Peoples Vote/Second Referendum?

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.

Sadly, your last response to me and the one (of many) above since only serve to confirm my previous suspicions and I'm intrigued to know when I've called you (in this name at least) 'Roathy', as it simply hasn't occurred

The quotes above from Steve Zodiak are only in response to the garb that you peddle as fact and you've managed to hi-jack a whole thread and made it about yourself and only your opinions counting...again!

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.

Sadly, your last response to me and the one (of many) above since only serve to confirm my previous suspicions and I'm intrigued to know when I've called you (in this name at least) 'Roathy', as it simply hasn't occurred

The quotes above from Steve Zodiak are only in response to the garb that you peddle as fact and you've managed to hi-jack a whole thread and made it about yourself and only your opinions counting...again!

Is it Roathy Sven? It has all the hallmarks of his type of argument. Obviously posting nonsense but refusing to even acknowledge what he has said himself, and now posting such ridiculous comments that even he can't seriously believe them.

Dave, so are you now claiming that the opinion polls did not give the "remain" campaign a healthy lead right up until the referendum.

Yes, I am claiming that

To back it up with facts

Source: The Financial Times

Of the 29 polls carried out in June 2016

13 Showed Remain ahead
15 Showed Leave ahead
1 showed a Tie

24 of these polls were withing the Margin of Error +-3%

The polls showed anything up to 16% of the samples had not decided how to vote at the time they were asked.

The final result was 51.2% to 48.1%

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.

Sadly, your last response to me and the one (of many) above since only serve to confirm my previous suspicions and I'm intrigued to know when I've called you (in this name at least) 'Roathy', as it simply hasn't occurred

The quotes above from Steve Zodiak are only in response to the garb that you peddle as fact and you've managed to hi-jack a whole thread and made it about yourself and only your opinions counting...again!

Is it Roathy Sven? It has all the hallmarks of his type of argument. Obviously posting nonsense but refusing to even acknowledge what he has said himself, and now posting such ridiculous comments that even he can't seriously believe them.

I have to admit I don't think so, Steve. This character is more akin to the self-indulgent ramblings of a certain former failed councillor who might have moved to Spain...

I have to admit I don't think so, Steve. This character is more akin to the self-indulgent ramblings of a certain former failed councillor who might have moved to Spain...

Sounds about right - I called you out on misrepresentation - I called you out on Brexit Polling - now back to is it "Roathie"?

When all else fails - play the man.

Dave, so are you now claiming that the opinion polls did not give the "remain" campaign a healthy lead right up until the referendum.

Yes, I am claiming that

To back it up with facts

Source: The Financial Times

Of the 29 polls carried out in June 2016

13 Showed Remain ahead
15 Showed Leave ahead
1 showed a Tie

24 of these polls were withing the Margin of Error +-3%

The polls showed anything up to 16% of the samples had not decided how to vote at the time they were asked.

The final result was 51.2% to 48.1%

Well here's another bunch for you Dave, including YouGov who I think you quoted earlier somwhere in this drawn out debate. 9 different polls, 6 showing "remain" ahead.


Populus 21-22 June Internet 45 55 +7
Ipsos MORI 21-22 June Phone 48 52 +4
Opinium 20-22 June Internet 51 49 +1
YouGov* 20-22 June Internet 49 51 +3
ComRes 17-22 June Phone 47 53 +5
TNS 16-22 June Internet 51 49 +1
Survation 20 June Phone 49 51 +3
ORB 14-19 June Phone 46 54 +6
ICM 10-13 June Both 53 47 -1

Going back to my previous question where you accused me of trying to deceive people by editing a post, you still have not given me a hint as to why I would edit out a section which only further backed up my point of view, and completely went against your opinion. You have not yet said why you chose to leave out a part of that article to make it look as if it went against my argument, when in fact the complete opposite was true.

I guess you will ignore these points, because they are on here for all to see, and can no longer be doctored or removed. I will leave you to your own little fantasy world now, because it is becoming obvious that this is a wind up and even you cannot believe half the stuff you are coming out with.

I have to admit I don't think so, Steve. This character is more akin to the self-indulgent ramblings of a certain former failed councillor who might have moved to Spain...

Sounds about right - I called you out on misrepresentation - I called you out on Brexit Polling - now back to is it "Roathie"?

When all else fails - play the man.

Read the post properly and without presumption, fella!

You haven't 'called me out' on anything and I haven't misrepresented anything...

You really need to stop listening to the voices in your head!

Read the post properly and without presumption, fella!
You haven't 'called me out' on anything and I haven't misrepresented anything...
You really need to stop listening to the voices in your head!

My apologies, I used you in the plural (meaning both of you)

If you wish to distance yourself from his

Misrepresenting a newspaper article
Misrepresenting Brexit polling

please feel free to do so and I will not include you in the collective "you".

Read the post properly and without presumption, fella!
You haven't 'called me out' on anything and I haven't misrepresented anything...
You really need to stop listening to the voices in your head!

My apologies, I used you in the plural (meaning both of you)

If you wish to distance yourself from his

Misrepresenting a newspaper article
Misrepresenting Brexit polling

please feel free to do so and I will not include you in the collective "you".

I accept your contrite apology

For the record, I don't need/wish to distance myself from anything that I haven't stated myself

Populus 21-22 June Internet 45 55 +7
Ipsos MORI 21-22 June Phone 48 52 +4
Opinium 20-22 June Internet 51 49 +1
YouGov* 20-22 June Internet 49 51 +3
ComRes 17-22 June Phone 47 53 +5
TNS 16-22 June Internet 51 49 +1
Survation 20 June Phone 49 51 +3
ORB 14-19 June Phone 46 54 +6
ICM 10-13 June Both 53 47 -1

You do know that all your polls are on the FT list and all you have done is left out the ones you do not like?

This is why I quote sources like the FT

The FT will give you a full list and let you make your own mind up.
Steve Zodiac will pick and choose the bits he likes and hide the rest from you.

This may pass for evidence to you - it is misrepresentation to me and indeed most people.

you still have not given me a hint as to why I would edit out a section which only further backed up my point of view

The bit you censored said that polls are not predictions they are snapshots. How you can possibly think this supports your case is beyond me.

Why you would edit it? is a question only you can answer - If I were being unkind I would say it is because you lost the argument and were desperately try to save face by cooking evidence to support your case.

A view further enhanced by you selective listing of polls.

Populus 21-22 June Internet 45 55 +7
Ipsos MORI 21-22 June Phone 48 52 +4
Opinium 20-22 June Internet 51 49 +1
YouGov* 20-22 June Internet 49 51 +3
ComRes 17-22 June Phone 47 53 +5
TNS 16-22 June Internet 51 49 +1
Survation 20 June Phone 49 51 +3
ORB 14-19 June Phone 46 54 +6
ICM 10-13 June Both 53 47 -1

You do know that all your polls are on the FT list and all you have done is left out the ones you do not like?

This is why I quote sources like the FT

The FT will give you a full list and let you make your own mind up.
Steve Zodiac will pick and choose the bits he likes and hide the rest from you.

This may pass for evidence to you - it is misrepresentation to me and indeed most people.

you still have not given me a hint as to why I would edit out a section which only further backed up my point of view

The bit you censored said that polls are not predictions they are snapshots. How you can possibly think this supports your case is beyond me.

Why you would edit it? is a question only you can answer - If I were being unkind I would say it is because you lost the argument and were desperately try to save face by cooking evidence to support your case.

A view further enhanced by you selective listing of polls.

I did'nt edit it though did I Dave. You did. would you like me to post the complete section again for you so that you can read it. Here it is Dave..

"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".

As I said, trying to explain why recent polls have been wrong. But if you conveniently leave out the bit about the picture keeps falling off the wall, you give it an entirely different meaning. I wonder who left that bit out Dave, instead of posting the article as it was meant to be read.

With regards to your first statement about leaving out the polls , do you want me give you a link to this article. It was copied and pasted exactly as written Dave. If I wanted to pick and chose, I would not have included the three that went against my point of view.

As I said, it's all on this post to be seen. I have posted the Guardian article in it's entirety Dave, the only person editing for their own benefit is you. Why did you omit some of that paragraph Dave? was it because it completely defeats your argument?

PS. Why have the British Polling Council spent so much time and money on holding inquiries into what went wrong with their predictions. If only they had known Dave 67 says they were right, the BPC could have saved themselves a lot of time and effort. I can copy and paste details of their findings etc., if you want.

I did'nt edit it though did I Dave. You did. would you like me to post the complete section again for you so that you can read it. Here it is Dave..

"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".

What part of you "removed it from the original article" are you have trouble with?

You were caught red handed now Own up!

With regards to your first statement about leaving out the polls , do you want me give you a link to this article. It was copied and pasted exactly as written Dave. If I wanted to pick and chose, I would not have included the three that went against my point of view.

There were 29 polls in June 2016 - 15xLeave 13xRemain 1xTie.

Out of the 29 polls you picked 9 of them - 3xLeave 6xRemain and claimed all the polls were way off.

That is just dishonest.

The FT published a Poll of Polls on the 23rd June 2016 which had Remain on 48% and Leave on 46%. We now know that the final result was 52% Leave 48% Remain. A quick analyst is Remain's vote flat lined but Leave gained an expressive 6% to win the referendum.

So similar to the reluctance to admit to voting Tory phenomenon which undone many of the recent General Elections predictions, there is a similar thing going on with Leave voters meaning that their Polling could be up to 6% larger than is being disclosed to the Pollsters.

There were 29 polls in June 2016 - 15xLeave 13xRemain 1xTie.

Out of the 29 polls you picked 9 of them - 3xLeave 6xRemain and claimed all the polls were way off.

That is just dishonest.

And the FT Poll of Polls had Remain 48% Leave 46% on the 23rd May 2016

I did'nt edit it though did I Dave. You did. would you like me to post the complete section again for you so that you can read it. Here it is Dave..

"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".

What part of you "removed it from the original article" are you have trouble with?

You were caught red handed now Own up!

With regards to your first statement about leaving out the polls , do you want me give you a link to this article. It was copied and pasted exactly as written Dave. If I wanted to pick and chose, I would not have included the three that went against my point of view.

There were 29 polls in June 2016 - 15xLeave 13xRemain 1xTie.

Out of the 29 polls you picked 9 of them - 3xLeave 6xRemain and claimed all the polls were way off.

That is just dishonest.

Answer the questions Dave. Is the article you say I edited posted on here in it's entirety? Did I leave just one sentence out of the original post as you claimed, or were you lying? Is there anything in that article that disputes a word of what I am trying to get you to understand? Did you leave something out of that article to make sure that it read the opposite of what it would have, had you not conveniently omitted the final sentence. I'll give you a clue here Dave, the answers can all be found in previous posts.
I will ask you again. Do you want me to give you the link to the article about polls I quoted so that you can see I did not select anything from that list. I have copied and pasted it in full.
Are you disputing that the NPC have not carried out investigations as to why polling was so far out in all our recent elections/referendum? If you are not disputing that these inquiries have been held, can you tell us why they were held as according to you there should have been no need for them.
Can you also tell us why when you copy and paste an article it must be fact, whereas someone else does the same thing and it suddenly becomes just the opinion of that particular reporter.
Have you noticed when you look back over your posts here, nobody agrees with you, and that you have argued with anyone who responds to your comments. Obviously, we are all wrong, the NPC must have been wrong and subsequently wasted time and money, and authors of various reports are wrong unless they are reports that you have copied and pasted.
I am not wasting any more time with you Dave, I think everyone can see that you are unable to tell the truth. Just try answering the two simple questions regarding your earlier lies regarding me leaving one sentence out of the report, when as you very well know I left more than that out, and the little piece you conveniently edited from that paragraph to make something read the complete opposite to the way it was meant to read.

his argument now seems to be that the opinion polls were correct prior to the vote, so therefore the latest are probably correct too..?

wind up

Answer the questions Dave. Is the article you say I edited posted on here in it's entirety? Did I leave just one sentence out of the original post as you claimed, or were you lying? Is there anything in that article that disputes a word of what I am trying to get you to understand? Did you leave something out of that article to make sure that it read the opposite of what it would have, had you not conveniently omitted the final sentence. I'll give you a clue here Dave, the answers can all be found in previous posts.
I will ask you again. Do you want me to give you the link to the article about polls I quoted so that you can see I did not select anything from that list. I have copied and pasted it in full.
Are you disputing that the NPC have not carried out investigations as to why polling was so far out in all our recent elections/referendum? If you are not disputing that these inquiries have been held, can you tell us why they were held as according to you there should have been no need for them.
Can you also tell us why when you copy and paste an article it must be fact, whereas someone else does the same thing and it suddenly becomes just the opinion of that particular reporter.
Have you noticed when you look back over your posts here, nobody agrees with you, and that you have argued with anyone who responds to your comments. Obviously, we are all wrong, the NPC must have been wrong and subsequently wasted time and money, and authors of various reports are wrong unless they are reports that you have copied and pasted.
I am not wasting any more time with you Dave, I think everyone can see that you are unable to tell the truth. Just try answering the two simple questions regarding your earlier lies regarding me leaving one sentence out of the report, when as you very well know I left more than that out, and the little piece you conveniently edited from that paragraph to make something read the complete opposite to the way it was meant to read.

This is just a lot of words repeating what you have said before - I have answered your questions several times - Just scroll up.

I see no admission here that you were wrong never-mind an admission of dishonesty.

Answer the questions Dave. Is the article you say I edited posted on here in it's entirety? Did I leave just one sentence out of the original post as you claimed, or were you lying? Is there anything in that article that disputes a word of what I am trying to get you to understand? Did you leave something out of that article to make sure that it read the opposite of what it would have, had you not conveniently omitted the final sentence. I'll give you a clue here Dave, the answers can all be found in previous posts.
I will ask you again. Do you want me to give you the link to the article about polls I quoted so that you can see I did not select anything from that list. I have copied and pasted it in full.
Are you disputing that the NPC have not carried out investigations as to why polling was so far out in all our recent elections/referendum? If you are not disputing that these inquiries have been held, can you tell us why they were held as according to you there should have been no need for them.
Can you also tell us why when you copy and paste an article it must be fact, whereas someone else does the same thing and it suddenly becomes just the opinion of that particular reporter.
Have you noticed when you look back over your posts here, nobody agrees with you, and that you have argued with anyone who responds to your comments. Obviously, we are all wrong, the NPC must have been wrong and subsequently wasted time and money, and authors of various reports are wrong unless they are reports that you have copied and pasted.
I am not wasting any more time with you Dave, I think everyone can see that you are unable to tell the truth. Just try answering the two simple questions regarding your earlier lies regarding me leaving one sentence out of the report, when as you very well know I left more than that out, and the little piece you conveniently edited from that paragraph to make something read the complete opposite to the way it was meant to read.

This is just a lot of words repeating what you have said before - I have answered your questions several times - Just scroll up.

I see no admission here that you were wrong never-mind an admission of dishonesty.

So you are not going to answer the questions then Dave. Only two, should be relatively easy.

1)Did you incorrectly say I had quoted everything from an article except for one line?
2) Did you then do exactly what you were accusing me of doing, and deliberately leave some of that "one line" out?

Not rocket science Dave, but to give you a clue the answers are below.

1)Odd you should quote it all except this line....
There are arguments about snapshots not being predictions, to be sure. Duly registered. -( Yes, that's your post Dave )

2)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.- (The actual phrase used in the article Dave, the one you somewhat conveniently only partially quoted).

See how leaving a few words out give a different meaning Dave. The same as saying "Brexit voters are insane, or some would try and have you believe." If you leave the "or some would try and have you believe" bit out, you change the viewpoint completely.

So, try again. Did I quote everything except that one line as you claimed? Did you forget to include everything that was in that one line? I've tried to help by including the answers, see if you can get it right this time.

Did you incorrectly say I had quoted everything from an article except for one line?

No, I correctly said that you omitted a line (actually it was a paragraph). That provided balance to the article you were quoting. I also provided a link to the article in question.

Having discovered your attempted deception, I did not forensically go through the article to discover every single attempt you made at doctoring it. The fact that you had changed it once was evidence enough that your quote and in indeed your word was not to be trusted.

2) Did you then do exactly what you were accusing me of doing, and deliberately leave some of that "one line" out?

You are asking me if I was being dishonest by not identifying the full extent of your dishonesty? Really?

The part you were obviously trying to hide, I quoted.

Now admit

1. You were wrong
2. You were trying to deceive

10 pages of a fella claiming black is white.

10 pages of a fella claiming black is white.

Yes nothing new on here when certain people return! Eventually someone will have enough sense to lock thread as it is no longer about op? But then it does have benefits for some.

Did you incorrectly say I had quoted everything from an article except for one line?

No, I correctly said that you omitted a line (actually it was a paragraph). That provided balance to the article you were quoting. I also provided a link to the article in question.

Having discovered your attempted deception, I did not forensically go through the article to discover every single attempt you made at doctoring it. The fact that you had changed it once was evidence enough that your quote and in indeed your word was not to be trusted.

2) Did you then do exactly what you were accusing me of doing, and deliberately leave some of that "one line" out?

You are asking me if I was being dishonest by not identifying the full extent of your dishonesty? Really?

The part you were obviously trying to hide, I quoted.

Now admit

1. You were wrong
2. You were trying to deceive

Dave, you are making yourself look very silly. The paragraph I left out -"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". Read it again, it is confirming my argument about polls being incorrect. Why would I try to hide something that backs up my argument? At least you have now admitted that you were wrong about about me quoting everything except one line by saying that you did not forensically go through the article, and therefore you obviously did not know that it had been shortened by more than the one line you claimed. Not stupidity then, just factually incorrect.
Just leaves that little matter of why you conveniently left some of that paragraph out Dave. Was it because it was backing up my argument, therefore meaning there was no benefit to me by leaving it out in the first place.
By the way, why did the NPC waste all that time and money looking into the poor performance of the polls if there was no need? I assume you forgot to answer that one. Why not just pick up the phone and give you a ring, you could have told them you were satisfied and saved them all that time and effort.

10 pages of a fella claiming black is white.

Yes nothing new on here when certain people return! Eventually someone will have enough sense to lock thread as it is no longer about op? But then it does have benefits for some.

Keeps me amused Alan. Nothing but repeats on the box, nothing to do until late afternoon so passes away a bit of time. I don't know who he is because I have been told it is not the usual culprit. I will leave him to it now. I can see nearly everyone else got bored of him a while back, and I probably should'nt have wasted so much time humoring him. I will do what nearly everyone else has done and ignore him. Perhaps he can find someone else to play with for a bit.

10 pages of a fella claiming black is white.

Yes nothing new on here when certain people return! Eventually someone will have enough sense to lock thread as it is no longer about op? But then it does have benefits for some.

Keeps me amused Alan. Nothing but repeats on the box, nothing to do until late afternoon so passes away a bit of time. I don't know who he is because I have been told it is not the usual culprit. I will leave him to it now. I can see nearly everyone else got bored of him a while back, and I probably should'nt have wasted so much time humoring him. I will do what nearly everyone else has done and ignore him. Perhaps he can find someone else to play with for a bit.

Bit sad I admit but other board users like me like this kind of debate. Keep it going Steve with no complaints from me

10 pages of a fella claiming black is white.

Yes nothing new on here when certain people return! Eventually someone will have enough sense to lock thread as it is no longer about op? But then it does have benefits for some.

Keeps me amused Alan. Nothing but repeats on the box, nothing to do until late afternoon so passes away a bit of time. I don't know who he is because I have been told it is not the usual culprit. I will leave him to it now. I can see nearly everyone else got bored of him a while back, and I probably should'nt have wasted so much time humoring him. I will do what nearly everyone else has done and ignore him. Perhaps he can find someone else to play with for a bit.

Yes understand that I put in a little bit every now and then! He's definitely been on before as past alias the MO is to similar to be coincidence either that or he's a copy cat ? Very rarely get someone who is never wrong no matter when he clearly is, uses Google & wiki as ahis fountain of knowledge also is a maths genius and sleeps with his laptop! This thread is now all about him and his ego this is

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

This is the point I have made several times throughout this thread - the author concedes it.

But countless snapshots make the whole picture, and that picture keeps falling off the wall".

The author goes on to say that the snapshots are wrong.
I have shown you the 29 snapshots - they show it was too close to call slightly favouring leave 15-13.
To be honest that is pretty damn close.

Why would I try to hide something that backs up my argument?

Try answering this point instead of asking it? Only you know why u did it.

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

This is the point I have made several times throughout this thread - the author concedes it.

But countless snapshots make the whole picture, and that picture keeps falling off the wall".

The author goes on to say that the snapshots are wrong.
I have shown you the 29 snapshots - they show it was too close to call slightly favouring leave 15-13.
To be honest that is pretty damn close.

Why would I try to hide something that backs up my argument?

Try answering this point instead of asking it? Only you know why u did it.

You're aware that members can only 'edit' their posts for a few moments after posting, do you?

Any other alterations would need to go via request to Mods/Admins and there are no records of that occurring (and I checked)

You're just going round in circles now and already spoiled another once argumentative but decent thread with your "I can't be wrong" and "I must have the last word" diatribe

Please give it a rest, go enjoy what's left of Christmas and have a Happy New Year!

I have shown you the 29 snapshots - they show it was too close to call slightly favouring leave 15-13.
To be honest that is pretty damn close.

But the average of those snapshots were 48-46% in Remain's favour just days before the referendum. The actual result was 52-48% in favour of Leave, meaning the Leave vote was under rated by 6%

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

This is the point I have made several times throughout this thread - the author concedes it.

But countless snapshots make the whole picture, and that picture keeps falling off the wall".

The author goes on to say that the snapshots are wrong.
I have shown you the 29 snapshots - they show it was too close to call slightly favouring leave 15-13.
To be honest that is pretty damn close.

Why would I try to hide something that backs up my argument?

Try answering this point instead of asking it? Only you know why u did it.

I will humor you one last time. Going back to the last point where I think you now concede that the paragraph (not the only one)left out only further backs up my point of view, how is that deceiving anyone or being dishonest. If I had omitted something because it contradicted my point of view, you would have a point. Claiming that this is being dishonest is the same as me borrowing a fiver off you, giving you back a tenner in error a week later, and you then telling everyone not to lend him cash as he will con you and not repay the correct amount borrowed. Not sure that you answered my question about the National Polling Council's inquiries as to where the polls went wrong, but perhaps I dreamt that up as apparently they were not wrong. If by any chance it was'nt a dream, why bother with investigating something that never happened, and why are they looking into making changes to the way future polls are conducted in an attempt to get an accurate forecast of the likely outcome of our voting intentions. Two more articles for you Dave, the first from this side of the pond, the second from the USA. If you still think the polls were accurate, there is nothing else to be done. It appears that everyone in this country and others accept that polls cannot be relied on, everyone apart from you that is.

1)It wasn’t just a bad night for Europhiles and David Cameron, but also for pollsters, who misread the mood of the electorate in the run-up to the vote.

Of 168 polls carried out since the EU referendum wording was decided last September, fewer than a third (55 in all) predicted a leave vote.


The actual result on the night came in at 51.9% leave, 48.1% remain. Just 16 of 168 individual polls predicted a 52:48 split in favour of leave.

Polls did give a sense of the swing to leave in the first weeks of June, but edged back to favour remain in the final days before the vote. Just two of six polls released the day before the referendum – those carried out by TNS and Opinium – gave leave the edge.

2)
The inaccurate Brexit prediction is just one of multiple misses over recent years, including last year's U.K. general election, the Scottish referendum in 2014 and most recently during Bernie Sanders' upset over Hillary Clinton during the Michigan primary.

While polling companies have come under scrutiny, lately, Cohen says this isn't the time to dismiss polls.


"We have to learn from missteps that we've seen and Brexit is just the latest spur to get it right," he said. "But we just have to get it right, it's too important not to."

I will leave you to it now Dave. It is obvious that you are probably the only person in the world who disagrees about the inaccuracies of recent polls, but you may have noticed that Clinton lost out in America, Remain lost over here, May lost her majority in Parliament, and that the majority of polls failed to forecast any of these outcomes.

10 pages of a fella claiming black is white.

Yes nothing new on here when certain people return! Eventually someone will have enough sense to lock thread as it is no longer about op? But then it does have benefits for some.

Keeps me amused Alan. Nothing but repeats on the box, nothing to do until late afternoon so passes away a bit of time. I don't know who he is because I have been told it is not the usual culprit. I will leave him to it now. I can see nearly everyone else got bored of him a while back, and I probably should'nt have wasted so much time humoring him. I will do what nearly everyone else has done and ignore him. Perhaps he can find someone else to play with for a bit.

Bit sad I admit but other board users like me like this kind of debate. Keep it going Steve with no complaints from me

arguing for the sake of arguing is not a debate though..
the polls showed a remain win that's an accepted fact by the poll companies , politicians and the public.
a 3% margin of error means 3% not its a 3% margin of error 75% of the time but can be anything the other 25 % , if its outside those parameters for a series of votes you then calculate the new WITHIN number not just continue using the wrong one because you think its a mathematical equation.
its a 100% wind up