In article <jgbbvjF48jdU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 08/06/2022 10:57 am, charles wrote:
> > In article <59f4bf00b6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> > <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
> >> Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like
> >>> the Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have
> >>> degrees.
> >
> >> That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per
> >> student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.
> >
> >> The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" -
> >> which got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns'
> >> that could omit much of the costly training and materials for skilled
> >> trades.
> >
> >> So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail
> >> because of the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the
> >> clueless "11 Plus exam" methods of selection being so inherently
> >> incompetent.
> >
> >> Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany.
> >> Because the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was
> >> rather different there to England.
> >
> >> Jim
> >
> > In Germany, Engineering is a respected profession.

> It is so in the UK as well.

Theoretically. But, to most people 'an engineer' is the person who comes to
mend the washing machine, etc.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 08/06/2022 in message <t7pug6$cv8$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:

>On 08/06/2022 10:56, Martin wrote:
>>You live in a democracy. A majority elected the government The government
>>voted
>>to join. That's how democracies work.
>
>I suspect he might be referring to originally voting to join a trading
>partnership which evolved, without further votes into the start of a
>federalised Europe with its laws overruling UK law, an Army (even though
>they denied any plans for a Euro-army). The Euro-extremists have never
>really admitted that their eventual aim was a federal Europe ruled from
>Brussels.

Spot on, in 1974 or 1975 I think?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Indecision is the key to flexibility

On 08/06/2022 11:53, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 08/06/2022 in message <t7pug6$cv8$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
>
>> On 08/06/2022 10:56, Martin wrote:
>>> You live in a democracy. A majority elected the government The
>>> government voted
>>> to join. That's how democracies work.
>>
>> I suspect he might be referring to originally voting to join a trading
>> partnership which evolved, without further votes into the start of a
>> federalised Europe with its laws overruling UK law, an Army (even
>> though they denied any plans for a Euro-army).  The Euro-extremists
>> have never really admitted that their eventual aim was a federal
>> Europe ruled from Brussels.

FALSE!

> Spot on, in 1974 or 1975 I think?

FALSE!

As already posted elsewhere in the thread, everyone in 1975 who bothered
to inform themselves by reading newspapers, watching current affairs
programmes on TV, etc, knew all along that what was ultimately intended
was something akin to a "United States of Europe", to quote again
Winston Churchill's phrase when speaking in favour of it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 08/06/2022 11:39 am, charles wrote:
> In article <jgbbvjF48jdU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 08/06/2022 10:57 am, charles wrote:
>>> In article <59f4bf00b6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
>>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
>>>> Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like
>>>>> the Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have
>>>>> degrees.
>>>
>>>> That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per
>>>> student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.
>>>
>>>> The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" -
>>>> which got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns'
>>>> that could omit much of the costly training and materials for skilled
>>>> trades.
>>>
>>>> So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail
>>>> because of the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the
>>>> clueless "11 Plus exam" methods of selection being so inherently
>>>> incompetent.
>>>
>>>> Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany.
>>>> Because the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was
>>>> rather different there to England.
>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> In Germany, Engineering is a respected profession.
>
>> It is so in the UK as well.
>
> Theoretically. But, to most people 'an engineer' is the person who comes to
> mend the washing machine, etc.

That's just a question of English colloquialism.

Nothing to do with the professional status of graduate engineers.

In article <jgbfoqF4refU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 08/06/2022 11:39 am, charles wrote:
> > In article <jgbbvjF48jdU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> > <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> On 08/06/2022 10:57 am, charles wrote:
> >>> In article <59f4bf00b6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> >>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
> >>>> Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like
> >>>>> the Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have
> >>>>> degrees.
> >>>
> >>>> That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per
> >>>> student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.
> >>>
> >>>> The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" -
> >>>> which got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns'
> >>>> that could omit much of the costly training and materials for
> >>>> skilled trades.
> >>>
> >>>> So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail
> >>>> because of the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the
> >>>> clueless "11 Plus exam" methods of selection being so inherently
> >>>> incompetent.
> >>>
> >>>> Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany.
> >>>> Because the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was
> >>>> rather different there to England.
> >>>
> >>>> Jim
> >>>
> >>> In Germany, Engineering is a respected profession.
> >
> >> It is so in the UK as well.
> >
> > Theoretically. But, to most people 'an engineer' is the person who
> > comes to mend the washing machine, etc.

> That's just a question of English colloquialism.

Maybe a 'collloquialism', but its what most people think.

> Nothing to do with the professional status of graduate engineers.

I totally agree. Have they yet added "Chartered Engineer" to the list of
those who can verify your passport photo? Or are we still 'outside the
pale'?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 08/06/2022 12:51, charles wrote:
> In article <jgbfoqF4refU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 08/06/2022 11:39 am, charles wrote:
>>> In article <jgbbvjF48jdU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> On 08/06/2022 10:57 am, charles wrote:
>>>>> In article <59f4bf00b6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
>>>>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
>>>>>> Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like
>>>>>>> the Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have
>>>>>>> degrees.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per
>>>>>> student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" -
>>>>>> which got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns'
>>>>>> that could omit much of the costly training and materials for
>>>>>> skilled trades.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail
>>>>>> because of the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the
>>>>>> clueless "11 Plus exam" methods of selection being so inherently
>>>>>> incompetent.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany.
>>>>>> Because the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was
>>>>>> rather different there to England.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>
>>>>> In Germany, Engineering is a respected profession.
>>>
>>>> It is so in the UK as well.
>>>
>>> Theoretically. But, to most people 'an engineer' is the person who
>>> comes to mend the washing machine, etc.
>
>> That's just a question of English colloquialism.
>
> Maybe a 'collloquialism', but its what most people think.
>
>> Nothing to do with the professional status of graduate engineers.
>
> I totally agree. Have they yet added "Chartered Engineer" to the list of
> those who can verify your passport photo? Or are we still 'outside the
> pale'?
>

The list in the guidance has included "engineer with professional
qualifications" for a long time now. And in any event the occupations
mentioned are only a guide: other people of similar standing are and
were acceptable.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 08/06/2022 12:51 pm, charles wrote:
> In article <jgbfoqF4refU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 08/06/2022 11:39 am, charles wrote:
>>> In article <jgbbvjF48jdU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> On 08/06/2022 10:57 am, charles wrote:
>>>>> In article <59f4bf00b6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
>>>>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <zf2dncNgUYMvUgD_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
>>>>>> Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In practice the 'Techs' were really only for 11-plus failures, like
>>>>>>> the Secondary Moderns. And real engineers are expected to have
>>>>>>> degrees.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That - and the fact that they required a higher level of finance per
>>>>>> student - was one of the main factors used to undermine them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The presumption being that "clever people go to Grammar Schools" -
>>>>>> which got more cash/pupil, of course, than the 'Secondary Moderns'
>>>>>> that could omit much of the costly training and materials for
>>>>>> skilled trades.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So it was a nice idea in principle, but was then set up to fail
>>>>>> because of the way things were run, funded, and judged. Aided by the
>>>>>> clueless "11 Plus exam" methods of selection being so inherently
>>>>>> incompetent.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Things were, I think, rather different in countries like Germany.
>>>>>> Because the attitude to the various types of student, work, etc, was
>>>>>> rather different there to England.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Germany, Engineering is a respected profession.
>
>>>> It is so in the UK as well.
>
>>> Theoretically. But, to most people 'an engineer' is the person who
>>> comes to mend the washing machine, etc.
>
>> That's just a question of English colloquialism.
>
> Maybe a 'collloquialism' [eh?], but its what most people think.

There's nothing you can do about that. Don't over-concern yourself with it.

>> Nothing to do with the professional status of graduate engineers.
>
> I totally agree. Have they yet added "Chartered Engineer" to the list of
> those who can verify your passport photo? Or are we still 'outside the
> pale'?

I'm sure that any person so qualified would be acceptable by the
Passport Office. Even I have countersigned passport applications and
photographs for people I know or knew (and I am not a graduate in
engineering).

Passport application countersigners do not have to be in, or retired
from, a profession.

On 08/06/2022 12:51, charles wrote:
> Maybe a 'collloquialism', but its what most people think.

In many countries, "Engineer" is a title used with the name like
"Doctor" or "Professor" though do seem to have been debased from the
number of alleged "experts" on TV programmes who are "Doctor" or
"Professor" which often just seems to mean they have written a book and
perhaps give the odd lecture :-)

In article <59f545676enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> BloJo duly promised magical 'technology' that would allow goods to
> whoosh between Eire/NI/UK without any pause or paperwork or cost.
> This was 'oven ready'. The EU said this was bonkers, but BloJo
> insisted, so they said, "Ok, your problem to fix then", and signed
> up on that basis. His problem.

Not the case.

The solutions offered were perfectly fine. The problem lay with the
EU and Southern Island that wanted to use the issue to damage the UK
and work towards a united Ireland.

You're doing what you always do. Take your extreme prejudices and
scrape the barrel for 'evidence' to support it.

And of course we can see the usual left character of hate running
through your comments. no one hates like a lefty

Bob.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 08/06/2022 12:51, charles wrote:
>> Maybe a 'collloquialism', but its what most people think.
>
> In many countries, "Engineer" is a title used with the name like
> "Doctor" or "Professor" though do seem to have been debased from the
> number of alleged "experts" on TV programmes who are "Doctor" or
> "Professor" which often just seems to mean they have written a book and
> perhaps give the odd lecture :-)
>

UK graduate engineering posts are remunerated at very much lower levels
than in Germany. Dyson was moaning he couldn’t recruit in the UK. When you
saw what he offered it was hardly surprising.

On 08/06/2022 14:13, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <59f545676enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> BloJo duly promised magical 'technology' that would allow goods to
>> whoosh between Eire/NI/UK without any pause or paperwork or cost.
>> This was 'oven ready'. The EU said this was bonkers, but BloJo
>> insisted, so they said, "Ok, your problem to fix then", and signed
>> up on that basis. His problem.
>
> Not the case.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* that this is not the case. I gave you
*EVIDENCE* in the form of a documentary, which presumably you didn't
bother to watch, about the *JOINT* Eire and NI delegation to the
Brexshit talks pleading not to have a hard border reinstated across
Ireland dividing North & South. The result was the ill-fated so-called
NI Protocol.

> The solutions offered were perfectly fine.

As events have proved, the so-called solution was hopelessly impractical.

> The problem lay with the
> EU and Southern Island that wanted to use the issue to damage the UK
> and work towards a united Ireland.

No *EVIDENCE* given in support of pothead paranoia.

> You're doing what you always do. Take your extreme prejudices and
> scrape the barrel for 'evidence' to support it.
>
> And of course we can see the usual left character of hate running
> through your comments. no one hates like a lefty

Usual Bob-LieToThem-style paranoid fantasy rant.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 08/06/2022 11:39, charles wrote:
> Theoretically. But, to most people 'an engineer' is the person who comes to
> mend the washing machine, etc.

Yes but the lower orders have many such misapprehensions.

Bill

On 17:38 7 Jun 2022, Java Jive said:
> On 07/06/2022 14:27, Bob Latham wrote:
>> In article <59f439bbf4noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
>> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The snag is that some right-whinge people still can't face the fact
>>> that Brexit *has* - and still *is* - causing various problems
>>> despite the promises made of a Golden Age arriving via Unicorns.
>>> One reason for this is the sheer incompetence of the BloJo
>>> Government, covered by their fairy-tale promises.
>>
>> I love the way you refer to "right-whinge people" and then go on to
>> have a good whinge. :-)
>>
>> I agree that Boris has made a pig's ear of Brexit with things like
>> leaving NI in the EU and the border down the Irish sea.
>
> He had no choice. If you'd bothered to watch the documentary
> covering the negotiations that you were recommended to watch several
> years ago, you'd know that Eire and NI sent a joint delegation during
> the talks pleading to both sides that that they didn't want to see a
> hard border dividing Ireland as of old reinstated.
>
> [TRIMMED]

The problem of the NI border certainly came up during the Brexit
hustings in 2016 but it was breezily dismissed by Brexiteers and never
got the attention it deserved.

I recall thinking at the time the NI problem was unresolved but
Brexiteers were making so many fantasy promises that countering them
consumed all the oxygen.

On 11:50 7 Jun 2022, Jeff Layman said:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Yes, I found that a bit puzzling. But near the bottom, in the section
> headed "Comparing voting at the 1975 and 2016 referendums", it states
> "For the 2016 EU referendum, detailed results for group voting were
> provided in a NatCen report published in December 2016*, and the
> findings discussed below are taken from this report."
>
> (*hyperlinked to
> <http://natcen.ac.uk/media/1319222/natcen_brexplanations-report-
> final-web2.pdf>)
>
> The pdf is pretty comprehensive, but it would have been nice to have
> a 1975/2016 direct comparison where that was possible, rather than
> skip between the LSE and NatCen figures.

Interesting document. Thanks for posting the link.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 12:51:15 +0100, charles wrote:

> I totally agree. Have they yet added "Chartered Engineer" to the list of
> those who can verify your passport photo? Or are we still 'outside the
> pale'?

About 40 years ago I was working for a post production company in Soho and
my job title was Engineering Manager. One of the office girls asked me if
I would sign her passport application and photo as a person in a
responsible position. I said it might not work but she pleaded so I
signed and she went off to the passport office and came back later saying
they wouldn't accept it because I had not entered my qualifications. Well
I didn't think ONC Electrical Engineering would work but I was a member of
The Royal Television Society, so with tongue in cheek I entered 'MRTS' and
she came back waving her passport!

--
TOJ.

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 19:31:48 -0000 (UTC), The Other John
<nomail@home.org> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 12:51:15 +0100, charles wrote:
>
>> I totally agree. Have they yet added "Chartered Engineer" to the list of
>> those who can verify your passport photo? Or are we still 'outside the
>> pale'?
>
>About 40 years ago I was working for a post production company in Soho and
>my job title was Engineering Manager. One of the office girls asked me if
>I would sign her passport application and photo as a person in a
>responsible position. I said it might not work but she pleaded so I
>signed and she went off to the passport office and came back later saying
>they wouldn't accept it because I had not entered my qualifications. Well
>I didn't think ONC Electrical Engineering would work but I was a member of
>The Royal Television Society, so with tongue in cheek I entered 'MRTS' and
>she came back waving her passport!

I wonder if "BATC" would have worked?

Rod.

On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 17:32:02 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 07/06/2022 in message
> <0e1b17a3-bf5c-4dd1...@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton
> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 12:59:58 UTC+1, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> >>On 07/06/2022 in message <t7ndtn$q8m$1...@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
> >>
> >SNIP
> >
> >>The quoting is getting a little confused but from memory the link was to
> >>the Graudian - left wing bullshit.
> >
> >It was, but you were asked to look at the graphs based on published
> >evidence [and implicitly retract your support for Schapp's false statement)
> I thought 1984 was fiction, why do the thought police feel it is
> appropriate to ask me to change my views?

No one is asking you to change your views, although if you looked at the evidence and admitted that you don't have any for your view then rationally you might.

I had a look around for something a little more unbiased than the Grauniad. The article is three months out of date and the UK position has probably worsened but: -
https://obr.uk/box/the-latest-evidence-on-the-impact-of-brexit-on-uk-trade/
The OBR was set up by a Conservative government in 2010.

Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.
The do paint a very sorry scene.

> >>Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
> >In the very first UK wide referendum in 1975 it was >2:1 to stay in.
> NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, it was
> a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".

1. It WAS the first UK wide referendum in 1975, at the time unprecedented. Brexiteers always say there should have been one before joining, but there never had previously (e.g. joining Nato or UN, invading Suez, declaring war on Germany twice etc...)
2. It was >2:1 in favour.
3. I did NOT say what the vote was for, but it was to stay in the European Economic Community.
4. The European Union, superseding the Community, did not come into being until 1993, continued membership of that was ratified in Parliament.

> >>brings many benefits in my view but I am not stuck in the economics
> >>groove.
> >
> >Oh you mean like loss of freedom of movement?
> >I benefited from Maggie signing the Single European Act by working there..
> >No longer possible without oodles of paperwork.
> >
> >To be fair xenophobes rejoiced that thousands of Polish lorry drivers went
> >home.
> Good luck to them, your arrogance in trying to change what I think is
> astonishing.

Agreed, it is very difficult to change the view of prejudiced people...

>
> This is my last word, we have annoyed the group long enough but I have
> grave concerns about remoaners spreading propaganda on social media.

Leavers, Trump and Putin all spread lies about Brexit on social media to swing opinion ahead of the referendum - successfully alas. The government and Brextremists are now desperately trying to stop the truth of the failure of Brexit being publicised, of course people who complain online about empty shelves, gifts held up in customs, queues in Kent and at foreign airports and all the myriad of problems created by Brexit are accused of being propagandists and the BBC attacked as biased.

Clearly the almost complete absence of publicity on the benefits of Brexit (and certainly any truthful coverage) also tells you all you need to know about how it is going.

> --
> Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
> If you ever find something you like buy a lifetime supply because they
> will stop making it

In article <jgbbnlF45scU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > You live in a democracy. A majority elected the government The
> > government voted to join. That's how democracies work.

> They work even better when the electorate's view is expressed directly,
> without having be filtered through the beliefs of a particular and
> largely self-appointed set of individuals with a tendency to "go native"
> when faced with a liberal establishment.

The other side of this is that most people don't know how to ensure we get
the 'end results' they wish, and the details of how it will be done. e.g.
When we may want a good road network, or set of school provison or more
effective NHS - without padded costs or loss of control/scrutiny.

So the point of having elected politicians and Civil Servants is *meant to
be* that the public indicates the outcomes they want, and they elect a
government that sets about delivering in a way that the public will find
optimum.

A snag is that people often want the bun *and* the sixpence and aren't
willing to accept any hint that this isn't possible. So some politicians
simply promise things to get elected. Then fudge it and shove the blame
onto someone else.

How many voters spend time regularly every week watching BBC Parliament's
broadcasts of things like the committee sessions, I wonder. They might find
them eye-opening at times. Much more useful than PMQs.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <59f5580f23bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <59f545676enoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > BloJo duly promised magical 'technology' that would allow goods to
> > whoosh between Eire/NI/UK without any pause or paperwork or cost. This
> > was 'oven ready'. The EU said this was bonkers, but BloJo insisted, so
> > they said, "Ok, your problem to fix then", and signed up on that
> > basis. His problem.

> Not the case.

> The solutions offered were perfectly fine.

So where is the magic 'technology' BloJo promised would enable this to
happen? The EU negotiators doubted it, but he insisted, so they took him
at his word and agreed on that basis.

However it was clear enough that the three requirements formed a clash
such that satisfying all three was impossible. For BloJo that doesn't
matter because he tells people what they want to hear when he needs
to get them let him have his way.

In effect he's now whining that they accepted his undeliverable promises.

Even the sheep in the Tory Party now realise he's taken them for a ride,
but they now have a problem getting rid of him and his chums.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <t7qtf4$hgo$1@dont-email.me>, The Other John <nomail@home.org>
wrote:
> Well I didn't think ONC Electrical Engineering would work but I was a
> member of The Royal Television Society, so with tongue in cheek I
> entered 'MRTS' and she came back waving her passport!

I was for some years an "Old Crow". I wonder if that would have done. 8-]

Some years earlier when I worked at Armstrong I decided to apply to join
the UK electrical engineers society (can't recall their name). Their form
seemed mainly concerned with how many people I bossed over. (Answer was
nil as I did all the engineering.)

So I joined the IEEE. Glad ever since that I did. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 13:54:37 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>

SNIP

> >
> > I totally agree. Have they yet added "Chartered Engineer" to the list of
> > those who can verify your passport photo? Or are we still 'outside the
> > pale'?
> I'm sure that any person so qualified would be acceptable by the
> Passport Office. Even I have countersigned passport applications and
> photographs for people I know or knew (and I am not a graduate in
> engineering).
>
> Passport application countersigners do not have to be in, or retired
> from, a profession.

Usually lawyers (professionally bound not to make false statements), doctors (who are likely to know applicants) and elected officials (e.g. MP's, councillors - ibid). I signed one for a neighbour's [Asian] son's first adult passport. Back came a letter from the passport office checking I had signed it and asking how long I had known him - "since he was in nappies" was the reply.

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>
>> Passport application countersigners do not have to be in, or retired
>> from, a profession.

Many people are directors of one-man companies, or a residents association

> Usually lawyers (professionally bound not to make false statements), doctors
> (who are likely to know applicants)

I think doctors are no longer acceptable, unless they know the applicant
personally, rather than professionally?

> and elected officials (e.g. MP's,
> councillors - ibid). I signed one for a neighbour's [Asian] son's first
> adult passport. Back came a letter from the passport office checking I had
> signed it and asking how long I had known him - "since he was in nappies" was
> the reply.

On 10/06/2022 in message
<2e65c804-09b7-48c3-a855-033131bfb078n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

>>>It was, but you were asked to look at the graphs based on published
>>>evidence [and implicitly retract your support for Schapp's false
>>>statement)
>>I thought 1984 was fiction, why do the thought police feel it is
>>appropriate to ask me to change my views?
>
>No one is asking you to change your views, although if you looked at the
>evidence and admitted that you don't have any for your view then
>rationally you might.

That is incorrect, there are a couple of people in here (including you in
the above statement) who feel I should read something or other and change
my view as a consequence. Perhaps you should Google "view or opinion", you
may find it interesting.

>Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the
>article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.

This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted because I
have a different view to you, my view is mine and you are welcome to
disagree with it but I have a right to it and you do not have a right to
ask me to change it.

>>>>Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
>>>In the very first UK wide referendum in 1975 it was >2:1 to stay in.
>>NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, it was
>>a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".

>1. It WAS the first UK wide referendum in 1975, at the time unprecedented.
> Brexiteers always say there should have been one before joining, but there never had previously (e.g. joining Nato or UN, invading Suez, declaring war on Germany twice etc...)
>2. It was >2:1 in favour.
>3. I did NOT say what the vote was for, but it was to stay in the European
>Economic Community.
>4. The European Union, superseding the Community, did not come into being
>until 1993, continued membership of that was ratified in Parliament.

Thank you, that my recollection. I voted to stay in the Common Market but
there was no vote on joining the EU, just the referendum to leave it.

>>Good luck to them, your arrogance in trying to change what I think is
>>astonishing.
>
>Agreed, it is very difficult to change the view of prejudiced people...

And another insult see above.

>Leavers, Trump and Putin all spread lies about Brexit on social media to
>swing opinion ahead of the referendum - successfully alas. The government
>and Brextremists are now desperately trying to stop the truth of the
>failure of Brexit being publicised, of course people who complain online
>about empty shelves, gifts held up in customs, queues in Kent and at
>foreign airports and all the myriad of problems created by Brexit are
>accused of being propagandists and the BBC attacked as biased.

As I have said several times you really, really, can't believe marketing
puff.

>
>Clearly the almost complete absence of publicity on the benefits of Brexit
>(and certainly any truthful coverage) also tells you all you need to know
>about how it is going.

It's going very well in my view, I have no wish to try and change your
view as that would be rude, arrogant and offensive.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
(Bill Gates, 1981)

On 10/06/2022 09:56, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.

Though I believe the Grauniad, like the Liberals, have a history of
using dodgy graphs.

Just going by hearsay as I do not look at the tabloids.

On 10/06/2022 11:01, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 10/06/2022 in message
> <2e65c804-09b7-48c3-a855-033131bfb078n@googlegroups.com> R. Mark Clayton
> wrote:

[Quoting broken, but I think R Mark Clayton said]

>>>> It was, but you were asked to look at the graphs based on published
>>>> evidence [and implicitly retract your support for Schapp's false
>>>> statement)

[Quoting broken, but I think Jeff Gaines said]

>>> I thought 1984 was fiction, why do the thought police feel it is
>>> appropriate to ask me to change my views?
>>
>> No one is asking you to change your views, although if you looked at
>> the evidence and admitted that you don't have any for your view then
>> rationally you might.
>
> That is incorrect, there are a couple of people in  here (including you
> in the above statement) who feel I should read something or other and
> change my view as a consequence. Perhaps you should Google "view or
> opinion", you may find it interesting.

That is incorrect, there are many people here who think you should not
make public statements without being able to support them with reliable
*EVIDENCE*, and that to do so intentionally and consistently even after
being supplied with contrary evidence, as you have done, is just LYING.

>> Again no need to read all the long words and complex arguments in the
>> article just look at the pictures, sorry graphs.
>
> This is (at least) the second offensive remark you have posted because I
> have a different view to you, my view is mine and you are welcome to
> disagree with it but I have a right to it and you do not have a right to
> ask me to change it.

If you will insist on making an arse of yourself by pretending not to
understand the conventions of public debate, then you should expect flak.

>>>>> Our independence from the EU (which we didn't vote to join)
>>>> In the very first UK wide referendum in 1975 it was >2:1 to stay in.
>>> NO! Remoaners keep saying that IT WASN'T A VOTE TO STAY IN THE EU, it
>>> was
>>> a vote to remain in the Common Market and I voted "yes".
>>
>> 1. It WAS the first UK wide referendum in 1975, at the time
>> unprecedented.  Brexiteers always say there should have been one
>> before joining, but there never had previously (e.g. joining Nato or
>> UN, invading Suez, declaring war on Germany twice etc...)
>> 2. It was >2:1 in favour.
>> 3. I did NOT say what the vote was for, but it was to stay in the
>> European Economic Community.
>> 4. The European Union, superseding the Community, did not come into
>> being until 1993, continued membership of that was ratified in
>> Parliament.
>
> Thank you, that my recollection. I voted to stay in the Common Market
> but there was no vote on joining the EU, just the referendum to leave it.

Because as a rule we don't *do* referenda in this country - it is
perhaps arguable that we should do more of them, but as things stand
they are the exception rather than the rule, the rule being that
Parliament makes such decisions on our behalf, as happened with joining
the EU.

>>> Good luck to them, your arrogance in trying to change what I think is
>>> astonishing.
>>
>> Agreed, it is very difficult to change the view of prejudiced people...
>
> And another insult see above.

More justified flak. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

>> Leavers, Trump and Putin all spread lies about Brexit on social media
>> to swing opinion ahead of the referendum - successfully alas.  The
>> government and Brextremists are now desperately trying to stop the
>> truth of the failure of Brexit being publicised, of course people who
>> complain online about empty shelves, gifts held up in customs, queues
>> in Kent and at foreign airports and all the myriad of problems created
>> by Brexit are accused of being propagandists and the BBC attacked as
>> biased.
>
> As I have said several times you really, really, can't believe marketing
> puff.

Except when it happens to be true.

>> Clearly the almost complete absence of publicity on the benefits of
>> Brexit (and certainly any truthful coverage) also tells you all you
>> need to know about how it is going.
>
> It's going very well in my view, I have no wish to try and change your
> view as that would be rude, arrogant and offensive.

Then stop being rude, arrogant and offensive by lying to this ng.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk