India’s successful Moon Landing

[isaac3d2]

Ignore the provocative title, it’s a good watch and very interesting…..does this remind you of anything? Why facts don’t have any influence on some peoples perspective? A theory created by a guy fighting against the Nazis

I agree with most of what you said. I think Bonhoeffer was pretty much spot on. Sadly, the proportion of "Stupid people" seems to be increasing! Much of "stupidity" is down to laziness of thought, people don't want to be bothered with sorting through facts to form an opinion, they prefer to "buy a ready meal" from a politician or (omg, I'm actually going to use this awful phrase) a "social influencer".
I blame our education system.

Meanwhile, India has landed a spacecraft on the far side of the moon. Great work guys!!

 

[John Brown]

It is time this post was renamed angry old men banging on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Delete it moderators !!!!

I'm old, I suppose, at 70, but I'm not angry, just amazed that so many people are so angry about this stuff. It's exactly what the Tories want, I suspect.
Instead of banging on about how much it costs to feed and shelter "asylum seekers", some of whom I agree are not really asylum seekers, why don't they just throw a bit more money at processing them? You'd think that'd be a more cost effective route. Also, could the powers that be not try a bit harder to catch and shut down the people smugglers? Have a few undercover agents pose as potential "customers"? It's almost as if the government want to have a focus for right wing xenophobia. If the small boats miraculously ceased overnight, then people might notice what a crap job the government were doing generally, or wake up to how they've been duped over Brexit.

 

[Fergie 307]

Can we please get back on topic, ie India landing on the moon as we are now heading to another galaxy and are leaving the moon far behind.

You must have a bigger telescope than me, the moon fell invisibly astern a long time ago from where im sitting. Jacob firmly at the controls and heading for that parallel universe where Comrade Corbyn reigns supreme, if only I had paid more attention in the safety briefing I would know my way to the nearest exit

 

[Jacob]

..... could the powers that be not try a bit harder to catch and shut down the people smugglers? ...

People smugglers are an inevitable side effect of the policy. If normal routes were open there would be no smugglers and people could arrive in good condition and still in possession of the vast amounts of money they have to pay the smugglers. That'd help them sort out their lives and save the UK tax payers a fortune!

 

[deema]

People smugglers are an inevitable side effect of the policy. If normal routes were open there would be no smugglers and people could arrive in good condition and still in possession of the vast amounts of money they have to pay the smugglers. That'd help them sort out their lives and save the UK tax payers a fortune!

A little reading would highlight that a large number of the economic migrants actually borrow money to make the journey knowing that they would be unable to obtain the necessary visa and work permits to enter Europe / UK legally. They therefore utilise people smugglers to circumnavigate the borders and try the asylum route, they at least get a period in the country to accumulate wealth. Often it’s the families of the individual who have funded / borrowed the money on the expectation of the earnings being sent back. What you have is organised crime smuggling them over the borders and then for many committing crime to support the borrowing to finance getting over as they are not allowed to work. Who in all of this is the victim? The host country and the populous they pray upon that they have entered.

Perhaps I would suggest you go through each of the countries that migrants typically come from and check to see if there is any significant events that could qualify them to be Asylum seekers. You cannot include fleeing from war, or starvation, neither of which qualify. The net result is a very tiny minuscule set of situations which are present today, ironically these people who deserve asylum are typically not those arriving at our shores……

 

[Jacob]

A little reading would highlight that a large number of the economic migrants actually borrow money to make the journey knowing that they would be unable to obtain the necessary visa and work permits to enter Europe / UK legally. They therefore utilise people smugglers to circumnavigate the borders and try the asylum route, they at least get a period in the country to accumulate wealth. Often it’s the families of the individual who have funded / borrowed the money on the expectation of the earnings being sent back. What you have is organised crime smuggling them over the borders and then for many committing crime to support the borrowing to finance getting over as they are not allowed to work. Who in all of this is the victim? The host country and the populous they pray upon that they have entered.

Perhaps I would suggest you go through each of the countries that migrants typically come from and check to see if there is any significant events that could qualify them to be Asylum seekers. You cannot include fleeing from war, or starvation, neither of which qualify. The net result is a very tiny minuscule set of situations which are present today, ironically these people who deserve asylum are typically not those arriving at our shores……

You just churning out the anti immigrant propaganda. It would be better for all if there were open routes for access to remove the criminality and black market finance. Speedy processing would also save a fortune.
Instead the govt are investing in harassment of immigrants and encouraging illegality.

 

[John Brown]

A little reading would highlight that a large number of the economic migrants actually borrow money to make the journey knowing that they would be unable to obtain the necessary visa and work permits to enter Europe / UK legally. They therefore utilise people smugglers to circumnavigate the borders and try the asylum route, they at least get a period in the country to accumulate wealth. Often it’s the families of the individual who have funded / borrowed the money on the expectation of the earnings being sent back. What you have is organised crime smuggling them over the borders and then for many committing crime to support the borrowing to finance getting over as they are not allowed to work. Who in all of this is the victim? The host country and the populous they pray upon that they have entered.

Perhaps I would suggest you go through each of the countries that migrants typically come from and check to see if there is any significant events that could qualify them to be Asylum seekers. You cannot include fleeing from war, or starvation, neither of which qualify. The net result is a very tiny minuscule set of situations which are present today, ironically these people who deserve asylum are typically not those arriving at our shores……

I hadn't realised praying was a crime. Not that I disagree, it certainly ought to be.

 

[deema]

You just churning out the anti immigrant propaganda. It would be better for all if there were open routes for access to remove the criminality and black market finance. Speedy processing would also save a fortune.
Instead the govt are investing in harassment of immigrants and encouraging illegality.

Back to the ‘I think it is so it must be true’ approach again. As suggested, read up on the subject and look at it objectively rather than just reiterating slogans. I keep saying it, but your wrong once again.

 

[Jacob]

..... they at least get a period in the country to accumulate wealth. .....

Possibly the daftest thing you've had said so far Deema.
Not much more to be said in this thread IMHO.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

First time you ever knew when to stop.

 

[Keith Cocker]

All the above is, of course, very simplistic. Were tax, wealth distribution, etc easy to engineer we would all inhabit a comfortable well fed and fulfilled utopia.

We managed it after WW2. We were a fairer and more caring society in the first half of my life. I saw it change and we have gone backwards.

 

[Jacob]

We managed it after WW2. We were a fairer and more caring society in the first half of my life. I saw it change and we have gone backwards.

1979 things started going downhill - and still going.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-... consensus, sometimes,1945 to the late-1970s.

 

[TomGW]

When I saw that this thread was 16 pages I thought that somehow India’s moon landing had got sidetracked into chisel or plane sharpening.

 

[Adam W.]

First time you ever knew when to stop.

But he didn't.

 

[Keith Cocker]

1979 things started going downhill - and still going.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-... consensus, sometimes,1945 to the late-1970s.

In 1979 I was a Manager in ICI ( many will remember Imperial Chemical Industries but for those who are younger it was the largest industrial business in the UK). We devoted a huge amount of time and money to developing and maintaining good relationships with the accredited Trade Unions via what we called Joint Consultation- not quite European Works Councils but similar) It paid off in very good Industrial Relations. We had very few strikes and disputes and a good degree of cooperation in managing change. I was part of the group involved nationally in this and on the night of the 1979 election we were in the middle of discussion with the TUs on the annual pay round. The Managment team and the national officers of the unions were staying overnight in the same London hotel and we were drinking together as the results were coming in. Once it was clear that Thatcher had won one of the TU national officials said to us “nothing will be the same after this. We won’t be meeting in this way and it will be all down hill for Britain and British Industry”. And he was right.

 

[Jacob]

In 1979 I was a Manager in ICI ( many will remember Imperial Chemical Industries but for those who are younger it was the largest industrial business in the UK). We devoted a huge amount of time and money to developing and maintaining good relationships with the accredited Trade Unions via what we called Joint Consultation- not quite European Works Councils but similar) It paid off in very good Industrial Relations. We had very few strikes and disputes and a good degree of cooperation in managing change. I was part of the group involved nationally in this and on the night of the 1979 election we were in the middle of discussion with the TUs on the annual pay round. The Managment team and the national officers of the unions were staying overnight in the same London hotel and we were drinking together as the results were coming in. Once it was clear that Thatcher had won one of the TU national officials said to us “nothing will be the same after this. We won’t be meeting in this way and it will be all down hill for Britain and British Industry”. And he was right.

Interesting!
Ask people today "whatever happened to ICI" and they don't even know what you are talking about, still less that it was sabotaged by Thatcher, along with other UK industries.

 

[deema]

We managed it after WW2. We were a fairer and more caring society in the first half of my life. I saw it change and we have gone backwards.

Ok, strong statement, I’m not sure how you’ve arrived at this perspective, so I’d appreciate you elaborating on why this was the case.
Looking at history (I know some prefer to go down I think it, so it must be route, but I prefer hard indisputable facts, call me old fashioned), poverty after WW2 was rampant, the inequality in society was monumental, (for light entertainment, watch say upstairs downstairs, or Downton Abbey to appreciate the massive accumulated wealth and people who lived their entire lives in service, something that only stated to change after the war. In the 60s we saw the massive slum clearance. It was only in 1971 did the women’s equality come, and after it much of the legislation to prevent racial, religious and sexual orientation, age discrimination, so clearly if like @Jacob you preferred a period in history where prejudice, inequality and wealth distribution were at its peak, you might feel it was a better society. Let’s also put to one side that education levels, life expectancy and every other measure of a better life has increased since the 1970’s, including air quality etc etc.

 

[Jacob]

Ok, strong statement, I’m not sure how you’ve arrived at this perspective, so I’d appreciate you elaborating on why this was the case.

Read the link already given several times! Post-war consensus - Wikipedia.
Ignorance is no excuse nowadays, we have instant access to amazing sources.
Good to see you trying to catch up Deema!

 

[deema]

@Keith Cocker Interesting, so it wasn’t the terrible acquisition of Unilever 1997 (The year labour under Tony Blair came to power) placing the company a few billion in debt, reduced and ineffective innovation that led to its downfall that us so widely reported, but Thathers rise to power in the 1970’s? Did you actually read about what happened, or are we back to ‘I think it so it must be?’

 

[Jacob]

@Keith Cocker Interesting, so it wasn’t the terrible acquisition of Unilever 1997 (The year labour under Tony Blair came to power) placing the company a few billion in debt, reduced and ineffective innovation that led to its downfall that us so widely reported, but Thathers rise to power in the 1970’s? Did you actually read about what happened, or are we back to ‘I think it so it must be?’

Blair finished what Thatcher started.
"In 2002, twelve years after Margaret Thatcher left office, she was asked at a dinner what was her greatest achievement. Thatcher replied: “Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds.”"
Spawn of Satan!