ChatterBank1 min ago
The Wisdom Of Crowds?
147 Answers
Was interested to see the following article in The Independent:
http://
It seems that the British public actually tends to believe grossly inaccurate things about their society compared to the evidence available. These findings are supported by an earlier survey commissioned by the TUC and carried out by Ipsos-Mori:
http://
//On average people think that 41% of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people, while the true figure is three per cent.
On average people think that 27% of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently, while the government's own figure is 0.7%.
On average people think that almost half the people (48%) who claim Jobseeker's Allowance go on to claim it for more than a year, while the true figure is 27.8%.
On average people think that an unemployed couple with two school-age children would get £147 in Jobseeker's Allowance - more than 30% higher than the £111.45 they would actually receive - a £35 over-calculation.
Only 21% of people think that this family with two school-age children would be better off if one of the unemployed parents got a 30 hour a week minimum wage job, even though they would actually end up £138 a week better off. Even those who thought they would be better off only thought on average they would gain by £59.//
Do ABers believe this evidence, or should we continue to place more trust in the 'man on the street' than on evidence deriving from research?
http://
It seems that the British public actually tends to believe grossly inaccurate things about their society compared to the evidence available. These findings are supported by an earlier survey commissioned by the TUC and carried out by Ipsos-Mori:
http://
//On average people think that 41% of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people, while the true figure is three per cent.
On average people think that 27% of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently, while the government's own figure is 0.7%.
On average people think that almost half the people (48%) who claim Jobseeker's Allowance go on to claim it for more than a year, while the true figure is 27.8%.
On average people think that an unemployed couple with two school-age children would get £147 in Jobseeker's Allowance - more than 30% higher than the £111.45 they would actually receive - a £35 over-calculation.
Only 21% of people think that this family with two school-age children would be better off if one of the unemployed parents got a 30 hour a week minimum wage job, even though they would actually end up £138 a week better off. Even those who thought they would be better off only thought on average they would gain by £59.//
Do ABers believe this evidence, or should we continue to place more trust in the 'man on the street' than on evidence deriving from research?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Everyone is indeed entitled to opinions and that does include you baz. I am also entitled to say that I think your opinions are often wrong, and say why. This is not an attack on your right to have an opinion. The same applies in reverse, you are entitled to call my opinions wrong and explain why. That's how arguing works.
In point of fact, I won't "be happy when theres [sic] no whites left here" because that would immediately mean that I'd have been forced to move somewhere else just because of my skin colour. On the other hand, I see no real problem with this country becoming more culturally diverse, do not see it as a threat to my way of life, and do not see the preservation of a race for its own sake as desirable. Really it's this point that leads to the arguments -- that you seem to want to have this country staying a white majority without ever explaining why this is better. And as soon as you (or AOG, or anyone else) start going on about "racial purity" then the view turns away from being respectable and veers straight into being just plain racist.
That is not to say that there are no problems caused by immigration. It's just to say that you have to find more significant ones than just whites being driven out of this country or some such. This is not happening, really. The proportion of White people may be decreasing but not their number.
In point of fact, I won't "be happy when theres [sic] no whites left here" because that would immediately mean that I'd have been forced to move somewhere else just because of my skin colour. On the other hand, I see no real problem with this country becoming more culturally diverse, do not see it as a threat to my way of life, and do not see the preservation of a race for its own sake as desirable. Really it's this point that leads to the arguments -- that you seem to want to have this country staying a white majority without ever explaining why this is better. And as soon as you (or AOG, or anyone else) start going on about "racial purity" then the view turns away from being respectable and veers straight into being just plain racist.
That is not to say that there are no problems caused by immigration. It's just to say that you have to find more significant ones than just whites being driven out of this country or some such. This is not happening, really. The proportion of White people may be decreasing but not their number.
Kromovaracun
I bet you thought your thread would centre on statistics eh?
You raised a very interesting point...I suppose it's perception vs. fact.
Or perhaps perception vs. stats. And stats are a notoriously difficult concept to pin down. As Gromit pointed out - headline stats may not really reflect real life facts.
I bet you thought your thread would centre on statistics eh?
You raised a very interesting point...I suppose it's perception vs. fact.
Or perhaps perception vs. stats. And stats are a notoriously difficult concept to pin down. As Gromit pointed out - headline stats may not really reflect real life facts.
Which culture would you wish to preserve? Anglo-Saxon, Norman-British, Roman-British, C18 British, C19 British? Which? We have C21 British. Is that threatened with change, as those others were? And what change will that be?
Do the maths. At what point will Muslims be the majority in this country? Assumptions are made apparently on the basis that the white British will stop reproducing and that other groups will reproduce like rabbits plus that there will be vast numbers of foreigners who are black or brown, and who have the same culture and religion, imported. Neither is correct.
Do the maths. At what point will Muslims be the majority in this country? Assumptions are made apparently on the basis that the white British will stop reproducing and that other groups will reproduce like rabbits plus that there will be vast numbers of foreigners who are black or brown, and who have the same culture and religion, imported. Neither is correct.
At the very least, if the number of White people is not decreasing then it should suggest that there is no attack, and the changing face of Britain is just a result of normal changes. Perhaps accelerated -- immigration rates in recent years are far greater than before -- but not sinister.
Still, some people will never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Still, some people will never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Am I alone in thinking that those on here who want the severest penalties, far beyond those imposed or possible, for crimes, would actually be happy with most,if not all, of Sharia law? It may not be as bad as they feared. Much of it belongs with early C19 law here, and so do they. And they might approve of amputating the hand of a pickpocket.
Fred, I’ve no idea when – or if - Muslims will ever become the majority, but theoretically if the current trend in high birth rates among Muslims continues, compared to the far lower figures for the indigenous population, doing the maths would indicate that at some time in the future – however distant that might be - the Muslim population will exceed that of the indigenous population. I don’t think it will happen – but we can’t say it won’t.
Octavius, I’ve no idea what you mean with your reference to blinkered, but that aside, we don’t have cold, hard facts to the contrary. See above.
Jim, //some people will never let the facts get in the way of a good story. //
See the above.
I don’t even know why Mikey introduced the subject of Muslims here. The OP doesn’t mention immigration. Nevertheless, here we go again - and now we're into Sharia Law!
Octavius, I’ve no idea what you mean with your reference to blinkered, but that aside, we don’t have cold, hard facts to the contrary. See above.
Jim, //some people will never let the facts get in the way of a good story. //
See the above.
I don’t even know why Mikey introduced the subject of Muslims here. The OP doesn’t mention immigration. Nevertheless, here we go again - and now we're into Sharia Law!
Jim...well done. You are quite right about everybody being entitled to an opinion. As you say, some posters here on AB use their right to further purely racist views, and as such I and others will continue to expose them. They are easy to identify...phrases like "swamped" occur in their post on a regular basis for instance.
Luckily though, due to their lack of logic and education, their loathsome views are easily identified !
Luckily though, due to their lack of logic and education, their loathsome views are easily identified !
people can test their own knowledge of the facts here
http://
http://
Naomi...try looking at ems post of 08.56 today...top of page 3 :::
em10
mickey, admittedly its wiki,
http://
Perhaps not so rude after all !
em10
mickey, admittedly its wiki,
http://
Perhaps not so rude after all !
