
British people should not be subjects but should be citizens instead?

There are a lot of words here but they do not make any sense. This is not me being nasty - it is incoherent.

well ive asked you...and you have not answered.

In answer to your question they are a snapshot of opinion at a moment in time. Opinions are fluid.

It tried to make it easy for you by starting with the words "In answer to your question"

i am aware what a poll is...and so is everyone else without having to consult and have their minds blown away by the Wikipedia explanation.
i am aware of the claim about the 3% which of late is a false claim...bit shocked that anyone still uses the 3% ,not sure the polling companies claim this at the moment..

3% is based on mathematical distributions and statistics dependent on sample size - how can you be possibly be shocked that fundamental mathematics hasn't changed ???????

You really don't have a clue do you?

and yes i am aware opoinions are fluid...its you that struggle with the last one because you keep posting opinion polls of a non existent election that nobody is actually campaigning on as if Moses has written a result for this fictional election in stone..all while being fully aware that opinions change during campaigns { tad contradictory ? }.that is what I would like explained and its a bit pointless asking anyone else on here because they have brains that work normally.
the more i read your posts the more i am thinking wind up.
way to stupid to be roath tbh..maybe that fella that miss spelled thicker when he joined up though...

incoherent abuse

Here we are Dave. A bit of copying and pasting for you. Just a snip of something from The Guardian. An explanation as to why it may not be a good idea to keep quoting polls, and their accuracy percentage. Although I have no looks on The Guardian, all this article does is to give a reason why these polls you keep mentioning should not be taken too seriously. A point a few of us have been trying to get across to you with little success. Try and remember, the figures quoted here are facts, these polls have already taken place and the results known. They are not current polls with forecasts that could be just as far out as the ones mentioned here. You can try and dispute these figures if you wish, but that would be the same as arguing tomorrow is not xmas day.



"There’s one dread descant to this shambles. The exit poll was good enough, but what about the opinion polls that preceded it? Another general disaster. And a disaster of particular resonance because these polls shape coverage of election campaigns. They seem to tell journalists and sundry experts what’s happening. But what if it isn’t, just as in 2010, 2015, 2016? Then the whole story is wrong.

It was wrong seven years ago when poll after poll overestimated a Lib Dem surge – 33% of the total vote at one moment – and saw “Cleggmania” slide to fewer seats and a smaller share than 2005 on the night.

It was wrong two years ago when the BBC’s David Cowling monitored 92 polls over the six weeks of the campaign. Some 46 of them suggested Labour leads. “None of the 92 accurately predicted the 7% lead the Conservatives would actually achieve.” The British Polling Council launched an investigation-cum-inquest.

It was wrong last year at referendum crunch time. The last two polls before the count showed Britain remaining by 55% to 45% and 48% to 42%. No wonder Nigel Farage went to bed glum and woke up happy. It was wrong again on Thursday. Some of the polls on 7 June delivered Tory leads of seven points, 10 points, 12 points and 13 points. No wonder David Dimbleby’s jaw dropped when he opened the exit report.

And see how the polls seem to underpin decisions as well as headlines. Would David Cameron have promised a European referendum if he hadn’t thought another Lib Dem coalition, ruling it out, was on the cards? Would Theresa May – wallowing in 23% polling leads in April – have walked the 8 June plank? Would her manifesto have included threats to pension increases, winter fuel allowances and the rest if she hadn’t thought a few lost pensioners were dispensable?

What if those two polls with 12- and 13-point leads had turned out to be right? Then that would reflect their own properly scientific samples, duly massaged, yet the story itself would have been completely different. And thus the same question may be asked about poll results weeks or months before an election, the findings that influence policy packages. Why should they be any more solid?

There must be a better media way. No more Dimbleby jaws dropping on the night. It won’t come from canvassers on the doorsteps: they were as wrong as the pollsters. It has to come by stepping back, clearing minds, realising regional differences and finding the story for ourselves: with any phone to a pollster firmly switched off".

well ive asked you...and you have not answered.

In answer to your question they are a snapshot of opinion at a moment in time. Opinions are fluid.

It tried to make it easy for you by starting with the words "In answer to your question"

i am aware what a poll is...and so is everyone else without having to consult and have their minds blown away by the Wikipedia explanation.
i am aware of the claim about the 3% which of late is a false claim...bit shocked that anyone still uses the 3% ,not sure the polling companies claim this at the moment..

3% is based on mathematical distributions and statistics dependent on sample size - how can you be possibly be shocked that fundamental mathematics hasn't changed ???????

You really don't have a clue do you?

and yes i am aware opoinions are fluid...its you that struggle with the last one because you keep posting opinion polls of a non existent election that nobody is actually campaigning on as if Moses has written a result for this fictional election in stone..all while being fully aware that opinions change during campaigns { tad contradictory ? }.that is what I would like explained and its a bit pointless asking anyone else on here because they have brains that work normally.
the more i read your posts the more i am thinking wind up.
way to stupid to be roath tbh..maybe that fella that miss spelled thicker when he joined up though...

incoherent abuse

accuracy of polls has nothing to do with mathematics mate ,it has everything to do with being told the truth by those polled and actually getting the sample correct. your average 10 year old knows this...ask a 100 people with remain placards outside number10 and you get a 100% remain vote with 0% fluctuation....the 3% is just a gauge based on how accurate polls USED to be..if you run a million polls and they are all accurate to 4%..4% then becomes the figure.. is there no end to what you are extremely poor at..?

well ive asked you...and you have not answered.

In answer to your question they are a snapshot of opinion at a moment in time. Opinions are fluid.

It tried to make it easy for you by starting with the words "In answer to your question"

i am aware what a poll is...and so is everyone else without having to consult and have their minds blown away by the Wikipedia explanation.
i am aware of the claim about the 3% which of late is a false claim...bit shocked that anyone still uses the 3% ,not sure the polling companies claim this at the moment..

3% is based on mathematical distributions and statistics dependent on sample size - how can you be possibly be shocked that fundamental mathematics hasn't changed ???????

You really don't have a clue do you?

and yes i am aware opoinions are fluid...its you that struggle with the last one because you keep posting opinion polls of a non existent election that nobody is actually campaigning on as if Moses has written a result for this fictional election in stone..all while being fully aware that opinions change during campaigns { tad contradictory ? }.that is what I would like explained and its a bit pointless asking anyone else on here because they have brains that work normally.
the more i read your posts the more i am thinking wind up.
way to stupid to be roath tbh..maybe that fella that miss spelled thicker when he joined up though...

incoherent abuse

I doubt you will ever convince anyone that you are remotely intelligent let alone to change their opinion on this..
but eh oh merry xmas Dave and Wish your groupie fan boy merry xmas from me too..

Give it a rest, fella. Starting to make yourself look and sound like a certain other Forum Troll who is never wrong right now!

/yawn

this is something that always gets thrown in when reasoned argument is abandoned and abuse has is looking silly.

There is no way you can prove I am someone else and there is no way I can prove I am not.

Is it rollocks!

I only stated you were 'like' another poster and not that you were him. As much as I hate to say it, he has a little more about him than you when he needs to but the resorting to personal abuse/comments when cornered are similar!

Not necessarily aimed at you but that ability to remain 'anonymous' is one of the main reasons some say a lot of what they do, fella. No real recourse for their bile and/or constant abuse of others #sadmanonacomputer

I'd like to think most are better than to constantly abuse; but clearly with some, including you it appears, that isn't the case!

Your opinions are welcome on here but you need to accept some will disagree and respond in like tone

The last post from Steve Zodiak (above) says it all for me, so I (genuinely) wish you a Merry Christmas and hope you can come back refreshed and with a different attitude towards your responses!

The EU is totally corrupt. Mid 70s campaigned agInst joining it.
Massive rips offs have been made in the EU. Understand that.
We hold our own government to account with difficulty.
Beyond that is very different. EU will be impossible.
[url][/url]

I only stated you were 'like' another poster and not that you were him.

Yes and you have done the same before

Hello yet-another-multi-dave.

__allo_dave___by_xanthine.jpg

11

Paul, there's a familiar tone/style to the writing!

I was merely pointing out that it occurs when any pretense at reasoned argument has been replaced by abuse and when the abuse is also lost you come in with the "Roathie" line.

As much as I hate to say it, he has a little more about him than you when he needs to but the resorting to personal abuse/comments when cornered are similar!

As much as I hate to say it, I have no idea who you are talking about. Given this, you can guess how much I care about your opinion of our relative merits.

Not necessarily aimed at you but that ability to remain 'anonymous' is one of the main reasons some say a lot of what they do, fella. No real recourse for their bile and/or constant abuse of others #sadmanonacomputer

I have no idea what you are saying here.

I'd like to think most are better than to constantly abuse; but clearly with some, including you it appears, that isn't the case!

I treat as I find - when people lie I call them liars - when people show the intellectual ability of a doughnut I call them dogfound. I am very rarely the first to resort to abuse, but will not be slow to respond in kind.
I think you will find I have contributed more to this thread than anyone else.

Your opinions are welcome on here but you need to accept some will disagree and respond in like tone

If people agreed with me then there would be little point in contributing to the thread.

The reason I contribute is because I see a lot of right wing propaganda being pedaled here without being questioned.

From glorifying football hooliganism, to Tommy Robinson/EDL/FLA, to UKIP/Brexit zenophobia - some of it is legitimate some of it is illegal - all of it should be questioned - this is one of the main Cardiff City Football Club forums and as such will attract young impressionable kids - it is only right that some of the wilder Political Views pedaled on here are held up to scrutiny.

The last post from Steve Zodiak (above) says it all for me, so I (genuinely) wish you a Merry Christmas and hope you can come back refreshed and with a different attitude towards your responses!

Take a look at the thread again and ask yourself - Am I being impartial?

The Guardian

Odd you should quote it all except this line....

There are arguments about snapshots not being predictions, to be sure. Duly registered.

That is why I post a link - I don't feel the need to deceive people.

accuracy of polls has nothing to do with mathematics mate ,

are you sure?

is there no end to what you are extremely poor at..?

I am extremely poor at treating dimwits with respect as you may have found out?

The Guardian

Odd you should quote it all except this line....

There are arguments about snapshots not being predictions, to be sure. Duly registered.

That is why I post a link - I don't feel the need to deceive people.

Making yourself look stupid again Dave. I think everyone knows The Guardian is about as anti-Brexit as you can get. As I suspected, only you can disagree with factual information. I deliberately chose a Guardian report as I know they are pro-Europe, and I thought even an idiot could not dispute that article. Incidentally, you may have noticed that it was a not a debate about the pros and cons of the EU. It was factual information regarding recent polls. Don't forget Dave, this is something that you seem to place a lot of of importance on, you have copied and pasted plenty of details and used polls as if they are accurate. Are you now saying the facts I posted were incorrect, lies and possibly made up by me, and were not copied and pasted from The Guardian. Are you saying these comments are mine. If you are, I will be happy to point you in the right direction, so you can see it for yourself. I can assure you Dave, this is not an opinion from myself, this is copied and pasted, something you know a great deal about. Keep it up Dave, as impossible as it seems, you seem to look more ridiculous each time you post.

The Guardian

Odd you should quote it all except this line....

There are arguments about snapshots not being predictions, to be sure. Duly registered.

That is why I post a link - I don't feel the need to deceive people.

Tried toDecieve people by trying to say may was elected prime minister by only 38k people or there abouts? she wasnt even leader of conservatives at the time... you only use wiki or Google to give the answers which we all know are 100% accurate! So you must be always right..

The Guardian

Odd you should quote it all except this line....

There are arguments about snapshots not being predictions, to be sure. Duly registered.

That is why I post a link - I don't feel the need to deceive people.

Here we are Dave. The complete article, which shows who is trying to deceive people. As anyone with half a brain can see, that was not the only line I left out. I left other parts out as well, trying not to bore everyone I tried to keep to the factual percentages. Funnily enough it is your line that has an important part left out ie "Countless snapshots make the whole picture and that picture keeps falling off the wall". So who has deceived people Dave? I would say you have, by claiming that I had left just one line out, and then you chose to leave the most important part of that line out completely. I am sure most people will fall asleep before they get to the end of the complete article, but here it is anyway just so that everyone can see that you are lying.

There’s one dread descant to this shambles. The exit poll was good enough, but what about the opinion polls that preceded it? Another general disaster. And a disaster of particular resonance because these polls shape coverage of election campaigns. They seem to tell journalists and sundry experts what’s happening. But what if it isn’t, just as in 2010, 2015, 2016? Then the whole story is wrong.

It was wrong seven years ago when poll after poll overestimated a Lib Dem surge – 33% of the total vote at one moment – and saw “Cleggmania” slide to fewer seats and a smaller share than 2005 on the night.

It was wrong two years ago when the BBC’s David Cowling monitored 92 polls over the six weeks of the campaign. Some 46 of them suggested Labour leads. “None of the 92 accurately predicted the 7% lead the Conservatives would actually achieve.” The British Polling Council launched an investigation-cum-inquest.


Sign up to the Media Briefing: news for the news-makers
Read more
It was wrong last year at referendum crunch time. The last two polls before the count showed Britain remaining by 55% to 45% and 48% to 42%. No wonder Nigel Farage went to bed glum and woke up happy. It was wrong again on Thursday. Some of the polls on 7 June delivered Tory leads of seven points, 10 points, 12 points and 13 points. No wonder David Dimbleby’s jaw dropped when he opened the exit report.

And see how the polls seem to underpin decisions as well as headlines. Would David Cameron have promised a European referendum if he hadn’t thought another Lib Dem coalition, ruling it out, was on the cards? Would Theresa May – wallowing in 23% polling leads in April – have walked the 8 June plank? Would her manifesto have included threats to pension increases, winter fuel allowances and the rest if she hadn’t thought a few lost pensioners were dispensable?

Of course, one or two pollsters did better this time round. Survation and new-method YouGov may take a bow. But foraging for truth in a world where only an overall average of all the polls seems safe is a mug’s game.

There are explanations on offer. There always are. We’ve had “shy Tories”, very late swings, computer voting versus the telephone call. Now we’ve got likelihood of young people turning up at the polling booth. But the underlying problem is that something is always wrong – or wrong enough to affect perceptions and decisions.

What if those two polls with 12- and 13-point leads had turned out to be right? Then that would reflect their own properly scientific samples, duly massaged, yet the story itself would have been completely different. And thus the same question may be asked about poll results weeks or months before an election, the findings that influence policy packages. Why should they be any more solid?

There are arguments about snapshots not being predictions, to be sure. Duly registered. But countless snapshots make the whole picture, and that picture keeps falling off the wall.

There must be a better media way. No more Dimbleby jaws dropping on the night. It won’t come from canvassers on the doorsteps: they were as wrong as the pollsters. It has to come by stepping back, clearing minds, realising regional differences and finding the story for ourselves: with any phone to a pollster firmly switched off.

Making yourself look stupid again Dave.

Steve you were caught red handed.

Own up!

Tried toDecieve people by trying to say may was elected prime minister by only 38k people or there abouts? she wasnt even leader of conservatives at the time...

Is that really how you comprehended the point being made or are you trying to misrepresent it?

If it is the former then you may want to go back and re-read it.

If it is the later then you are not very good at lieing

Making yourself look stupid again Dave.

Steve you were caught red handed.

Own up!

You really can't help yourself can you Dave. I have just pasted the entire article above so that everyone can see you are talking utter nonsense. Or are you still disputing that I left just one sentence out, and that you conveniently forgot to include the most important part of that sentence. Ironic really, that the bit you have accused me of leaving out would only have backed my point up even more ie. polls are no longer accurate. I suppose you are probably banking on people not reading all that article and seeing that you blatantly lied, but I guess that the others on here who have tried to get you to see sense, will read it and see exactly what you did.

Strange thing is Dave, all we are trying to explain is that you cannot place as much importance on polls as you seem to think. The possibilities regarding a further referendum are that they are spot on, they may have underestimated the "leave"
voters, or they may have underestimated how far ahead the remain campaign is. Nobody seems to be able to get you to accept that these polls have been way out at times recently, and the odd thing is that you are unable to accept previous results, never mind what may happen in the future.

You really can't help yourself can you Dave. I have just pasted the entire article above so that everyone can see you are talking utter nonsense.

I had already posted the link.

It showed you deliberately edited out the balancing part of the article.

Now Own up!

You really can't help yourself can you Dave. I have just pasted the entire article above so that everyone can see you are talking utter nonsense.

I had already posted the link.

It showed you deliberately edited out the balancing part of the article.

Now Own up!

Dave, are you really that dense? Why would I deliberately edit out a sentence that further backs up my argument. Here is the part in full Dave, not the one edited by yourself. "There are arguments about snapshots not being predictions, to be sure. Duly registered. But countless snapshots make the whole picture, and that picture keeps falling off the wall". Copied fro a pro EU newspaper from an article showing why polls can no longer be relied on. Would have made sense to leave everything in, as the entire article is all about polls being an unreliable source of information, and there is nothing in that article other than having a general dig at recent polls. If you can't see that Dave, there really is no hope for you. Ps. I know you posted the link, I made sure it was copied and pasted so that the proof of your lies are there for everyone to see. Had you been honest, the last thing I would have done is to reproduce the entire article.

The last post from Steve Zodiak (above) says it all for me

as you are a fan then here is a selection from Steve Zodiak's last three posts...

Dave, are you really that dense?

If you can't see that Dave, there really is no hope for you.

and seeing that you blatantly lied

you are talking utter nonsense

As anyone with half a brain can see

these say it all for me.

Dave, are you really that dense? Why would I deliberately edit out a sentence that further backs up my argument. Here is the part in full Dave, not the one edited by yourself. "There are arguments about snapshots not being predictions, to be sure. Duly registered. But countless snapshots make the whole picture, and that picture keeps falling off the wall". Copied fro a pro EU newspaper from an article showing why polls can no longer be relied on. Would have made sense to leave everything in, as the entire article is all about polls being an unreliable source of information, and there is nothing in that article other than having a general dig at recent polls. If you can't see that Dave, there really is no hope for you. Ps. I know you posted the link, I made sure it was copied and pasted so that the proof of your lies are there for everyone to see. Had you been honest, the last thing I would have done is to reproduce the entire article.

Steve you were caught with your hand in the till and you don't have the decency to admit it.

By the way this is an opinion piece by a Peter Preston lamenting that the polls got it wrong. If you want to post facts then posts facts - do not copy other people's opinions.

In the line that you "omitted" and which was accepted by the author, it was stated that polls are snapshots of opinion at a moment in time and not predictions of the final result. This has the crux of my point that you have been refusing to accept.

Polls taken before and after your misrepresentation of the article would have have seen your honesty rating drop hugely over a very short period of time.

Although after you misrepresentation of the voodoo Facebook poll perhaps it was not very high to begin with?

The last post from Steve Zodiak (above) says it all for me

as you are a fan then here is a selection from Steve Zodiak's last three posts...

Dave, are you really that dense?

If you can't see that Dave, there really is no hope for you.

and seeing that you blatantly lied

you are talking utter nonsense

As anyone with half a brain can see

these say it all for me.

Try coming out with some facts that have been disputed by you Dave. Obviously you can't because you lost the argument so now wish to change the subject. I will ask you once more. Why would I deliberately leave out a section of the article to mislead people when all it does is back up my point of view. Why did you deliberately omit the end of that little piece to make it look as if it was a remark that would not back up my point of view. Finally, was there anything in that article that went against what I was saying, and would have backed up some of your points. There was no deliberate editing of that article to suit me, because the entire article (it's there for everyone to see) is all about why polls cannot be trusted.
The only way you are going to succeed in saying I am not telling the truth here, is to claim that article is a figment of my imagination and never appeared in The Guardian. Once again Dave, nothing here is an opinion expressed by me, it is an exact copy of an article from another source. If there are lies in there, they are not mine.

Dave, are you really that dense? Why would I deliberately edit out a sentence that further backs up my argument. Here is the part in full Dave, not the one edited by yourself. "There are arguments about snapshots not being predictions, to be sure. Duly registered. But countless snapshots make the whole picture, and that picture keeps falling off the wall". Copied fro a pro EU newspaper from an article showing why polls can no longer be relied on. Would have made sense to leave everything in, as the entire article is all about polls being an unreliable source of information, and there is nothing in that article other than having a general dig at recent polls. If you can't see that Dave, there really is no hope for you. Ps. I know you posted the link, I made sure it was copied and pasted so that the proof of your lies are there for everyone to see. Had you been honest, the last thing I would have done is to reproduce the entire article.

Steve you were caught with your hand in the till and you don't have the decency to admit it.

By the way this is an opinion piece by a Peter Preston lamenting that the polls got it wrong. If you want to post facts then posts facts - do not copy other people's opinions.

In the line that you "omitted" and which was accepted by the author, it was stated that polls are snapshots of opinion at a moment in time and not predictions of the final result. This has the crux of my point that you have been refusing to accept.

Polls taken before and after your misrepresentation of the article would have have seen your honesty rating drop hugely over a very short period of time.

Although after you misrepresentation of the voodoo Facebook poll perhaps it was not very high to begin with?

Dave, so are you now claiming that the opinion polls did not give the "remain" campaign a healthy lead right up until the referendum. We are not talking exit polls here Dave, we are talking opinion polls which is something you have been talking about throughout the thread. Are you saying that the 10 point lead one poll gave to "remain"is the writer's personal opinion, and that the other polls are just Preston's views rather than facts. These polls gave "remain" as a done deal, and I well remember Farage giving up on his dream of leaving the EU. If you are disputing what we know now to be facts, and the fact that the result did not go the way of all the projections, you really will have lost all credibility.