Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: BBC and warped statistics

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by molesworth1 View Post
    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.

    Well they won't keep me quiet, and they won't get my vote. UKIP, UKIP ra-ra-ra!!

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    675

    Default

    Ukip will probably do well in the European Elections — many voters regard these elections as irrelevant anyway, and won't bother. After that comes May 2015 and serious voting (probably still not a fantastic turn-out). Expect to see any earlier Ukip support wither...

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ollyof39 View Post

    But is it commensurate with the actually immigration figures? In other words, is there a net benefit? I know the Great and the Gormless and exploitative minimum wage-paying employers keep telling us there is, but I would say there's a net deficit. Think 'numbers'?
    Did you even read his post, he clearly quotes that there is a NET benefit. You are basing your net deficit on nothing at all. What do you mean by "think 'numbers'"?

    But never mind that, the OP's point is totally bizarre:
    "What sort of statistic is THAT? Of course less will claim benefits : most of them come here specifically TO work, and even have jobs ready, whether it's fruit picking or neuro surgery"
    45% less likely to claim benefits is a perfectly valid statistic and certainly not void of mathematical sense. It means that native Brits are more likely to claim benefits. You say 'they came here specifically to work' but native Brits SHOULD be working too, that's life, just because they were born here doesn't give them a right not to work so why isn't it a fair comparison? Using a percentage there is also the only valid comparison. You can't use the actual numbers because that is not a meaningful comparison. It might look something like: 7 million British people claim benefits while 100,000 immigrants do (made up! just illustrative). That is a meaningless statistic unless you put what each of those is out of and that is just a fraction, like a percentage. Why do you care about the number of people arriving with no intention of working without having the number of people who do work as a comparison. Again just to illustrate my point, if you read two items and one says: 1 person comes to UK to scrounge for every 1000 that come to work, that sounds like an unfortunate but acceptable number right? but by the sounds of it, you'd prefer it to simply say: "100 people came to the UK to scrounge" and you're not interested in the 100,000 that are now working and paying tax?

    Also, you say all that matters is how many claim benefits in numbers. Why? That's a useless figure if you can't compare it against the number of native British claiming benefits / with no intention of working. If you are interested because you want to know whether they are a problem or not then it is only fair to compare them with the national average. You aren't seriously suggesting you would halt benefits/immigration after a flat number of claimants is hit are you? i.e. when 150,000 calim benefits they're all out?

    As for "how MUCH in £billions it costs US." I wouldn't worry, it doesn't cost us even close to billions, the number of immigrants paying tax easily covers their welfare bill, yes even the fraudulent claimants. This is obviously something that you would overlook in statistics given by the Daily Mail of course, it would just be "IMMIGRANT WELFARE BILL £10BILLION" or something absurd, not mentioning the "IMMIGRANT INCOME TAX £100BILLION".


    You seem obsessed on the idea that the left-wing BBC is trying to trick you into being pro-immigration but the facts all point in one direction. It is quite clearly the right-wing scaremongering red-top shite that is influencing negative public opinion.

    If you are going to post inflammatory and impassioned (nothing wrong with either) posts like this then PLEASE for the sake of your own argument, give us some sources and reliable statistics. Quote a study or find some figures from the ONS and make your own interpretations for us to scrutinize. Don't just say "I would say there's a net deficit" or "trust the BBC to use % comparisons void of mathematical sense".

    I am perfectly open to changing my mind on the British immigration policy if you can show me why it's bad for Britain, but I'm afraid you being upset for some reason doesn't count.
    -----------------------------------------------
    Why should I?

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ollyof39 View Post
    Well they won't keep me quiet, and they won't get my vote. UKIP, UKIP ra-ra-ra!!
    Sorry to pick on your posts again molesworth1 and Olly, it's not personal, you're just on the opposite side of the argument.

    The current estimate of the cost of benefit fraud in this country is somewhere between £1b-£4b. This is a big number don't get me wrong, but it is absolutely insignificant compared to money wasted on red tape, money not collected from corporation tax, money spent on trident etc etc.

    When you have a welfare state that tries to provide for those in need you will get scumbags (and we do agree there, they are scum) who will try and take advantage and fraudulently claim. HOWEVER, if preventing those fraudulent claims costs either money or an innocent and deserving person missing out on their benefits then we just have to absorb the costs. Trying to prevent fraudulent claims would very likely cost more than the 1-4billion I quoted and would almost certainly accidently take away some genuine claimants benefits. It isn't worth it. We should be focusing on far more pressing issues, like uncollected tax (~£35billion). Collecting the tax owed is victimless. It will not deprive someone of something they deserve, chasing benefit fraud will.

    I appreciate that it is frustrating that people are claiming benefits when they shouldn't but it is a TINY problem totally blown out of proportion by the likes of UKIP exactly because it makes people mad. What is more important though; saving the country tens of billions with no 'poor' effected or saving the country a couple of billion with the potential to cripple some poor or sick peoples' lives? That genuinely is the choice.

    Have a look at the budget, then have a look at where money is wasted and if it is benefit fraud that is the biggest problem for you then by all means vote for a party that will deal with the small change while the rest of the world deals with hard cash.
    -----------------------------------------------
    Why should I?

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
  •