Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them

eu in or out poll

I fear that we know Brian Cox for sure but he isn't going to have the impact of his predecessors.
I do remember once they did a survey with teenagers and Churchill was thought to be a fictional character or a dog from an insurance advert and Sherlock Holmes was thought to be real ??!! Sadly this is the same generation of city kids that can't distinguish between a sheep and a cow.

Who are Brian Cox's scientist predecessors and what impact did they have on the public? Stephen Hawking is famous for being in a wheel chair, having a robot voice and being clever. I don't think he's inspired many kids to develop their understanding of gravitational collapse. Alan Turing is cited by my peers, but he certainly wasn't inspirational to the public when he was working.
 
Might we actually agree on something at last Rob :icon-eek:

I'm thinking the most impressive characters i ever encountered were found in books , books that i might have or indeed should have read in school .

I also struggle with the concept that those drawn to science need celebrity motivation .
 
Who are Brian Cox's scientist predecessors and what impact did they have on the public? Stephen Hawking is famous for being in a wheel chair, having a robot voice and being clever. I don't think he's inspired many kids to develop their understanding of gravitational collapse. Alan Turing is cited by my peers, but he certainly wasn't inspirational to the public when he was working.


It's not just Brian in particular as he is a bit of a strange one having played keyboard for D'ream and having appeared on TOTP, but the Brian effect has increased the number of children taking science at GCSE and A level quite considerably aided by the Beeb ad its programming choices. I stand corrected, maybe Brian Cox will have more influence than his predecessors ever did.
It was just going back to the cult of celebrity and how the monarchy have experienced a decline in recent years as to their popularity/influence on the public, or at least a shift from being revered to being treated much the same as someone from a reality TV show.
 
Might we actually agree on something at last Rob :icon-eek:

I'm thinking the most impressive characters i ever encountered were found in books , books that i might have or indeed should have read in school .

I also struggle with the concept that those drawn to science need celebrity motivation .

I don't think we need scientists who are celebrities to get kids interested in science. I suspect fictional science is much more of a motivator. I think Matthew Broderick in WarGames was what pushed my interest in IT, and reading Sinclair User magazine is what started to teach me.

But I do think scientists in mainstream media is a healthy situation, and a sign people want to learn and understand more. They give you enough information to begin to understand the magnitude of scientific understanding is a motivator, but I think you have to want to engage already to get much out of that. Once you have an interest, we live at a time where vast amounts of knowledge at all levels of complexity are available to us in seconds, which I think is the greatest driver to scientific development.
 
It's not just Brian in particular as he is a bit of a strange one having played keyboard for D'ream and having appeared on TOTP, but the Brian effect has increased the number of children taking science at GCSE and A level quite considerably aided by the Beeb ad its programming choices. I stand corrected, maybe Brian Cox will have more influence than his predecessors ever did.
It was just going back to the cult of celebrity and how the monarchy have experienced a decline in recent years as to their popularity/influence on the public, or at least a shift from being revered to being treated much the same as someone from a reality TV show.

Agree with the relative rises and falling of royalty and celebrities. But I don't see any reason to worry about that, not that I am suggesting you are. I can't see someone with an ability to entertain at any level is any less worthy than someone who happened to have been born into the right family.
 
Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them
I reckon its time we had another row so i will start it by saying i think Trump knows what he is doing and will do it well :icon-biggrin:
I'm beginning to think you're right Shayne, his speechifying is getting mellower.
 
He did what he needed to do to win and win he did fair and square but like any gentleman should he accepts victory without animosity for his opponents and instead invites them to curb his reasoning with rational argument .

Deport illegal immigrants - the clue is in the illegal they shouldn't be there in the first place .

Build a wall around Mexico - instead of spending billions year on year to patrol that border as all his predecessors have done .

Global warming is a hoax - a couple of days after his win the EU admits their emissions regulations are bollox .

World trade - he has thrown a cat among the pigeons creating blind panic , any concession he offers now will be seen as an olive branch .

Obamacare - i don't know much about it admittedly but the fact it was a key issue tells me that like most things nowadays it works only for those who can afford it and incredibly well for insurance companies .

Muslims , now i reckon he dropped a bollock there but if you replace the word Muslim with Isis in all his rhetoric he is the first to openly admit there is a problem that needs to be addressed , something every civilian in the western world has known for a long time and something a politically correct establishment like alcoholics in denial were too cowardly to admit because they don't have any answers .
 
Last edited:
He did what he needed to do to win and win he did fair and square but like any gentleman should he accepts victory without animosity for his opponents and instead invites them to curb his reasoning with rational argument .

Deport illegal immigrants - the clue is in the illegal they shouldn't be there in the first place .

Build a wall around Mexico - instead of spending billions year on year to patrol that border as all his predecessors have done .

Global warming is a hoax - a couple of days after his win the EU admits their emissions regulations are bollox .

World trade - he has thrown a cat among the pigeons creating blind panic , any concession he offers now will be seen as an olive branch .

Obamacare - i don't know much about it admittedly but the fact it was a key issue tells me that like most things nowadays it works only for those who can afford it and incredibly well for insurance companies .

Muslims , now i reckon he dropped a bollock there but if you replace the word Muslim with Isis in all his rhetoric he is the first to openly admit there is a problem that needs to be addressed , something every civilian in the western world has known for a long time and something a politically correct establishment like alcoholics in denial were too cowardly to admit because they don't have any answers .

Most of what he promises is already in place, he appeals to the masses by offering them what they have already

The "Wall" is already there :
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm
It's a really expensive fence using the standard military/defence procurement model where private contractors scalp the taxpayer.

The classic line he used was "we will make our military strong again"
I've worked with the US military as a contractor and they want for absolutely nothing.
US military spending is equal to the next 8 nations on the list put together !! That includes China and Russia.
34% of the worlds military spending.
As for ISIS instead of bombing for Saudi maybe he should stop arming them and maybe start bombing them instead, after all everyone knows where the head of the snake is.
 
Oil owns the world mate and the flower power nazis cant do a damn thing about it , the rest is self promotion for selfish interest . I think its all effing hilarious - OMG house prices might become affordable - some bloke might get a full time job , and your man at the top of the ladder might possibly not quite reach his billion a year profit increase :laughing-rolling:

I will probably read this sober in the morning and think ........................ i should drink more often :laughing-rolling:
 
Reviving an older thread for a moment, people have often asked me why would I have any reservations about the EU and the "collective" of "States" that it will become (with certainty).

I detest the idea, Europe is made up from many countries and they are different, with different cultures, practices and goals. A United States of Europe "USE" approach is IMO a recipe for disaster and will only end in tears as did the former Yugoslavia and the horrors of ethnic cleansing and the like. Such a future is bleak and fraught with real danger.

A vote on in or out of te EU by the man/woman in the street is one thing, yet the general populous has proven to be un or even ill-informed and the reasons given for their voting by individuals has proved that beyond doubt.

Many posts in this thread have touched on the hidden agenda behind the scenes and none of it is unimaginable.

My fear is that the EU with all its resources, don't give a damn about the real situation and have failed to step-in when things are not correct in their own jurisdiction. The blind-eye approach to a USE is even more scary, one would have hoped that the EU would at least look after, monitor and act when things are awry in the existing member states, but it's not the case.

At a more local level for me, at least, Romania is a country emerging from the aftermath of the 1989 revolution but all is not well. I found this recent article interesting, by David Clark who was a special adviser at the Foreign Office from 1997 to 2001 and now works as a freelance foreign policy commentator and consultant.

"The recent rise of the populist right in Hungary and Poland has raised the alarm about the future of democracy in Europe, as constitutional safeguards, media pluralism and civil society come under sustained attack.

But there is another threat hiding in plain sight: the abuse of anti-corruption laws in Romania, a country often lauded as an example of successful reform in central and eastern Europe.

The country has been praised by EU leaders for its crackdown on graft, and its national anti-corruption body has been held up as a model for others to follow. But scratch beneath the surface and all is not as it appears.

In compiling a recent report for the Henry Jackson Society thinktank we found a body of evidence to suggest that the Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA) is abusing its power and reverting to communist-era methods to serve its own interests and pursue political vendettas.

Significantly, the critics include a number of former supporters, including Traian Băsescu, Romania’s president from 2004 to 2014, who initiated the country’s first major anti-corruption drive but has now accused the agency of violating human rights and acting outside the constitution.

Conviction rates in Romanian corruption cases are astonishingly high at 92%, and a close look at the methods used by the DNA reveals why. Almost all of the most high-profile cases involve one kind of procedural violation or another.

There are examples of guilty verdicts secured with the uncorroborated evidence of witnesses who testify in exchange for immunity. Suspects are sometimes told that if they do not cooperate then family members could also face prosecution.

Pre-trial detention is used as another form of leverage (despite the non-violent nature of the crimes in question) and edited transcripts of telephone intercepts are routinely leaked to the media to discredit defendants in advance of their trials.

We have also seen cases where judges who have ruled against the DNA subsequently found themselves under investigation, and cases where people in the highest echelons of government have accused their critics of corruption on national television.

In May 2014, the then socialist prime minister, Victor Ponta, suggested that Dan Adamescu, the owner of a critical newspaper, România Liberă, would shortly be arrested for corruption. Adamescu was detained a few days later and subsequently convicted of bribery after a legal process riddled with violations.

The case is in danger of turning the British courts into an extension of the dysfunctional legal system, after the Romanian authorities issued a European arrest warrant last year to secure the extradition of Adamescu’s son Alexander. The only evidence against the younger Adamescu appears to be that he has continued to campaign for his father.

Some of the most troubling allegations in Romania, however, concern the close relationship between the DNA and the Romanian intelligence service (SRI), the successor to the feared communist-era Securitate secret police.

The DNA relies on the SRI to intercept about 20,000 telephone calls each year and has acknowledged that the intelligence agency also plays a role in initiating investigations.

In 2015, one SRI general sparked outrage by describing the courts as a “tactical field” of operations and alluding to his agency’s role in influencing the outcome of cases. Judges and lawyers responded by demanding an inquiry into longstanding suspicions that the SRI has continued the old Securitate practice of placing undercover agents in the judiciary, but the government refused.

The case of Alina Bica, head of the agency responsible for countering organised crime and terrorism, illustrates the power of the DNA-SRI nexus.

Bica was arrested by the DNA on corruption charges in 2014 and her experience followed a familiar pattern. She spent months in pre-trial detention, her husband was arrested and efforts were made to destroy her reputation with media leaks.

Bica claimed she was detained after refusing to arrest individuals whose names were suggested by the SRI. When she cited lack of evidence, she was told: “You will not end well.”

None of these details are reflected in the European commission’s monitoring reports on Romania, which paint the country’s fight against corruption in an optimistic light.

But by turning a blind eye, the European Union risks encouraging other countries in the region to follow Romania’s example, using the “fight against corruption” as a smokescreen to weaken democratic standards.

It is an environment that provides the perfect breeding ground for the type of creeping authoritarianism we are seeing in Hungary and Poland ".

It reinforces my opinion that the "buyer beware" approach is more relevant than many may have thought. Romania is in turmoil over the DNI-SRI issue, and it goes relatively unseen (even here) and ironically with the full support of our precocious "EU" mafioso, its hidden agenda and "Secret Society" roots.
 
Some significant member countries have elections coming up in the next 12-18 months - France, Germany, Holland, Italy etc. All you need is an upset in one of those (perhaps unlikely but then again look at Trump!) and you might get a domino effect......

Interesting times ahead.
 
I would guess if the French elections go the wrong way then the EU will be in all sorts of problems. Talking to a German guy a few weeks back, the subject of Angela Merkel allowing in the flood of immigrants, and would she be voted in again. He and apparently a lot more Germans, did not like what Merkel did but, he said the alternative parties were even less attractive.

As per @chadr interesting times to come.

regards

Dave
 
I think the Emperor of Europe sees and applauds the circumstances you describe Clive with full understanding of the far reaching implications .

Bravo Miss May on today's speech :clap:
 
What a farce :icon-rolleyes:

King Solomon's cut the baby in two should be Britain's negotiating stance .
An Island nation can survive bankruptcy , and so can can each and every individual European country - the EU cannot .
 
Just out of interest. "In" or "out" answer, no debate or opinions, yes or no, black or white, in or out.
Ill start.


Out.
Out, and stay out.

Edit, this was supposed to be,

Quote, "In" or "out" answer, no debate or opinions, yes or no, black or white, in or out.

Shame, some just had to 'justify' their 'opinions'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top