Not sure it's your brain Dabsy
I think you might need to get your ears checked out.
Now we all know what makes you blind. What makes you loose your hearing?
Thank you for submitting a support request. You can put your clothes back on now. In another dimension, logging a call could involve a full invasive strip search. Or perhaps there’d be a sado-dimensional version of Zendesk in which, having determined that a user is raising frivolous issues, sends attitude-corrective electric …
Possibly, as some tones and sounds do merge with slight hearing loss. however it may be his brain. If he heard the people perfectly, but it was the spelling/meaning/ordering that seems wrong. Otherwise known as Dyslexia. I'd not be able to repeat some of my miss reads/miss heard conversations. :P
Alistair Dabbs, are you perhaps Dyslexic? (Yes, it effects word and letter ordering in hearing as well as reading)
Some time ago, a colleague and I were sat outside a little bar in Cologne, while waiting for the right moment to set off for the airport and due to the heavy night before, we ordered water.
The German waitress asked us, in the slight yank accent alluded to, whether we would like that with gargles.
Cue two puzzled faces.
After some toing and froing we decided that she actually meant "bubbles"....... despite her insistence that she was correct.
Either she was cloth-eared or, somewhere in the Cologne area, there's a yank teaching English who has a mean streak.
"In my experience, the dont do water in Cologne, only Kölsch. Not much difference anyway."
As per the ancient verse:
...ye gods that reign o'er sewers and sinks
The river Rhine, it is well known
Doth wash the city of Cologne.
But tell me, nymphs, what power divine
Should thenceforth wash the river Rhine?
It wasn't the Leave vote that depressed me,so much as these "reasons" that people gave/are giving and that so many seem to rely on just one reason without any clear lack of thought about or interest in any other consequences.
There's the "We don't mind immigration, but we want to control it" ( But they haven't though through if it's possible) And they don't care about any other effects of leaving.
Or the "We want that 3XX million pounds a week to spend on the NHS" (Did they really think that it will go to the NHS even if it's true) but no interest in where the money is going - like the money being spent in their own town to rebuild their own town centre. or how much difference it would make.
The there's the one Dabbsy mentions. The one about "control". Er sorry, but how much control do we have over Crapita when they are given all our public service to run ( read "milk"). And as it happens we won't have voted for the next PM. And possibly not the one after either, since our voting options are looking pretty limited at the moment.
The Electoral Commission shouldn't have let it go through without a big huge book detailing what happens in the case of Brexit from someone. Or it should have phrased the question like this:
Vote only once:
Would you like the UK to remain a member of the EU? [ ]
Would you like a constitutional crisis with nobody having any idea what happens next, no effective government, a power vacuum, and politicians stabbing each other in the back for possibly weeks on end? [ ]
Quote :Would you like a constitutional crisis with nobody having any idea what happens next, no effective government, a power vacuum, and politicians stabbing each other in the back for possibly weeks on end? [ ]
Yupp thats my tick box... because we've just gone into the knife making business*, and plan on setting up shop outside the houses of parliment :)
* ok its surgical knives... but imagine what you could do with a 16" amputation knife........
I would have put a picture of Michael Gove next to the Leave box.
Andy Burnham thinks Gove has moral authority, proof if proof was needed that deselection of most Labour MPs is needed before the next election, because it looks like one of them who wanted to be leader wouldn't know moral authority if the clouds parted and it descended on a solid gold throne drawn by unicorns with a choir of angels singing.
I am disturbed by what seems to be becoming the norm, which is having this country being 'run' by a PM that hasn't won their spot by a majority vote at a general election.
Brown. Replaced Blair, no general election held.
Cameron (1). Result of hung parliament / coalition, no majority win.
and now it's looking like who ever comes in next will slide in through the back door as well. Either Gove, or everyone's favourite Big Brother fanatic May.
You vote for your local MP and the party they are a member of will run the government if enough of their MPs are elected. You do not get to vote for the PM, unless you happen to be in their constituency, in which case it will be a safe seat and your vote makes no difference anyway.
As a member of a party you may be able to vote for someone to be head of the party, however again you are not strictly voting for a PM.
I may have ended up voting Conservative last time, but only because that seemed marginally less worse than not voting for anyone. I most definitely did not vote for Cameron, he was a negative contributor to my vote evaluation, his party candidate got my vote despite him.
Perhaps a leave vote was the only way we had of registering dissatisfaction with democratic process used by the EU. While voting by proxy is well established I would like to see a requirement in the treaties that form the EU that a new treaty has to be voted in by referenda in all member states that then achieve majority agreement in all states.
Living in a democracy means that if you accept the method used then you must accept the result of the vote and move on. If you do not accept the method then that is a different campaign, see the UK referendum on proportional representation.
If you do not accept the method then that is a different campaign, see the UK referendum on proportional representation.
Which would have been fine, if it wasn't for the Government -- for reasons which completely escape me -- selecting the least appealing method of proportional representation out of the seven (if I remember my school lessons correctly) possible methods available.
"for reasons which completely escape me"
Simple: even those in favour of PR wouldn't accept it (it's much harder to change a second time, than reject the offer and go for something better later).
The New Zealand model would have been much better:
1: Stay with FPP or move to PR
2: If moving to PR, which version do you want?
"Having this country being 'run' by a PM that hasn't won their spot by a majority vote at a general election."
No party has won an actual, _real_ majority vote at a general election in a very long time.
The Conservatives and Labour have been trading places based on receiving 33-35% of the vote. Hardly a majority. Gerrymandering is what makes most of the difference.
Anyway, voters elect the party. The party selects its leader and he selects his cabinet. Any idea that you're voting for _anyone_ as prime minister is misguided at best.
"Anyway, voters elect the party. The party selects its leader and he selects his cabinet. Any idea that you're voting for _anyone_ as prime minister is misguided at best."
Just as any idea that you get a choice over who to vote for as MP is misguided at best.
If you're not in a local party or on it's selection committee (or whatever particular process is used), you don't select the candidate. If it's a safe seat then it's a small group of party members who are responsible for "electing" your MP.
I am disturbed by what seems to be becoming the norm, which is having this country being 'run' by a PM that hasn't won their spot by a majority vote at a general election.
Have you considered moving to a nation where the head of government is directly elected then?
I mean, let's be honest... the PM is elected to parliament by a majority of voters in his constituency, and being head of government is something the majority party confers on him
But we don't vote for the PM and never have done. We vote for a party who chooses their leader internally and then, in turn, the leader appoints the cabinet.
To vote for the PM directly would invite a "cult of personality" contest, rather than one decided on the issues and policies, which is the main argument against televised debates; it reinforces this misunderstanding of the political process.
Believe it or not, its the same in America; the people there may think they are voting for Clinton or Trump, but in reality they are voting democrat or republican.
@Terry 6 -With respect - rubbish. I had been thinking of trying to point out where the Remain side got things so horribly wrong - and are continuing to do so, but there's a gentleman has put it into words rather more clearly than I could: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.uk/
I'd add that I've seen plenty of mindless anti-racism of late*, and it's just as unlovely and harmful as mindless racism. One would have to be particularly naieve or gullible to believe that overnight half the populace have suddenly become slavering racists when they were not before. If you're not willing to discuss reasonably what someone else sees as being a problem, but instead prefer to just hurl insults at them, why, then you're a bigot. And it's only the bigots on both sides that think the Leave win has been a victory for racism. Everyone of any sense realises it's actually indicative of very real problems having been swept under the carpet for too long by our political leaders. It may be too late for us to remain in the EU, but it's not too late for reasoned discussion, and indeed, it's even more important than ever before, now.
*attended many Rock against Racism events in the 70's. Voted left or Green all my life. Friends, workmates and teammates of all hues and from all over the world. No, I am not a racist, and neither is any of those I know that voted Leave. Nor am I or they stupid, or ignorant of the realities of the EU and Brexit. We were offered two evils to choose from, and neither option was a good one - IMO. Go in peace, and may deity smile upon you all, whatever you voted.
I've heard a lot of people who voted Leave blaming the Remainers this week (instead of revelling in their [pyrrhic] "victory"). None of them seem to blame themselves for having been mislead, or the Leave campaigners for misleading them with the four* Big Lies (Immigration, £350m, access to EEA and "unelected Eurocrats"). * Three of which have been quietly dropped now that they're inconvenient.
How do you counter a Big Lie? Doing it directly is difficult as the Lie is appealing and sounds plausible. So, avoiding it by pointing out a greater truth then? It had better be big - How about "Leaving the EU will wreck our economy"? "The EU prevents war". Hmm, they don't have much of a ring to them, and are easily countered by a fifth Big Lie "Project Fear - Don't listen to Experts!". So, focus on positives then - "The EU has reduced phone roaming charges". There are plenty of them, but they're hardly headline material. Clearly the Remain campaign didn't find an effective counter, and I don't have a better one. Maybe Cameron should have stayed out of the fight and let someone else run a splashy "Love EU" campaign? (and end up as next PM? Hmm, not gonna let that happen!).
Regarding racism - If Nigel Farage is on your side, you're going to get tarred with the same brush. (If you'll pardon the irony of that expression in this context).
@Tfewster - sorry, but you are assuming that people only made up their minds based on what everyone I know agrees was a spectacularly shameful amd misleading campaigning by both sides.
The fact of the matter is that the way that immigration has been handled over the years has been a major problem. The poorest in society don't get much choice of where they live, and if that means that over the years the areas where they live start feeling strange and alien due to an influx of large numbers of people from radically different cultures, that is liable to make a lot of people feel uneasy, unless there is integration between the newcomers and the folk that already live there.
In an ideal world, new immigrants woudl all do their best to integrate, and all already here would do their best to help them do so and welcome them. But this is not that ideal world. In reality, not only do we have fascist bigots like the BNP to contend with, we also have religous bigots of varying sorts amongst the immigrants (I've personally encountered Eastern European islampohobes as well as Muslim Anglophobes), not to mention blatant misogynists. (yeah, yeah - get those amongst non-immigrants too..)
In my opinion, we should have had some kind of citizenship test for immigrants, irrespective of background long ago, and with a clear rule, rigidly enforced, that failure to meet the citizenship requirements would mean swift deportation to country of origin. Yes, I am quite aware of how carefully such a thing would need to be implemented in order to make it both practical and just, thank you. The point being to have a system whereby those who come here because they admire our tolerant society and can fit in easily can do so; those who wish to but need some help learning our ways get that help - and those who think they can impose alien ways of bigotry are soon weeded out and ejected. I want refugees escaping horrific regimes to feel safe here, rather than to feel that the problems they wished to escape have followe dthem and threaten them still.
But no - all we have heard from politicians for so long is that 'immigration is good for the economy'., as if that were ALL that mattered. I'm sure that it's all that matters to big business, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they've been behind the tendency to smear anyone expressing concern about untrammeled immigration as racist. But to people, it's people that matter most.
I am not blaming all who voted Remain for what has happened; but I am saying that it looks to me as if perhaps some of them have been blinded to the issues that have been ignored by our politicians, and there has most definitely been too much unjust name-calling from the Remain side.
Claiming that 'if Nigel Farrage is on your side you're going to get tarred with the same brush' really says that you are unwilling to listen to reasoned argumenmt, but will instead react emotively. It tells me that you don't really care what the issues are that have caused this situation to arise, and it suggests that you might automatically vote the opposite of whatever Mr Farrage supports, without thinking about. It suggests, in short, uncritical thinking on your part. I don't say that you ARE uncritical, I merely point out the flaw in your argument.
Can you not see that it is entirely possible for others to have weighed the pros and cons of Europe in the balance and found it so wanting as to wish to give up EU membership WITHOUT their being racist? And that just because some racists also wish us to leave the EU that that does not make the others who also voted to Leave raicst? And that if you 'tar them with the same brush' that it merely displays bigotry and uncritical thinking on your part? Was everyone who supported remain a model of unbigoted humanity and critical thinking? I rather suspect not. Please think on that. And think on why there were Leave voters amongst those who are of immigrant families themselves.
I repeat - name-calling will not help, particularly if such an odious one as 'racist' is flung at those who simply are not so. We can't go back in time and avert either the referndum or further back, the mishandling of immigration that cuased the vote on it to go the way that it did. What we CAN do is try to find the best way forward by taking a calm honest look at the problems that we face together, and work out how best to overcome them.
And for god's sake, don't let the actual racists think they've got more support than they really have. They're a dickheaded tiny minority - always have been, always will be.
Keep Calm. Carry on. Fight intolerance. It's the British way.
You don't need to assume that all the Leave voters chose that route for flawed reasons to see the referendum as terribly flawed.
There only needed to be a shift of two percentage points to reverse the result.
So a noticeable percentage being deflected by appalling misrepresentation of the costs of the EU, or false promises of being able to have our immigration cake and eat our Free Trade agreement etc. is a very good reason to invalidate that referendum.
It was Farage who had said that voting figures like those ought to lead to a second referendum - when he thought he'd lose. Likewise the petition about voting came from a Brexiteer, before the result, because he thought they might lose by a small percentage.
"It was Farage who had said that voting figures like those ought to lead to a second referendum - when he thought he'd lose. Likewise the petition about voting came from a Brexiteer, before the result, because he thought they might lose by a small percentage."
The trouble with the second referendum idea is that that might also give a small margin one way or another so do you then go for a third - a fourth...?
The answer is to realise that the margin for a change needs to be substantial - 60:40 or maybe 2/3:1/3. We've had a referendum. It didn't make those numbers. End of story.
The problem with the British system is the party political system who have basically been the same two groups for pretty much ever, the wiggs and the tories. Whigs became Liberals who became Labour and Tory became Conservative. Sure there's some riff raff that appear every now and again but they're generally formed dissaffected who liked the old party as opposed to the new one.
The parties are entirely self serving and shift and change to try and guarantee the maximum period of time in office and the enhancement of the nation for their vested interests and institutional backers.
The best solution would be for the two main parties to split along their idelogical lines and for us to implement a national government for the next 4 years with early general elections so once people understand the new parties people can stand to be elected. Ideally these parties would then pass propertional representation and we'd reach a stage where we can be grown ups and have an elected house that truely represents the complexity and diversity of the population.
But then, I'm waiting for pigs to fly and there's little chance of turkeys voting for Christmas.
Right, you've nailed it!
The author did indeed visit an alternative Universe, but one of his own making, and own fault. It was a result of not looking at both sides in an honest way that caused a slight case of mental illness. Most people know right from wrong, and when they are being lied to, and or perpetuating those lies. So, in his head, he did visit an alternate universe, which schizophrenia can be blamed, like the hearing things incorrectly, or that have not even BEEN said. When a person tries to live in such a way, as to support the lies, this causes a massive Cognitive Dissonance. He might recognize something is wrong with his position, but has crossed the divide to travel so far, as to be lost in the make believe world, that now, the normal, stable Universe looks and sounds positively Alien. So, you see, the explanation is rather quite obvious to those who acknowledge the truth, and work within those boundaries. There is hope now, that he may just be, beginning to wake up, and has peered thru the cracks in the alternate universe to glimpsing reality. I wish him God Speed. Uh oh, now I've gone and said something that will cause more mental gymnastics,
The European Parliament approves or disproves the whole of the commission with a qualified majority vote so there's a bit of pressure to not chuck them all out just because they don't like the look of a few of them. But as it's a QMV there's probably more in the Parliament that will approve than disapprove anyway. So given that the UK is one out of 28 member states which proposes commissioners and has only 10%-ish of the MEPs which approves, like Azure, it's not a system which scales up gracefully.
Once in, the Commission proposes law sometimes with the help of the Council but not always. Parliament can a) amend it and send it back or b) can only send it back saying if they like it or not (more often used now) or c) have no say at all (Canada trade deal).
So it's democratic... barely.
However I think I did suddenly wake up in a parallel universe last Friday or perhaps they're shooting Game of Thrones in the House of Commons. We'll know for sure when dragons circle overhead.
"Once in, the Commission proposes law sometimes with the help of the Council but not always. Parliament can a) amend it and send it back or b) can only send it back saying if they like it or not (more often used now) or c) have no say at all (Canada trade deal)."
Even after that, individual country parliaments can accept or reject it.
The real problem of the democratic deficit in the EU lies in lack of transparency. All the real decisions are made in ad hoc committees of prime ministers or finance ministers (and while I may have indirectly voted for "my" minister, I surely did not for the 27 others). These committees have no legal basis and no minutes are taken of their deliberations. Doesn't democracy come with transparency and accountability?
And just look at all the secrecy surrounding TTIP. Even MEPs are hardly allowed to look at it. And now with CETA the EC is trying to complete that without involvement of national parliaments.
No, despite the uncertainties and temporary economic setbacks, I think you British have done a wise thing (but maybe for some people without realising it). I wish my people would get a chance to vote. After all, we never got to vote about joining the EU in the first place, we didn't get to vote on the Euro, we didn't get to vote on Schengen, we didn't get to vote on ever closer union. (We did get to vote on the European Constitution, voted against it and got it anyway, with a different name and in a different binder)
But the commission exists because the national leaders demands that it exists. The thought of a democratically elected commission president horrified the British... Just imagine the terror of having a wholly democratically elected commission or no commission at all and only elected officials could make decisions. My word. We couldn't ever have that!
Reminds me of an ex g/f. Being Polish she had some interesting, and often amusing vowel pronunciations. Usually ending up with a new, super vowel, which sounded like a combination of A U and O all in one. Deducing the difference between bus, base and boss was purely down to context.
(Sorry Anna, but we know it's true!)...
Anyway, she was hosting a meeting in the UK, and was having great difficulty with the English Males keeping straight faces... It appears her pronunciation of "Focus group" left a lot to be desired!
I was setting up our stand at a trade show called FIBO and as the gentleman came over to check he got very excited, waved his arms around and said:
German guy "Where are your voles?"
German guy "Yes your VOLES?"
Me: "Voles, small creatures, live by the river?"
German Guy " NO VOLES"
Walks to end of stand and shakes the dividing wall
"VOLES, THESE ARE VOLES"
Me "oh you mean walls, we didnt order any"
German Guy "HERE IS FORM, GO AND GET VOLES"
Me: "How many voles do I need?"
German Guy " ENOUGH VOLES FOR ALL THE VOLES"
Me: "ok then"
I worked with a French engineer a few years ago, who spoke significantly better English than I speak French, so I am in no position to criticise him.
However, one of my favourite mis-pronounciations of his was his referring to the wi-fi network as the "Wifey network".
Given that the rest of us on the project are Geordies, it henceforth became known as "the wor lass LAN".
Very, VERY, similar thing happened to me when I worked for an international trading company. I was in Paris supporting our office there and was having dinner with a few Dutch colleagues. I had commented about the lack of 4G their and a colleague said "Don't worry, Wifey will be coming tomorrow." My initial reaction was to pale, thing of the working / drinking time I'd lose, and then 'What about the Kids? She's not bringing them too is she?'
My concern must have been visible because they pointed to a sign on the wall, the only word I could read being "WiFi."
How strange, I was just thinking about our (very) french teacher, Miss Picard, who entered the classroom in two distinct phases - her jumper, followed sometime later by the rest of her body - when I came across the comment from Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese. This brought me back to our german lessons, ably conducted by Herr Rodwell (he of the crew cut, rucksack, and hiking boots), and of the rather younger german assistant, Herr Hans Niesen. For some reason, he never understood why he was accorded the pseudonym "Bumps-a-Daisy", and no-one ever enlightened him before he returned to his university somewhere in Germany. (We also had another german assistant, her name was Gerda, and all the boys lusted after her).
Many years ago, filling the shelves in the bread aisle of Tesco in Whitstable, a lady approached me and asked where she could find (what sounded to me like) "bran bread". Given the area (this was pre-gentrification) I assumed she meant brown bread, but after some confusion/debate I eventually worked out that she indeed meant bread with bran in it (a somewhat more unusual request than brown bread, at least back then).
She didn't say anything after that - I think she went away wondering what social class I thought she was in.
I've had this when asking for Bran-type bread.
Everyone assumes you are saying Brown, because you must speak as badly as they do (this was Herts)
They didn't hear me say Brown - I do go 'ow' half way through that word.
Especially if I tread on a nail at the same time.
"Electing the European Commission may not be a plebiscite but it is just the same as voting for a MP whose political party has decided that an off-shore money-laundering, tax-dodging toff should be Prime Minister whether you like it or not, only to ditch him barely a year later in favour some other imbecilic, dough-faced cunt."
made me laugh out loud
happy Friday beer etc
I'd just like to say "thanks!" from everybody in the US for taking the spotlight off the whole Donand Trump debacle and demonstrating that it's not just in the US that significant portions of the votors can be easily deceived by a lying buffoon and convinced to vote against their own best interests.
and I can apply to change my British passport to one in Europe.
Never thought I'd see the day I'd be embarrassed to be British (apart from driving through Benidorm and Magaluf) or want to change it, but that day is now. (and I am not alone in this with a lot I know looking to do the same) My only regret is that I can't take the rest of the sensible people with me.
Nice summary of how the EU actually works rather than the ignorance of the masses who don't know and worse don't *want* to know (my fuckwit parents who'll shortly be past caring about what they have inflicted on the very children and grandchildren they professed to love and vote for, and shortly be wondering where all the care workers went, and why their savings are worth fuck all)
To those that voted Leave, thanks for my immediate 10% pay cut. Not such a problem in some respects... the Leave voters in my company will be paying for it with their jobs.
It seems that "...(my fuckwit parents who'll shortly be past caring about what they have inflicted on the very children and grandchildren they professed to love and vote for, and shortly be wondering where all the care workers went, and why their savings are worth fuck all)" will be shortly embarking on spending the kids' inheritance i.e. deciding not to leave anything. Do they ONLY care for themselves?
Brits overtook Benidorm and Magaluf before the death of Charles de Gaulle [Former President of France]. Spain acceded to 'Europe' on 1 January 1986. Brits abroad embarrass me too but job ruination is not new. At least you've got a head start on the not-yet-fired. Some of the others will leave here and others will not be able to afford the newly changed exchange rates.
[P/S] I came to this article for a bit of light hearted, non-referendum banter and no I am not responsible for your downvote[s] John. N.
I don't know you parents so I can't exclude the possibility that they have the child they deserve. On the whole, however, if they decide to spend your inheritance I can't say I blame them given your attitude to them.
In general you'll find that we oldies do think of our children and grandchildren when making decisions that might affect them. Clearly you parents made a choice that you - and for that matter myself - think is the wrong one. But that doesn't excuse your attitude.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
definition: "the direct vote of all the members of an electorate on an important public question such as a change in the constitution."
So even though the EU is not democratic ..... we should suck it up and carry on... fu*k off Mr Dabbs. Can't you tell what a democratic vote is... the fact that El Reg has published this a week after the referendum seriously harms the reputation. Anyone who did not get their way and is now throwing their toys out of the prams is an idiot... its done, get on board or f*ck off to some other place.
So done with this nonsense. There are other IT websites.
Do not laugh too much. If Theresa "Human Rights Act needs to go" May is the next PM, then she will have to find a new home secretary. We could be landed with Priti "bring back the death sentence" Patil who believes that the accused should not be allowed to talk with the media.
Plus-speedwise rectify your post or see you in joycamp.
Flocke Kroes, I am an expat so may be worse off due to Brexit, however if the Lady 'mit the black undervear mit liddle svastikas on it' becomes PM then I may well be better off than those living in her brave new world.
I am retiring soon to a piece of land in the country near a small village so I will have my own double good joycamp, a few chickens, some almond, olive,fig and nispera trees, plus enough grapes to knock up my own vintage.
I see all too many posts where because a vote has mandated a government or in this case a political decision, the poster thinks everyone should shut up and grin and bear it. The whole point of democracy is that we should have our say, that right should not end with a vote, dicussion should continue and if the vote turns out to be less than beneficial another vote later can attempt to rectify it. That is what has just happened; the rectification of a vote from 40 years ago, we didn't stop talking then and we shouldn't now.
Re the House of unelected Lords; I seem to remember Tony Bliar saying he would create so many left wing members of the House of Lords that they would vote themselves out of existence.
Did well with that, didn't he?
"Bet they also don't like being told that the House of Lords is made up of 825 unelected officials."
But when it comes to the HoL they know their place. They don't like foreigners telling is what to do, whereas people with names like de Pfeffel or Dacre (D'acre) Australians with good old names like Murdoch, and French-for-tax-purposes Rothermere, they're OK.
...I've heard a few in my time, but one in particular stands out.
For a while in my career I had the task of dealing with 3rd party suppliers, as no doubt many of you also have. One of those suppliers was a large international kit provider specialising in printers. Their customer care centre was in Germany at the time, and each of their premium customers were given a specific sales/care consultant to contact.
My contact at said company was called "Yueh Rocke".
Every time I called him, he'd answer with his name and I would reply with "Cheers! You're pretty cool too!"
This was usually followed with silence for a few seconds before BAU resumed, and I was always left with the impression that he simply didn't get the joke....
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021