Mixing religion & politics is never a good idea.

Aye the tories are doing a great job

I don't quite get it?

 

Your more likely to die of what than be murdered?

I don't quite get it?

 

Your more likely to die of what than be murdered?

 

Think that the Bish is trying to say that the lazy twats that the DWP are saying are fit for work are dying of shock at the thought of it, dying once back at work or simply dying having been declared fit for work. This number is now greater than the number of people murdered in Great Britain on an annual basis.

 

However, if hundreds of thousands are declared fit for work then the number dying would be statistically greater than the UK murder rate anyhow. 

Edited August 31, 201511 yr by bgoefc

There's a difference between being declared fit for "some kind of" work and being declared fit to do fuck all.

 

When there's a zillion signed off on bad back leave or idleitis for the last generation it's unsurprising a small number by comparison have died after being told there is nowt wrong with them other than laziness and are indeed fit do do some kind of work.

So the percentage has increased because they've got a grip of sickness benefit rather than dying from having to work?

So the percentage has increased because they've got a grip of sickness benefit rather than dying from having to work?

 

yep thats wot i was trying to explain. In stats if a population of your sample grows  and you skew that population by growing it with number of the same data sets such as this then of course if you then compare it it a totally different set ( i.e. the number of murders) that remain relatively static, then you will get the figures that the Bishop likes to to create headlines on.

 

like your clothing industry, there is a steady stream of old fuckers who like white knitted  or their equivalents. This number is almost constant in percentage terms as the years roll on. However, if you compare this set of numbers to to folk who like to wear jeans, it will remain relatively constant with slow movement in ratios. But then change the dimension to include people who wear trousers you will skew the comparison. Now the the change i give is obvious but the one the Bish uses is not obvious to most but is to someone who is used to using  stats.

 

Stats are a powerful tool  and unfortunately people are often duped by the press without the background facts or knowledge to make judgements.

Stats are a powerful tool  and unfortunately people are often duped by the press without the background facts or knowledge to make judgements.

 

Don't forget - it's only those you disagree with that are being duped. An important factor to bear in mind.

Don't forget - it's only those you disagree with that are being duped. An important factor to bear in mind.

No! the numbers have always to be factual. Its how they are represented can be misrepresented via scales on graphs,  representation, omission etc.

No! the numbers have always to be factual. Its how they are represented can be misrepresented via scales on graphs,  representation, omission etc.

 

That doesn't change what I just said.

That doesn't change what I just said.

yes it does. you imply it depends if i agree or disagree with facts. facts and numbers are there and irrefutable. Whether you agree with the interpretation of them is the part that is open to debate.

Edited August 31, 201511 yr by bgoefc

yes it does.

 

I'm basically repeating what you said, but from a subjective viewpoint. What makes you think the statistical representations you agree with are more credible than the representations you disagree with?

I'm basically repeating what you said, but from a subjective viewpoint. What makes you think the statistical representations you agree with are more credible than the representations you disagree with?

 

One has to press the link on an article to the original data. Often the newspaper author picks out the headline grabbing number without looking at the rest of the data. Like i said, stats are complex and and can be interpreted in a number of ways by the general public. Then again i have been educated on how to disseminate numbers using various tools and how to interpret them both in my past life and now in the career path i have chosen.

 

Basically if the links (or lack of them) in an article are not real, forget it.

One has to press the link on an article to the original data. Often the newspaper author picks out the headline grabbing number without looking at the rest of the data. Like i said, stats are complex and and can be interpreted in a number of ways by the general public. Then again i have been educated on how to disseminate numbers using various tools and how to interpret them both in my past life and now in the career path i have chosen.

 

Basically if the links (or lack of them) in an article are not real, forget it.

 

I agree. And that still doesn't change what I said.

I have said this before but giving the Tories a safety net of a guaranteed win is a horrendous idea. I fail to grasp this idea you have about them being all singing and dancing.

 

Yes they are better than Labour but not exactly a claim is it?

 

 

So we agree then. You fail to grasp it.

 

As one who has probably lived longer than you, I have seen over and over again the apparent never ending cycle of waste and excess in the name of socialism followed by a period of austerity as conservatism tries to balance the books. The people get pissed off with austerity and the serial squanderers start to look attractive again - right up until the day the piper has to be paid.

 

I strongly believe that a prolonged period of conservative government will mean a stronger economy, more jobs, more money to pay for health and welfare etc. All down to good management and doing the right thing rather than the populist thing.

 

With this in mind, the prospect of the red rags electing an undeniable left wing extremist fruitcake as leader bodes well for a long period of conservative government. We can only hope that the dawn of realisation does not hit those eligible to vote in the Labour leadership election before they have voted.

 

The best thing for Britain.

I'm still failing to understand why you want a shit leader in for Labour? Does a decent opposition not push a better government in to improving the country?

 

The points you make about preferring Tory are fine (I agree with a lot of them) but imo a guarenteed Tory walk over in the next election would also bring out the special cases/policies that conservatives push.

I'm still failing to understand why you want a shit leader in for Labour? Does a decent opposition not push a better government in to improving the country?

The points you make about preferring Tory are fine (I agree with a lot of them) but imo a guarenteed Tory walk over in the next election would also bring out the special cases/policies that conservatives push.

I'm failing to understand it too. Without strong opposition it'd be nigh on a dictatorship. Generally, Politicians do seem to have a whiff of narcissism to them so questioning those on the other side of the house has got to be healthy.

Blair is saying that Corbyn would be insane not to invade Iraq. Blair was talking about Corbyn`s` Alice in Wonderland politics. Right now, he said,  he needs to stop this nonesense about taxing the rich, I dont know who he wants to bomb, or if he even wants to bomb at all. 

I'm failing to understand it too. Without strong opposition it'd be nigh on a dictatorship. Generally, Politicians do seem to have a whiff of narcissism to them so questioning those on the other side of the house has got to be healthy.

Spot on

Blair is saying that Corbyn would be insane not to invade Iraq. Blair was talking about Corbyn`s` Alice in Wonderland politics. Right now, he said,  he needs to stop this nonesense about taxing the rich, I dont know who he wants to bomb, or if he even wants to bomb at all. 

 

 

He will never bomb anyone

I'm failing to understand it too. Without strong opposition it'd be nigh on a dictatorship. Generally, Politicians do seem to have a whiff of narcissism to them so questioning those on the other side of the house has got to be healthy.

 

 

Can't disagree with that

The argument we need a strong opposition isn't enough reason to prop up a Labour Party intent on self-destruction.

The argument we need a strong opposition isn't enough reason to prop up a Labour Party intent on self-destruction.

it could be the SNP but seeing as they're just a bunch of cranks with chips on their shoulders whose sole intent is to take money from the wealthy South at the same time as whining for independence. Then there's the liberal party who've died on their arses plus UKIP who can hold a conference in a taxi, I think Labour are probably the only opposition party in Westminster.

 

 

http://heyevent.uk/event/hehk7kwil5baia/occupy-the-tory-conference-2015-manchester-central

 

 

"We are going to make it perfectly clear they are not welcome here"

 

Corbyn will be in attendance. Is this really the behaviour becoming of an opposition leader?

 

Savages.

http://heyevent.uk/event/hehk7kwil5baia/occupy-the-tory-conference-2015-manchester-central

 

 

"We are going to make it perfectly clear they are not welcome here"

 

Corbyn will be in attendance. Is this really the behaviour becoming of an opposition leader?

 

Savages.

one has only to scroll down that article to "similar events" to see that they are the professional rent a mob. Vegan fest and open borders etc etc.

http://heyevent.uk/event/hehk7kwil5baia/occupy-the-tory-conference-2015-manchester-central

 

 

"We are going to make it perfectly clear they are not welcome here"

 

Corbyn will be in attendance. Is this really the behaviour becoming of an opposition leader?

 

Savages.

 

 

Just when you thought that the lunatics couldn't get any closer to running the asylum