Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: BBC and warped statistics

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,000

    Default

    I notice the Beeb, are relaying Hondas, threat to stop investing in the UK if we were to leave the EU. Now that really isn't,t much fun to listen to if you happen to be. Anti EU.But nevertheless mind,it,s the Beeb, write it off as propaganda
    Last edited by Mack; 11-08-2013 at 07:52 PM.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Oftentimes they overlook the bleedin' obvious! Or have an agenda, such as underwriting government statistics, the quid pro quo being a gong - and with a little bit o' luck an ermine outfit together with a seat in the UH. Gawd I'm so cynical it frightens me!

    That's a reply to Sid's post 10.
    Last edited by Ollyof39; 11-09-2013 at 06:00 AM. Reason: I thought the post was the most recent in the thead but it wasn't, so I had to reference it.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mack View Post
    I notice the Beeb, are relaying Hondas, threat to stop investing in the UK if we were to leave the EU. Now that really isn't,t much fun to listen to if you happen to be. Anti EU.But nevertheless mind,it,s the Beeb, write it off as propaganda
    It's Cameron's little sweetener to persuade them put the frighteners on the working class peasants; he's probably promised them a tax break of some kind if he gets in again - perish the thought!!

    'if he gets in again'???

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ollyof39 View Post
    It's Cameron's little sweetener to persuade them put the frighteners on the working class peasants; he's probably promised them a tax break of some kind if he gets in again - perish the thought!!

    'if he gets in again'???
    That's 2 sweeteners this week then. The other blatant sweetener being to the Scots to vote 'no' in 2014 over the decision to keep the Clyde shipyards open in preference to Portsmouth. Yikes? I should co co!

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sid View Post
    This whole topic is more often than not looked at through biased eyes. There is a certain amount of xenophobia in all of us. This I believe to be a part of our genetic make up.

    I agree with you there.

    There is however evidence that migration to this country has a benefit to the economy.

    If anybody would care to take the time to read this academic paper http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/14318/1/14318.pdf then tell me otherwise. I would like to see a similarly valid document to the contrary.

    To save you all reading the whole article I have a choice snippet, with references for additional confirmation of the facts.

    1. Research for the British Home Office (Gott and Johnston 2002) recently suggested, for example, that
    immigrants to the UK make a positive net contribution to British public finances.


    The interpretation by the public however on the effect on the economy and reality are that this depends on your level of education and the skills you have.

    Please see the tables on pages 18 and 19.
    I'll take a look at Gott and Johnson. I had a quick look at the University College paper. It is a work based on attitudes, fears, and concerns, and they don't pretend otherwise of course, and not hard economics. It was written nearly 10 years ago, so one may question its current validity. The figures are based on the European Social Survey of 2002 - a long time ago, and over the whole of Europe. Rather removed from us perhaps, here and now. Rich and poor? Highly and lowly educated? I didn't find their definitions, or were they just vague concepts perhaps?

    My concern is not so much the content of the news, as the way it is reported. The interesting bit, I think, is analysing WHY does a politician, a company or a news organisation, or a researcher come to that sometimes (I used to work in scientific research, so I know only too well it occurs) have to distort news, or the facts, or use dodgy stats.
    Last edited by molesworth1; 11-09-2013 at 10:55 AM.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by molesworth1 View Post
    That's 2 sweeteners this week then. The other blatant sweetener being to the Scots to vote 'no' in 2014 over the decision to keep the Clyde shipyards open in preference to Portsmouth. Yikes? I should co co!
    Yep, spot on - toying with the lives of decent and certainly skilled men for political advantage. How low can anyone sink than that - especially doing it just before Christmas!! What a fucking disaster the man's turned out to be.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by molesworth1 View Post
    I'll take a look at Gott and Johnson. I had a quick look at the University College paper. It is a work based on attitudes, fears, and concerns, and they don't pretend otherwise of course, and not hard economics. It was written nearly 10 years ago, so one may question its current validity. The figures are based on the European Social Survey of 2002 - a long time ago, and over the whole of Europe. Rather removed from us perhaps, here and now. Rich and poor? Highly and lowly educated? I didn't find their definitions, or were they just vague concepts perhaps?

    My concern is not so much the content of the news, as the way it is reported. The interesting bit, I think, is analysing WHY does a politician, a company or a news organisation, or a researcher come to that sometimes (I used to work in scientific research, so I know only too well it occurs) have to distort news, or the facts, or use dodgy stats.
    Great post, moley!

  8. #18
    Senior Member Sid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by molesworth1 View Post
    I'll take a look at Gott and Johnson. I had a quick look at the University College paper. It is a work based on attitudes, fears, and concerns, and they don't pretend otherwise of course, and not hard economics. It was written nearly 10 years ago, so one may question its current validity. The figures are based on the European Social Survey of 2002 - a long time ago, and over the whole of Europe. Rather removed from us perhaps, here and now. Rich and poor? Highly and lowly educated? I didn't find their definitions, or were they just vague concepts perhaps?

    My concern is not so much the content of the news, as the way it is reported. The interesting bit, I think, is analysing WHY does a politician, a company or a news organisation, or a researcher come to that sometimes (I used to work in scientific research, so I know only too well it occurs) have to distort news, or the facts, or use dodgy stats.
    You do raise some good points, however, the fact remains that without immigration the currently ageing population is going to be a greater burden on tax payers.
    And instead of focusing attention on immigrants, who percentage wise are claiming less benefits, why don't we and the politicians focus on the long term wastes of space who just don't want to work because they get far too much in benefits?

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by molesworth1 View Post
    I didn't hear the response by Migration Watch, perhaps it was in later bulletins. What I saw was the BBC news swallowing the Univ Coll 'data' and 'analysis', and regurgitating it whole, unquestioningly, and far too willingly.
    In this case the University had cobbled together some dubious data comparing two populations of different origin, culture, circumstance, and motives for working/not working. In fact it compared one whole population, (indigenous Brits) with a small part (immigrants) of a much larger population. This small part is mostly by definition highly motivated, with no intention of claiming benefits, although with a minority out to do
    just that.
    That any university comes up with this, and that any news organisation accepts it, beggars belief.
    The news headlines should have been : University wastes time and resources doing pointless survey, using flawed statistics, and arriving at a useless and nonsensical conclusion. I wouldn't expect to see this tripe even in the Mirror quite frankly.
    I first heard the item on the report and the Migration Watch response on the 7-8 slot (might have been the 8-9 slot) on the R4 Today programme. Points from both parties seemed to be repeated in the subsequent bulletins I heard throughout the day.

    I did notice later the apoplexy when reports of Nissan's musings about the UK and the EU were aired. Difficult to tell if most indignation was caused by the car maker's views on what's best for its business or the BBC's daring to report it...

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sid View Post
    You do raise some good points, however, the fact remains that without immigration the currently ageing population is going to be a greater burden on tax payers.
    And instead of focusing attention on immigrants, who percentage wise are claiming less benefits, why don't we and the politicians focus on the long term wastes of space who just don't want to work because they get far too much in benefits?
    I agree with you there, whether they're indigenous or immigrant. Well, WE can and will focus on it all we like, don't hold your breath for ANY politician to do so - obviously they'll pay lip service to it every now and then, with firm promises just to try and keep us quiet, and win our votes of course.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •