RayC

TBF he has admitted that ordering a Hawaiian was a mistake. He now realises that pineapple has no place on a pizza.

With apologies to ScottieJohn🙏, this should keep you going for a while. https://upjoke.com/prince-andrew-jokes

Sorry, can't help. Haven't really followed the case that closely. Just thought that it was a good joke😁

Given that Andrew settled the original case against him out-of-court, I'd suggest that it's extremely unlikely that he would want to instigate a case of his own where the evidence will be identical.

As we are in what is likely to be an election year, I'd suggest that probably isn't a vote winning policy.

I don't really understand your question? If renters can afford the rent demanded, then there is no problem. The problem occurs when that is not the case hence, the need for (a focus on) affordable housing. Again, I'm afraid that I don't understand your point. If a landlord charges the market rent for the property how will it "... really be a place for people on housing benefit"? For the record: My original comment was tongue-in-cheek. Imo the chances of the Royal Lodge and surrounds being turned into housing for the community (council or private) are pretty slim.

(I am making an assumption that once the current sitting tenant is removed, the landlord will donate the land to the local authority). Allowing private development of the land will do nothing to help the solve the problem of affordable housing. Private landlords will obviously expect the market rate for their properties, which means the local authority will need to subside the rent paid by any tenants placed their by the local authority. The availability and cost of purchasing land is the biggest problem for local authorities. Development costs might be significant but, at least, local authority funds will not be used to support private landlords and units would be added to the stock of available social housing.

Given the circumstances, that is incredibly orderly, although TBF I don't think the US incident was too bad. I've been on many a flight where a normal disembarkation is more chaotic.

Turn it into social housing and develop the grounds. Should be able to house a fair number of families.

You're right. I don't know (although what I don't know I don't know). "Now was that so hard?" It was bloody torture!

You are certainly not lacking in persistence yourself!! Good. I'm pleased that you find my comment comforting. As I have explained countless times, I believe that the link which I posted answers your question. Imo it offers a detailed, but understandable, explanation of how to conduct a randomised survey; the process and techniques. Again, for the umpteenth time: I am unable to improve upon it and therefore, will not spend time and effort in attempting to do so. Why it is that so difficult for you to understand? If you believe that my unwillingness to answer your question in my own words - which would require considerable time and effort on my part - means that I do not understand the contents of the link myself, then fine, continue to believe that. I am not going to spend time trying to convince you otherwise: To do so would be tedious, time-consuming, frustrating and probably ultimately, unsuccessful. I have never claimed to be a Statistical expert as you imply. I believe that I have an understanding of the basic concepts and how they can be applied. However, as I have repeatedly stated, my knowledge is limited. I do not understand the mathematical principles which underline the concepts. For example, I could plug values into the statistical equation to determine the necessary sample size but I would not be able to explain the (mathematical) logic which 'proves' the equation. I don't see this as a problem: Governments and industries throughout the world use such formulas in their surveys and that's proof enough for me. I have given up trying to understand what you think that I don't know! To be clear, I don't think that I have accused you of saying that the poll was inaccurate so why address that comment to me? Can there be true randomness in a survey? If a sound process is followed then I would suggest the answer is 'Yes' but I could certainly be persuaded otherwise. Can a sample used in a social survey ever completely eliminate bias and thus be truly wholly representative of the wider population? Imo, the answer is 'No' but, again, I could be persuaded otherwise. In any event, this is one of the reasons why concepts such as 'confidence limits' and 'margin of error' are used in surveys. Imo Newspapers should mention these factors rather than presenting findings as absolutes. Imo the link which I presented answers your question. Even if it doesn't, it is informative. In any event, we are simply going round in circles. I've said all that I'm going to say on the matter. If that is not sufficient for you then it's unfortunate. If you think that you have achieved some sort of victory then, fine, go celebrate.

Definitions of ignorant (Google): lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. "he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid" lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing. "they were ignorant of astronomy" I said that "You clearly have no knowledge of sampling theory in particular or Statistics in general", so there is no doubt about the sense in which I am using the word. Nevertheless, you're right. When it comes to an understanding of sampling theory you appear to be ignorant in the second sense of the word. Imo the vast majority of people (everyone?) are ignorant about something. There are many subjects where my ignorance would be obvious and almost complete. I have no idea what point you are trying to prove unless it is to get me to admit that I do not how to mathematically prove the formulas associated with sampling theory. If that's the case, I admit it and you've 'proved' your point. And again and again .... I can't comply with your request for 'No links' as the answer to your question is contained in it. If you weren't so preoccupied with playing 'Gotcha', you would have realised this simple fact. As I have said before, I cannot improve upon the contents of the link. Nevertheless, here is a top-level outline of the steps involved (Full disclosure: This is simply a 'copy & paste' from the link). If anything is unclear, open the link for fuller details. I'm done with trying to get you to understand things. You need to help yourself. Nevertheless, I will detail the process to generate a representative (random) sample of the UK electorate. (Full disclosure: This is simply a 'cut & paste' of the headings contained in the link. As I mentioned previously, I have little idea how to prove these concepts mathematically. If you don't understand these steps or want further information, open the damn link): 1. Define the population. In this case, it's the UK electorate (+/-46m) 2. Choose the sample size. (A sample size calculator was supplied earlier in this thread. I can't be ars-ed to input the figures into it) 3. Assign Numerical Values: The simple random sample process calls for every unit within the population to receive an unrelated numerical value 4. Select random values: (for the sample identified in Step 2) 5. Identify the sample: The sample is selected by identifying which random values were chosen and which population items those values match. (There is another step between 3) and 4) but I don't think that it is applicable here) There is also a section about the various types of random sampling techniques in the link.

I didn't call you ignorant. My exact words were, "You clearly have no knowledge of sampling theory in particular or Statistics in general" which I stand by. The answer involves statistical theory. I posted a link which gives a good description of the steps involved in generating a sample where we can have 95% confidence that a sample result will apply to the wider population AND the technique(s) for generating a random sample. The link explains the principles much better than I can and I have no intention of wasting time and effort in a futile attempt to improve upon it. Perhaps, if you could be ars-ed to read and understand the contents of the linked article, rather than continuing to play a game of one-upmanship, you might learn something and, at the same time, find the answer to (some of) your question(s).

You clearly have no knowledge of sampling theory in particular or Statistics in general. A quick search identified the following link which might not answer all your questions, but which offers a decent overview of random sampling and should, at least, give you a better understanding of the subject. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/simple-random-sample.asp If you require further information I might be able to post additional links. Hope that this helps.

No they don't for the simple reason that we are in broad agreement about 'The Guardian' headline albeit for different reasons: I thought that we had established that? My disagreement with you centres on your apparent refusal to accept sampling theory and statistical inference. I am forced into making reasoned assumptions and interpretations because of your refusal to answer most of my questions/ requests for confirmation directly.

Not at all. More selective answering on your part. Most of my questions remain unanswered but, given your newfound acceptance of the principles governing sample sizes, some of them are now redundant.

It's good news that you now accept the principles behind sample size calculation and statistical inference. I agreed umpteenth posts ago that imo the headline overstated the findings. It's to do with both. The "sensationalist journalism" does not negate the verity and validity of the survey's findings no matter how hard you try to suggest that it does.

It confirms nothing of the sort but your illogical arguments no longer surprise me.

Maybe this link will help? https://byjus.com/sample-size-formula/ If not, can I suggest that you search for "Sample size formula (calculation)"; "Introduction to Statistics"; "Basic Statistics", etc. I'm sure that there will be something on the web which will answer any questions you might have about sample sizes and Statistics in general.

It appears that you have to pay for the full survey. Sorry but I'm not that inquisitive. https://www.opiniumresearch.co.uk/faq.aspx#FAQLink3 ('I want to buy to some market research').

You're welcome. A simple way to avoid any further misunderstandings/ misinterpretation on my part would be for you to offer direct answers my questions And I didn't say that you did. I simply pointed out that you often seem to take issue with articles which are negative wrt Brexit. Actually you also cast doubt about how a sample size of 2000-odd can be considered representative of the wider UK electoral population. If you now accept that this is possible then great.

Are you a Brexit supporter? As it's a direct question, I don't expect an answer. You may never have explicitly stated your stance re Brexit but I cannot recall you posting positively about 'Remain' and/or the EU. On the other hand, there are numerous examples such as this where you try to find fault in articles which protray Brexit in a negative light. So, yes I am making an assumption about your position re Brexit but not without reason. o es, I am making an assumption aboutyour position re Brexit but not without any foundation. No twisting and turning on my part. I have made my objections to your original statement clear. I have posed a number of questions to you, none of which you have addressed directly, let alone answered: The only person guilty of evasion is you. It would have saved a lot of time if you have accepted that your provisos about " ... unknown location, of an unknown age, background.........the list goes on" are without foundation, and do not invalidate the results of the survey which conclude that more of the UK electorate perceive Brexit to have had a negative, rather than a positive, impact. You are now reduced to outright falsehoods. I have looked back over my posts in this thread and, as far as I can see, the only occasion in which I have used "say" in any of it's forms in our exchanges is to confirm that I have understood you correctly i.e. "Are you saying that ...", to which you replied "Yes". (Incidentally, this is also about the only occasion that I can recall where you have answered one of my questions directly): I choose my words carefully because I know how pedantic you are. You accuse me of the fault of which you are guilty. Your constant evasion seemingly knows no bounds. Imo this is typical behaviour of someone who, having had the flaws in their argument laid bare for all to see, is unable and unwilling to admit to their error.

I love the people who cast doubt on the validity of survey results about without, seemingly, having much idea about statistical inference or Statistics (as a discipline) in general. The trials for Pfizer's COVID vaccine had 46,000 participants. (Incidentally, a relatively large sample size. Final phrase drug trials typically have 1 - 3,000 participants). The world's population is 7.9 billion. Presumably, using your rationale, we shouldn't have had any faith in the verity and validity of the Pfizer vaccine or any other drug for that matter. (I do hope that my last paragraph won't cause the conspiracy theorists to awaken).

There are many as have been pointed out. Look back over the thread for examples To repeat again: You are unable to point to any flaws in this survey's methodology. The basics of statistical inference have been explained to you. You seem unwilling to accept these tenets (without explaining why) and appear, by extension, to question the validity of Statistics as a discipline. I agreed that imo 'The Guardian's' headline overstated the findings but not for the reason you imply. That may well be true and ....? It doesn't make the findings of the survey any less true. The agenda I have in commenting here is to correct what I see as misinformation put forward by Brexiters such as yourself. This survey's results clearly show that in a number of areas, more of the UK electorate perceive Brexit as having a negative impact than a positive one. As a Brexiter this does not fit your narrative (agenda) so you object to the findings. Unfortunately for you, your objections are based on a false argument which you refuse to acknowledge. Simple.