Jump to content

UKIP as seen by LePen


NormanH
 Share

Recommended Posts

Before I was born my mother had a little girl who had water on the brain, she had one of the very first 'shunt' operations but died just before her second birthday.

My mother's continued grief effected not only my life but that of my sister, who was born 10 years after my mother's first daughter, to a great extent. ( and yes I know you never get over it )

With my first pregnancy I was very concerned it was hereditary and if a scan had shown a similar condition I would have an abortion, not without hesitation, but I wouldn't have needed much persuasion.

A friend with a very much wanted pregnancy was in contact with rubella in the early stages.....she was Roman Catholic and would have continued with the pregnancy....her GP was convinced that the risks were high and cancelled the rest of his patients ( transferred to others in the practice ) while he explained the full ramifications to her.....eventually she agreed to a termination.....

So your friend may have had oversight of two viable ( but damaged ) foetuses.....from very different circumstances but they wouldn't have known the full story at all.

In my opinion a woman's child bearing is up to her to manage, not some politician, especially not one with Trumps reputation with women.

There may be a few women who still have multiple abortions, but my guess is that they are much fewer in number than they used to be....and no one has the right to force a woman to give birth to an unwanted child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And of course the greatest stupidity in the argument against abortion is that making it illegal means that it stops.

Those with money will take a Ryanjetbe flight to somewhere where it is legal and the rest will do what they have historically always done - gin, hot bath, knitting needles or at best a back-street operator.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course in these discussions the criticism is always levelled at the women for their behaviour rather than the men. Lets face it, if men took responsibility for contraception there would be very few unwanted pregnancies and a big reduction in sexually transmitted diseases.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this article in the Harvard Business Review interesting and more moderate in tone than some. Although it deals with America there is much that could apply to the UK

https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class

On the other hand on the roots of the problem this cuts to the heart of the matter:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/neoliberalsim-donald-trump-george-monbiot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoddy:

First, let me say, at no time do I or indeed, did I suggest "It's the womens' fault!"

Clearly, my understanding is it normally takes two to tango; unless my biology master was misinformed...

Thus clearly, the corollary must be concluded as louche behaviour including two persons of opposite sex.

You of course are aware of serious STD infection reaching epidemic levels; and accelerating?

Furthermore, in particular, both Gonorrhea and Syphilis present with multiple re-infections, increasingly and both have mutated into "Super" state and are increasingly anti-biotic resistant.

Here:

CDC (Centre for Disease Control: Atlanta Georgia) is the international "clearing house" and somewhat credible...

Also Here:

I discuss such matters, regularly, with my cousin a retired Professor of Microbiology who is still a noted authority and regularly contributes to learned papers and chairs meetings.

Still what does he know.............

Logically and inescapably, this worrying phenomenon cannot be the result of society comprised of stable monogamous relationships, now can it!

Moving to genetic disease and predisposition; a large number of such conditions can now be predicted, pre-pregnancy and therefore, responsible personal behaviour militates against such results as a compromised child.

Personally, in various social and community involvements, I have watched, over the past 30 years, the behaviour of younger people degenerate into feckless irresponsibility. So yes, louche behaviour.

I am sure, where and when genetic illness, accident and/or contributory circumstances outside a person's direct control cause pregnancy (rape e.g.) then there will always remain an excellent case for early termination.

A society having and accepting abortion-on-demand, no questions; no justifications, is a failed and degenerate society, which is in process of destroying itself.

A cousin had a Down's Syndrome child; subsequent investigation into the family (I was part of this, attending Guy's Hospital for sampling) discovered my late Mother's side suffered a chromosome deficiency. One "Leg" of the "U" was missing. This was probably caused by her father foolishly marrying his cousin. My chromosomes are normal. However, my cousin, bless her, raised the babe, a girl, and worked hard to ensure the lass had a very good and full life. She died when  she was circa 30, which is normal.

My younger brother, who is also a fool, also married his cousin: and both suffer the chromosome deficiency and thus elected not to have children.

Many years ago, I worked with a charming man, my then mentor, who had been a Battle of Britain Hurricane pilot, lovely person. As I knew him better and then met his lovely wife, it turned out they too had a Downs' Syndrome child. Together with Sir John Barberolly and Valerie Hobson (Profumo's wife), they founded what was then called The Mongol Society, as a charity (now, of course, no longer a PC name.).

He and his wife again, worked tirelessly and ensured their child had serious remedial life-style assistance and teaching and lived a full life.

Abortion, today, seems on par with marriage or a kitchen: "Don't like it! Junk it and start over!"

A good prescription for a stable and successful society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read Norman and takes a bit of digesting.

I thing sometimes we over engineer or over think these issues. In the first article is a good example about steel making. Like many industrial processes that have ended up in Asiatic countries how do you bring them back?

One of the major issues is technology. Look at Ford at Dagenham for example. In it's heyday it employed around 40,000 workers now its down to 4,000 making engines for Ford, Jaguar, Land Rover and Peugeot-Citroën.

Today the UK has the most efficient car manufacturing in Europe, some 10.5 cars per employee compared to the rest of Europe who produce 2.1 yet compare Nisan who for instance produce just over 0.5M cars per year with 6,700 employees (Ford at Dagenham produced just under 11M in 71 years.

The reason for this is of course technology, robots etc. They can build cars better than any human at a much lower price and to a much higher quality. The days of cars rotting before they even left the factory (not just BL either) have long gone and their life expectancy is far higher. Should we throw the robots out and replace them with humans just so people can have jobs?

But also we can look at job vacancies against the unemployed which indicates that we should have an unemployment rate of around 100,000 (we are talking about those that are fit and able to work).

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/job-vacancies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know Gluestick..I agree with some of what you say..I'm just not sure young people are any more promiscuous than they've ever been. Everyone was supposed to swinging in the 60s but I'm not sure how many actually did. In my era, 70s and 80s I knew a handful of people who had abortions, mostly for very sad reasons, at not one of them went on to have a second abortion. I think abortion rates in the UK have remained pretty consistent. http://www.bbc.com/news/health- and those figures include people from abroad who are not allowed to have abortions in their own country.

When I lived in Uk my house was in a relatively poor area with a lot of social housing. Young women's (and men's) attitude to families and child bearing was very different to my own, but I don't think abortion was high on the list of must haves.

On a different but related note, I hear that one of Trump's new team once commented 'would you rather your daughter had feminism or cancer'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS wrote

Moving to genetic disease and predisposition; a large number of such conditions can now be predicted, pre-pregnancy and therefore, responsible personal behaviour militates against such results as a compromised child.

How wonderful it would be if it were that simple.

In some case it is possible to say that if one partner or the other (frequently both) carries a gene then it will be passed on.

In the vast majority of cases it is only possible to give a percentage chance that a condition would be passed on. So what level of risk do we find acceptable for a childless couple who desperately want a family? 50% might be deemed a big risk, but what about 25%, or 5% or 1% or.....?

The whole thing begins to get a bit controversial since it starts to border on Eugenics, which might be applauded in some areas and rejected outright in others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that over the last 6 years STD's amongst the over 50's has more than doubled and that's the ones they know about. Whilst the highest percentage of reported infections is amongst the 15 to 24 year olds the overall amount of reported infections is down between 2014/15 fro 2013/14 to around 430,000. No data for 2015/16 is currently available, you have to wait till 2017. The fact that older women have passed menopause does not mean they are any less or more active than those that have not. However for them there is no fear of pregnancy therefore no abortions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh - what a hornets' nest has been stirred up.  From Trump through to abortions and STD's.....

The OP's coments may have been slightly 'over the top' and designed to provoke (and oh boy did it !) - but the basic premise is surely right.   Just look at our 'Uni' students on their nights out - the girls really don't do themselves any favours - and recent interviews with these young girls does show there is some sort of desperation for 'approval' and 'response' rom the young men. 

Come on now - you all know that 20 years ago such behaviour wasn't normal; it is degrading and cheap behaviour of these young women - it's demeaning of them - but they do it for 'peer approval' and attention - ask yourselves why ?

It is also true that attitudes to single mothers has changed completely;  now it is quite acceptable for a young woman to have a child without being married;  in some cases, without even having a stable relationship.   Some of them do go on to have several children with different men - and they do not work - it's all funded by the tax-payer.

This has also led to increased demand for social housing - because this ''family group' can't get a mortgage or pay high rents for decent properties.

Which has increased demand on social housing.

As for the abortion issue - and the snide comments about eugenics.   Doesn't it come down to a question of responsibility ?   Were I to be one of an unfortunate group with a known inherited genetic failure/problem causing long term health issues - I would have decided NOT to have any children.   Look at the families of those who have Huntingdon's Chorea - directly inherited terrible probolems - and KNOWN inherited problems.    Suggesting that maybe the number of children, or no children at all in those individuals suffering from that problem is not 'eugenics' - it's sensible - and not wishing to inflict suffering on an innocent child, denying your wish to have children, is surely a compassionate and selfess choice ?   After all, there is adoption isn't there ?

- - - - -

We've moved a long way from the Trump election; and LePenn.

How about this.   Weekend Telegraph very interesting article on previous American Presidents, mentioning specifically Jackson - and how he was regarded and described in similar terms to Trump.  As in Reagan and other American Presidents, rather derided by the political lot as not being 'one of them' - yet these Presidents were regarded later as being hugely successful - for the American people.

All the talk about 'this group will vote this way' - 'this group needs to be targetted' - and then the surprise when 'those groups' didn't vote the way the pollsters and political commentators thought they should;  maybe it's because those minority groups don't regard themselves as minorities - but are part of the American Dream - which has not worked for them.   They see the metropolitan elites who have done well - and who have sneered at them.   Wasn't it H Clinton herself who described them as the 'deplorables' - great way to secure votes.   Same as in the UK - look at the comments by Cameron directed at UKIP supporters;  the comments by Thornbury and others at 'white van man' - those are all the attitudes, the sneering and contempt for the ordinary people, that has led to this 'wind of change'.

And it is not just the UK, or the USA - it's right across Europe.   It's the ordinary people saying that the 'liberal lot' have got things wrong - but the liberal lot just sneered.   Well, the ordinarys are now taking their revenge - and there is a mood for change - and the liberals in charge had better listen up.   Stop the sneering, stop the contempt.  It's a shame that it wasn't the liberal elites who were losing their jobs to cheap foreign labour;  that their local communities had changed because of increased immigration; that their schools weren't under pressure and they couldn't get their children into the nearest local schools; that their GPs surgeries were over-crowded;   I could go on - but don't you all just get the picture.

The liberal elites who have told the rest of the population how to think, how to behave - have got things wrong - totally and utterly wrong - what gives them the 'right' to tell the majority of people what to think.   They didn't experience what the ordinary people have done.

Until they have walked in the shoes of the ordinary man - they don't have the right.   And the ordinarys are now hitting back - and have become more extreme because they were not listened to when they first raised reasonable and genuine concerns about numbers.....

Chessie

(apologies for long post - I type too fast and and write too much !!! )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="lindal1000"]I don't know Gluestick..I agree with some of what you say..I'm just not sure young people are any more promiscuous than they've ever been. Everyone was supposed to swinging in the 60s but I'm not sure how many actually did. [/quote]

Well, a few years back, some chums and I held a group reunion: a group of young keen musicians. As we blew the froth off, we chatted about the supposed Free Love and Swinging Sixties and all agreed, we didn't find any! Discussing this with younger friends from the 70s era, it was clear the social rebellion of the anti-establishment movement of the 60s, took root in more average kids in the 1970s. At times then, I used to mix with, here and there some of them, mainly through business. If one of the large local disco group wasn't drinking and stated "I'm taking meds and can't drink." Then the others would mention "Oxytet" and shout "He's got a dose!"

Now later in the 70s, having sold my business and liquidated my property portfolio, I returned to the City and entered money broking, which was a new rapidly growing activity, at this time.

And yes, the drinking, for some was simply lunatic. And that was about that.

A few years back, Mrs Gluey and I had been in Andalusia, staying with friends and flew with Buzz. The return flight from Malaga was an utter nightmare! A horde of money dealers from the City boarded; it was clear they were utterly bladdered already and demanded more; cabin crew said no way. Their behaviour was appalling. I asked one who they were and what they had been doing; he explained, they were City dealers and had had a quick weekend in Spain.

The row immediately in front of us, was full with drink dealers; and one girlie was laying all over their laps and in a loud well spoken voice was bemoaning that if she didn't get moving, then she would miss her target of screwing 100 guys in one year: it was October........... next one team leader (older guy) took out his mobile and called someone as we were in process of final approach.

Not louche? University supposed students? Seen the bit about Durham this last week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will swing back, Gluey, don't worry, as STDs become rampant, leading to sexual repression, a rise in prostitution and the rest. Once ladies have had their fill and discovered that women's rights does not equal booze filled promiscuity, they will settle down, as will the lads.

Then, perhaps, the media will no longer encourage it either.

But, unless we manage to discover more antibiotice, STDs and other diseases will be so rampant that there will be a return to polygamy where healthy ladies will group round healthy men and the diseased will be left by the wayside.

My meories of the '60s were that there was plenty of sex but little promiscuity. Indeed, a lady known to be a sleep around was to be avoided by most (Sorry, but those were the attitudes in those days, ladies).

Abortions, there were a few, or adoptions.

At the other extreme there was one Catholic teacher training college where the girls still believed that babies could be got by kissing with the mouth open. Also rather unhealthy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that the USA has seen the biggest increase in STDs when contraceptive services have been cut. Maybe also to do with the push from the fundamentalist churches for young people to abstain rather than to be careful! I'm not saying one way is any better than another..just that if you look back in history, trusting hormone driven young people to just stop usually results in several casualties!

Yes the binge drinking culture in the UK is probably responsible for a lot. Both sexes are equally culpable. I have noticed that some groups of younger people are actually becoming teetotal now. Perhaps there is hope, because you certainly don't make responsible decisions when you're pi**ed. I was reading a post on Facebook from some students who were saying they don't drink. They were a mixture of Muslim and non Muslim students and some of the Britain First trolls were giving them a hard time for not drinking like a patriot!

And then I look back at my own youth..and I was probably one of the more conservative and cautious of my peers, and I can't say that all of actions were sensible or beyond reproach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gluestick said: Many years ago, I worked with a charming man, my then mentor, who had

been a Battle of Britain Hurricane pilot, lovely person. As I knew him

better and then met his lovely wife, it turned out they too had a Downs'

Syndrome child. Together with Sir John Barberolly and Valerie Hobson

(Profumo's wife), they founded what was then called The Mongol Society,

as a charity (now, of course, no longer a PC name.).

He and his

wife again, worked tirelessly and ensured their child had serious

remedial life-style assistance and teaching and lived a full life.

Abortion, today, seems on par with marriage or a kitchen: "Don't like it! Junk it and start over!"

A good prescription for a stable and successful society?

I used to do a lot of voluntary work with handicapped young people, including those with Down's. And it is truly great that those with Down's are doing so well these days, but, for me once Down's kids start having children then a line has been crossed when mental handicap is involved. As you point out, able bodied parents made sure that their child grew up with a good life.

Good and stable society......... ?. Most people have never had to deal with disability every day.  I do not believe in 'people ie society' feeling good about other people's heartache and chronic fatigue and misery. And the reality is that most in this situation will say that they would not change a thing, but in this game of life, they have actually given up their 'time, their life' to be the drudge of others........ and I know of what I talk. (Not one of us will ever know what they really feel about their situation, because it involves 'guilt and duty' .......and never forgetting love, because sometimes, but not always, that is involved) Still if that makes 'society' in general feel better about itself, yippeee........ !!!!!!!

Not reproducing with a bad genetic defect is something that I agree with

as a general rule. Although these days, one can cherry pick the foetus

and that I agree with that too, if it is possible.

It doesn't always take two to tango, some cultures still believe that sex is the man's right, so that makes consent a rather iffy business. Trouble is that such cultures are also anti abortion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging by those that comment on the 60's it would seem that they are between 60 and 70 years old and benefited from free university courses (yes I know their parents had to part fund them). It's quite different now because we have to pay for our degrees at an average cost of £11,000 a year just in tuition fees. We then need to borrow about £8,000 a year just to live and pay for our books. Some sources put the cost at around £30,000 per year all in although it didn't cost the students I know that much. The £9,000 a year fee as of 2012 is the minimum and universities can charge what ever they want. The higher ranking the university the more it costs.

Because politicians have all but forced school leavers to take up higher education i.e. university education the "normal" degree has become very common so to stand a better chance of employment you need a masters. That adds between one and two years onto your three year degree course. I am sure you can do the maths as to the cost.

The behaviour of Durham university students this year is not the norm. None of my mates could afford £30 let alone £90 door money for a party and then there is the cost of the booze on top. Those that attended that party were not all students and those students that did attend came from very rich families and to be honest it's a waste of time them going to university because they probably won't even need to earn a salary. In other words don't tar us all with the same brush based on a very small minority.

The rest of us work very hard. Getting a "Desmond" will just about get you on a low quality masters course and many won't even get one of those. Therefore you need to work really hard to get on a good quality masters course and then you need to work doubly hard to get it. Basically we don't have the time to go out drinking and summer breaks are usually taken up with placements in industry etc. So not only don't we have the time but we don't have the money either.

Actually from archive film I have seen and talking to family members those that were at university in the 60,s and 70's had it far easier than us.

What to do with my masters, well leave the UK that's for sure. Thanks to that age group which predominantly voted to leave the EU our futures in the UK are well and truly screwed. I shall probably go to another EU country like those I know who left this summer. Germany seems a good bet and they desperately want R&D engineers with masters. The Antipodean countries are also in dire need of our skills. Won't be going to US that's for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Cathar Tours"]Judging by those that comment on the 60's it would seem that they are between 60 and 70 years old and benefited from free university courses (yes I know their parents had to part fund them). [/quote]

Very few people of that generation attended university; obviously as one considered the middle middle and upper middle class it was more usual. Nothing is or ever was "free". Undergrads still had to live somewhere, eat, clothe themselves, buy their books etc. Plus they or their parents had, as you say, to part-fund costs.

Neither I nor my two brothers went to university, despite my father being a very successful and wealthy man. However, my elder brother, an engineer specialising in electronics, radar defence matters, and later datacom, finished up with a doctorate.

My younger brother became a banker and towards the end of his career was an executive of a major Gulf State bank.

I became an accountant. Indeed, taking articles as a solicitor or accountant was much more common. My school was an excellent and much respected grammar and the upper classes tended to create university material and my alma mater boasts cabinet ministers, bishops, bankers, scientists et al in gay profusion.

In my middle life I became involved in education and HFE and became a university External Examiner and Moderator and ad hoc lecturer. On top of my professional career.

Government encouraged more and more youngsters to attend university, originally, to cut youth unemployment figures and also encouraged and funded a slew of ersatz "universities" and silly degree courses, which has become out of control.

No point in an bit of paper unless it assists obtention of gainful employ and a decent career.

[quote] Germany seems a good bet and they desperately want R&D engineers with masters[/quote]

Thought they had now imported tens of thousands of them, along with the myriad of doctors, surgeons, rockets scientists etc?

[Www]

Good to learn you are an engineer. Hope your plans include fluent German!

[quote]Thanks to that age group which predominantly voted to leave the EU our futures in the UK are well and truly screwed.[/quote]

Sheer arrant nonsense!

The way things are going, you might well be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire!

Rather, approach such as Dyson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I continue to think that those politicians who brought in fees, Tony Blair era, including Jack Straw, were so wrong; I seem to remember JS's son had just finished at university.........

If I were young now, I definitely wouldn't have been able to afford to train to be a teacher. Debt was a great shame to parents of that era. I was only permitted to apply to go to college after the intervention of a friend from grammar school's parents, an architect and a teacher, far removed from the lives of our friends and neighbours, visited my parents to persuade them that I was bright and it would be a pity if I left school to become a comptometer (?) operator - I don't remember what that was....

My parents were poorly paid, we had very little money; my father worked at a woodyard and when my mother found a job it was working at the co-op, but the council decided they should pay £52 each year to me for living expenses. So every Tuesday during term time a letter arrived with a 10 shilling note in with it. How they managed to do that, I'll never know.

I feel so sorry for those who have had to go into debt to be able to put themselves through university. We were lucky that our son who went was there in the 90s.

Even though I say so myself, I would have been a loss to children with special needs, behaviour problems etc for 30+ years; not everyone can cope with teaching those difficult children - I felt that teaching was a vocation, not sure it is today.

I was at college in the 60s; there was a certain amount of sleeping around, the women were greeted by jeers in the dining room on Sundays, the men were applauded and some gave out scores the women had 'achieved'. It was a small number of women, but most of the men exaggerated a lot on many counts around this subject.

Drinking, yes there was a fair bit of that, but it was just beer, usually a couple of pints were nursed through an evening; no bar at college, and a fair walk to the pub (rare for anyone to have their own transport then). The worst we got up to was to gather on the railway bridge on the way back from the pub, to continue the tradition of spitting on the midnight train on the last night of term. Not so very daring!

On the referendum, I'm not aware of anyone I know who voted to leave the EU, apart from one, related by marriage, who is about 35. I'm in my 70s, as are many of my friends in England, and still find it difficult to believe the result.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Gardengirl "]I was only permitted to apply to go to college after the intervention of a friend from grammar school's parents, an architect and a teacher, far removed from the lives of our friends and neighbours, visited my parents to persuade them that I was bright and it would be a pity if I left school to become a comptometer (?) operator - I don't remember what that was.... [/quote]

 

It was a mechanical computer that looked like a typewriter, a primative mechanical version of the Pocket calculator, accurate to 8 significant decimals but needed a trained (but brain dead) operator to use one, companies employed comptometer operators in accounts, angineering etc.

Eldest sister went to grammar school, got the highest results at A level but still was no opportunity of university, middle sister failed 11 plus, failed her GCSE's and my family paid for her to go to a private college to train to become a comptometer operator, she went on to work for B-Cal doing the weight load calcs and currency conversions, with the advent of Pocket calculators the job dissapeared.

 

I passed 11 plus but by that time there were no grammar schools in my area and I went to the largest and worst comprehensive school in the country by a long margin, it was renowned for this and regularly appeared in national papers for the antics of the progressive dope smoking (in class) teachers, my parents were told that I was "university material" for all that was Worth, I had to leave school and work to pay rent at 15 or I would have been homeless, I was paying £10 per week to my father out of a £16 per week gross salary, later on I found that a lodger he had brought in, a skilled man who worked in the factory where i was an apprentice and hence had a full skilled wage, was only paying £5 per week [:(]

 

Not much chance of university for me, actually thats now true, if I had not been homeless and gone off the rails and had worked harder at college and in my apprenticeship the company would have sponsored me and sent me to university as a student apprentice, they wanted to give me the chance (if I bucked up my ideas) but Ithey needed to know that I had support from my parents which I never had from my father and my mother had died.

 

Even with the opportunities open to all these days someone in the situation that I was, without a family and a home behind them would find it very difficult to go to university even if the grants/loans etc are available.

 

Gardengirl. I am glad you went into teaching, your talents and intellect would have been wasted punching numbered keys to do calculations for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Chancer, we comptometer operators were not brain dead. At least not where I worked we were not. And as we were so adept with the figures we dealt with, we often picked up anomalys before they got much further. Because as everything was handwritten, people did sometimes make mistakes, reversing figures, or decimal point in the wrong place when they were used.

And how we made all those with 'functioning' brains lives easy, when we were dealing with £SD and imperial measures for just about everything. We could do all their calculations in a flash and always accurately.

Incidentally, that was never just my job,there was more to it than that, but I am very very proud of having done that job. And it set me up well for all my future accounting jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I much agree. Idun.

My first job in the City, whilst still studying, after taking my intermediate exam at commercial college, was with a shipping line.

All the rather complex calcs (translating shipping manifests into freight charges - bearing in mind freight was then charged according to weight, type of cargo carried, cube etc) was completed by the Comp girls. Not dumb bunnies by a long way.

Sumlock was then the most common comptometer.

These were used in engineering, too, working out pretty complex stuff. They were the next advance from a slide rule (I still have mine!) and the early mechanical calculator.

A great book to read in order to recapture those times, is the late great author Neville Shute's (Neville Shute-Norway) part autobiography, Sliderule.

Norway was a young engineering grad who worked on complex calculations on the airships of the 1930s; and finished up Chief Calculator.

Next step were the glowing neon tube calculators; I used to use of of those in the city.They were common and just before the digital solid state jobs were introduced. The first being the Texas Instrument item. I still have two originals in my collection.

History:

Burroughs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...