Times they are a changing

[Dezi]

How can there be union without everybody being united? I know that the current crop of Eurosceptics are keen to push the line you suggest but I have never seen nor read anything uttered by Churchill himself that supports this view - and you might say that if he wanted Europe to be united without us he could have just sat back and let Hitler achieve it. Doesn't ring true somehow - unless you know differently

Because we are an island just off a large Continent does not necessarily make us culturally a part. If it did then the Japanese would be culturally in line with China & they ain’t.

Possibly this fact is part of the problem with Britains relationship with the European union.

Below is a link with reference to Churchill’s view point on the Europe, there are many others.

Global Politician - Churchill Never Meant For Britain To Be In The European Union

Dezi c:

 

[John H]

i also think many here would like to kick out all folk that cant produce real uk blood . weknow coloureds ,gypsys etc already arent liked by many . never mind alternative religions. are we about to be a new form of nazis . our prime minister said we are a christian country. he didnt say kick the rest out but it could be believed by many.

I certainly share your concerns here - I thought that statement was about as inflamatory as its possible to get and that he was carried away by his previous sop to his right wingers into thinking that he could say anything and get a cheer from them. He's only been in power for less than two years and already the signs of megalomania are creeping in!

 

[John H]

Because we are an island just off a large Continent does not necessarily make us culturally a part. If it did then the Japanese would be culturally in line with China & they ain’t.

Possibly this fact is part of the problem with Britains relationship with the European union.

Below is a link with reference to Churchill’s view point on the Europe, there are many others.

Global Politician - Churchill Never Meant For Britain To Be In The European Union

Dezi c:

I'm not sure what you are implying by saying we are not culturally part of Europe - there are just as many cultural differences between Germany, France, Spain and the rest as there are between us and any of those countries. It has nothing to do with culture so much as preserving the peace and creating an economic bloc of which we are most definately a part (more than 50% of our exports are to the EU).

And I have read the link you refer to - and many others - and still cannot see anything in what Churchill actually said that would suggest that we shouldn't be part of his vision for Europe - the author of the article tries to imply he didn't want us to be a part but nowhere in his own quoted words does he say this.

 

[Dezi]

I am not saying anything,I am simply stating the facts. Up until recent times our natural & biggest trading partners were.

Canada -South Africa - Australia - New Zealand etc etc. Simply because we had helped colonise those places & those over there, had family over here.

We just have more in common with most of those people & places than we have with our Continental neighbours.

Hence Churchills statment to De Gaulle just before D Day landings of 1944,

"That every time Britain had to “decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea that we shall choose.”

De Gaulles riposte came in 1963 as he opposed Britain’s entry to the European club

“England is an island, maritime, and linked through its trade, markets and food supplies to very diverse and often distant countries,” he said. “In short, the nature and structure and economic context of England differ profoundly from those of the other states of Europe.”

My own views are neutral as I have family in Italy so can see both sides.

Dezi c:

 

[John H]

I am not saying anything,I am simply stating the facts. Up until recent times our natural & biggest trading partners were.

Canada -South Africa - Australia - New Zealand etc etc. Simply because we had helped colonise those places & those over there, had family over here.

We just have more in common with most of those people & places than we have with our Continental neighbours.

Hence Churchills statment to De Gaulle just before D Day landings of 1944,

"That every time Britain had to “decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea that we shall choose.”

De Gaulles riposte came in 1963 as he opposed Britain’s entry to the European club

“England is an island, maritime, and linked through its trade, markets and food supplies to very diverse and often distant countries,” he said. “In short, the nature and structure and economic context of England differ profoundly from those of the other states of Europe.”

My own views are neutral as I have family in Italy so can see both sides.

Dezi c:

True, but the reason I questioned your statement is because I couldn't see the relevance of it to Churchill's support for a European union. Many countries, including France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal can lay claim to a maritime and colonising past to rival ours and they can all claim to be culturally different from the rest. And De Gaulle's riposte can be seen in a different light - he wanted to be leader of the new Europe and was trying (successfully as it turned out) to sideline his main rival.

 

[Dezi]

We have been down this road before John & I have no intention of getting on the needle / Angel treadmill again.

Churchills stance on Europe has been known & written about for years by respected academics.

I will leave the last word to you.

Dezi

 

[Bigpeetee]

How long a go where these memories from, 1963, when I was 11, nearly 50 years a go.

Lots of things have changed in that time, those that were close trading partners are not anymore, those that weren't now are.

Look to the issues we had with China, now we need them to provide us with electronics, furniture, clothes, in fact most of our daily requirements, except perhaps food and even some of that comes from China.

Going back to the original thread, perhaps if we taught our youngsters that life is about the long term, not short term gain, then they might see that by looking closer to home (not just in the UK) we might provide prosperity to our nations for the long term.

God help us if ever there were political problems with China, we would be sunk. Most of our children and young people do not have the skills to undertake simple mechanical tasks, never mind engineering.

(Many can write reams of meaningless twaddle as our education system and public services encourage/demand)

Obviously over the years, economists have exported our manufacturing requirements to "low cost" countries to make a quick buck, not considering the long term effects.

I feel that we have become too reliant of the financial and service industries as a nation to enable us to stand up on our own two feet, never mind run.

But would YOU accept the cost of transition back to our old ways of being self sufficient??

As a nation I feel that we are kidding ourselves as to what we are. We are now totally reliant on so many other nations for our economic infrastructure and therefore very vulnerable. It's taken years to get to this point of reliance, no one can change it back in an instance. It would take a visionary with a long term view and plan to succeed, something our politicians and managers of industry are not.

 

[John H]

But would YOU accept the cost of transition back to our old ways of being self sufficient??

Since we probably haven't been self-sufficient since prior to the Roman invasion, I think I'd have to say No to that! Some excellent points in the rest of your post - but I might argue with the "meaningless twaddle" bit

 

[John H]

We have been down this road before John & I have no intention of getting on the needle / Angel treadmill again.

Churchills stance on Europe has been known & written about for years by respected academics.

I will leave the last word to you.

Dezi

That's a shame because this could have developed into an interesting thread (well, to me, anyway). Just to try and tempt you out of retirement, the references that those respected academics tend to make to support the idea that Churchill was against British involvement seem all to come from a period before the Second World War. After the war he changes the way he speaks of it and Churchill was very particular about words - he loved the precision of the English language and so his use, after the war, of a word such as "sponsor" rather than "support" or "encourage" suggests he was thinking of much greater involvement than is usually credited to him. "Sponsor" has inevitable financial implications and I cannot believe he would have sanctioned putting in funds without having a say over how they were spent. Since I doubt that he wanted to colonise Europe this leaves the distinct possibility that he was talking about some kind of partnership. He certainly refused, after the war, to repeat the statements he made prior to it, which indicates some kind of shift. Interesting debate though.

 

[Yogihughes]

I totally agree with your sentiments, unfortunately your comments about the standard of current teachers and their methods will, I hasten to write/type, provoke differing replies to your post.
I was forced to take Latin lessons for 2 or 3 years and whilst I understand your reasoning for this being a great aid to learn foreign languages, I still didn't like learning phrases such as "The Romans were seen crossing the river". Also, spouting amo, amas, amat.......... parrot fashion did nothing to increase my love for the "Dead" language.

 

[Bigpeetee]

[No message]

 

[John H]

[No message]

 

[Tbear]

[No message]

 

[Bigpeetee]

[No message]

 

[Dezi]

Friends we going to stay with just after Christmas live in the midlands & he owns & runs a largish company. Last year he told me tale about employment.
The firm he owns advertised for rep to go round to businesses in the midlands & advise them about the services the firm had to offer.
One of the hopefuls was a young man with a reasonable level of education & half his face covered with a tattoo & two large globes in his ears.

The interviewer gently explained that the clients the firm dealt with would not be happy seeing him turn up & the firm would certainly lose business if they employed him.

Said young man then proceeded to give a lecture to the interviewer about fundamental civil rights & prejudice etc etc.
When the interviewer pointed out that the company also had the same rights, plus certain standards to maintain the young man threatened to sue for discrimination.

I make no comment, other than it’s often more than a poor education that hold people back.

Dezi

 

[Firefox]

(Duplicate)

 

[Firefox]

I had a student with an A* in mathematics on work experience who was incapable of working out quite simple area/volume calculations and then adding 10%.

We get the same thing. I'm director at small engineering consultancy. Basically we do calculations and computer analysis to make sure buildings and structures to perform. We also do engineering drawings and come up with details to make the built environment work.

Some of it is quite advanced, but at it's simplest level we may have to work out the dimensions and intersections on a sloping roof for example. Students with A and A* at GCSE and A level maths cannot work out the the long side of a triangle given the angle and another side. Sometimes they can get over this using CAD to do the work for them but in terms of conceptual design, and seeing things in their head to come up with new ideas they are lost if they can't think round the details or do rough calculations.

Or the students may be very willing to plug things into a computer design package. But if they don't understand the results they should be expecting, they come up with complete garbage designs because of an error in input or not specifying the design parameters correctly.

The A levels especially seem to have been dumbed down over the years so successive governments can claim better results each year!

A typical example from GCSE physics:

Old style question

1. A person looks at star through a plain material of refractive index 1.5. If the observed angle of the star is 30 degrees, what is the true angle of the star above the horizon?

New Style question

2. What instrument is used to observe distant stars?

A Microscope B Telescope C Oscilloscope D Smoked Glass

Don't laugh at number 2, this was an actual recent GCSE physics question!!!

 

[bob72]

There are different level papers for GCSE and this is a good way of allowing the less able students to have a chance to achieve and prove that they are trying. Students take a lot of exams, usually every few months plus coursework which can often be more difficult and stressful than the exams.

Almost all exams I have sat (many over the years) have a question that is relatively simple as a way of easing you into the exam.

We also live in a modern world and the fact is young people require different skill sets these days. I agree that you will always need a foundation in the basics, but for most people the basics is all they will likely ever need while developing their own particular skill in whatever career path they follow. In my case I have never had to use trigonometry for my career although that may change if I decide to develop a computer game or work on an engineering project. But if either of those were to happen I know where to look to find the information to refresh my knowledge. I also cringe when I see managers turning potentially great companies into car crashes because they refuse to listen to the new generation of developers/designers/marketers (this is based on my experience working with some tech start ups) and clinging to old practices and ways of doing things.

Its too easy to blame this or that. I believe the best we can do is help people (young or old) be creative, enjoy life, work together and work around whatever difficulties there are together.

No them and us, just us.

Don't mean to offend and I hope I haven't. Just wanted to add my 2p to the pot.

 

[Firefox]

My experience is based on interviewing school leavers over the past 15 years for entry level posts. If they claim to have an A* in maths A level I'd expect them to have a basic understanding of trigonometry and also to be able to solve basic equations such as quadratics and simultaneous, not to learn on the job ;-) That's if an A* in maths is supposed to mean anything.

If they can't do such things they'd be better off pursuing a career in linguistics, shelf stacking or wherever their talents lie. When it comes to skilled trades in construction on site, being able to set out dimensions, convert scales, and work out information from drawings including angles other than 90 is even more important than office based jobs. You can have all the computer aids you want, but when setting a stair soffit or a plaster line in the right place the final step is down to the person at the sharp end. That is also an art as well as a science because often what has been built previously is not correct, so you may have to exercise judgment as well as arithmetic.

 

[bob72]

I agree with you there 100%.

I failed a-level maths and changed subject after the first year. It was bloody hard. I could and still can do basic trig though. I failed my maths a level the year before thy moved it to the new 'as' system so I can't really comment on that.

I wouldn't dream of applying for a job I wasn't skilled suitable equipped for!