RayC

So you just threw the suggestion out there as a 'Discussion Point'? You have no opinion on the matter, and were simply encouraging the rest of us to engage in discourse? You - as became patently obvious - would offer nothing of substance to further the debate? If you decide to do this in future, could I please ask you to make it clear. I have no interest in engaging in a discussion revolving around pedantry, semantics and obfuscation, which is what you have turned this into. Thanks.

Many of your statements would suggest otherwise. People would be hard pushed to construe them as facts.

All of a sudden you start to believe in the results of polls ????

What a bizarre comment! Imo your time would be put to best use helping yourself.

Both sides should be able to find something here to support their respective views. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d8deac18-3a1d-11ee-81cd-1bf34cc855cb?shareToken=a4204c8f4447ed5504981a29076020b4

Your original post: "I believe that is the point. Along with the other safe countries the immigrants travel through to get to UK. Those countries don't seem to care about the immigrants plight." which you then claimed is supported by articles in the media and is obvious to anyone with a bit of savvy. However, you are unable to supply any evidence to support this contention, but now instead suggest that the onus is on those who disagree with you to disprove it. This is akin to the argument that "I believe in God's existence. You need to prove that s/he/it doesn't exist". The following link does not prove that illegal immigrants are treated well in France but it is evidence to support this contention and a counter-example to your suggestion. https://help.unhcr.org/france/en/droits-et-obligations/#:~:text=You are entitled to basic,a decision on your application.

If Labour get into power, then they may not prove to be any more successful in dealing with problems than the Tories. That remains to be seen. However, the Tories are the government in situ and imo it is right and proper that they are held accountable and responsible for their policies and actions. What I find tiresome though is some posters deflecting criticism, and not addressing points raised directly, when challenged.

This thread appears to have morphed into the Four Yorkshiremen sketch https://youtu.be/ue7wM0QC5LE

You dusted off your crystal ball then, Trans?

This is an excellent example of deflection. I know that in all likelihood I will either get another cryptic reply or else a simple 'No', but care to point out where I have done so. (Please spare me a 'if you know the answer, why ask?' type response). Then why don't you post a link to support your contention? What is obvious to anyone with a tiny bit of savvy is that you make statements which you are unable to justify.

Oh dear indeed. The vast majority of the time when you are challenged about your premises, you are unable to defend them in any rational sense. Instead you resort to a selection from a) the challenger is bias b) the challenger's sources are bias c) your individual experience confirms your premise - no further justification necessary even if the weight of evidence suggests the opposite, and now (d) new entry, the challenger is unable to think critically. It's ironic that you should bring up critical thinking, which involves objective analysis and judgement, when your observations are the exact opposite of that. At least, we can agree on the conclusion, albeit we arrive at it by vastly different routes: It really is a sad state of affairs.

You know, that's not such a bad idea.

I read the BBC website, the FT and the Times regularly. I also read articles from The Spectator and listen to podcasts from these organisations and the loons at Spiked! I can't claim to read every issue cover-to-cover, or listen with full attention to every podcast, but I don't recall anything being mentioned about countries such as France being unconcerned about the plight of refugees/ illegal immigrants. If this 'news' is in the media every day then - as Chomper remarks - you shouldn't have any problem in supplying a few links to support your contention.

I'm pretty certain that a concern for the welfare of the (illegal) immigrants wasn't the point being made by the poster to whom I directed my reply (Quote: "IMHO they should be towed back to France and their boats sunk."). That's a very sweeping statement which I would suggest requires some supporting evidence.

Unless they are French nationals they are not the responsibility of the French government once they leave France. The 'source countries' are predominantly African and Middle Eastern. I can't offer any solutions. I would have thought that was implicit in the sentence of mine which you quoted? "Implementing measures to achieve the desired result is a lot less obvious".

Dear [Insert Customer Name], We are sorry to hear that you have such a negative impression of Brits. Our team at UK is dedicated to providing excellent customer service, and we strive for 100% satisfaction at every interaction. We would therefore ask you, [Insert Customer Name again], to give us another opportunity to rectify your bad experience and to make things right for you. Much love from Charlie, Rich and all 67 million of us at UK.

Illegal immigrants attempting to enter the UK are not the responsibility of the French government and they are as big - if not a bigger problem - for France as they are for the UK. Most illegal immigrants entering Europe do so via Greece, Italy or Turkey where the problem is much greater than the one which the UK has. The solution is obvious. Stop the flow of illegal immigrants at source. Implementing measures to achieve the desired result is a lot less obvious.

Putting aside the rest of Placeholder's post, the comment that "... there's a difference between unavoidable damage and self-inflicted damage" seems worthy of discussion in its' own right.

Imo the argument that Germany's economy is suffering, therefore being a member of the EU is damaging its' economy is, at best, facile. Where is the evidence to support this view? On the other hand, the amount of evidence highlighting the negative effects of Brexit on the UK economy grows almost by the day. A selection of articles- which is by no means exhaustive - highlighting this is listed below: https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/01/03/the-impact-of-brexit-in-charts https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64450882.amp https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/impact-brexit-uk-economy-reviewing-evidence#:~:text=The impact on trade overall,2–3% of GDP.

I imagine that "anywhere" might want a say in matters

The UK left the EU - not vica versa - so if anyone cut off their nose to spite their face, it was the UK. Michel Barnier continually stated throughout the negotiations that there would be no winners from Brexit. The more time that elapses, the more evidence mounts to support his view. Most EU member states are not in recession.

Nothing to do with federalism, toy throwing or thumb sucking. The UK government, and some posters here, obviously don't understand the role of the European Commission. Part of its' mandate is to monitor the implementation of EU laws and policies. This is an example of them doing just that.

Numbers 4-10 in the attached link are the most relevant https://www.techtarget.com/searchbusinessanalytics/feature/8-types-of-bias-in-data-analysis-and-how-to-avoid-them

The BBC dataset consists of data from all over the UK. Your dataset is limited to a very few specific geographical areas. Your sampling frame is flawed and the BBC analysis is therefore more likely to be representative of the UK market as a whole. So long as the sampling frame is well-defined, then a surprisingly small sample size can often be representative of the wider population. Type 25000000 into the population field in the attached link and look at the result. https://www.checkmarket.com/sample-size-calculator/#sample-size-calculator See above. Also as I previous explained, unless all the observations have the same value, there will, by definition, be values below (and above) the average. It reveals nothing. New information which does not form part of the discussion about the flaws in your analysis.

No, I did not agree that average figures do not paint the correct picture. What I said was that the use of 'averages' has limitations, may distort the picture and that I would prefer to see median values used (which unfortunately are difficult to find): Nevertheless, the 'average' still has its' uses and can be revealing. The data used by the BBC/Rightmove survey presumably used 'real prices', the prices of properties currently on the market. I imagine that it is how they arrived at their average figures. The figures you quote do not paint a more accurate picture. Indeed, they paint a less accurate picture as you chose a smaller population (sample) to which you then applied a filter. How can you claim that this is a more accurate representation of the wider market? It certainly isn't difficult. It's also not clear that it is a valid methodology. The most that can be said for your approach is that it has revealed that there are some properties available in SW England and Blackpool which are below the regional and national averages. That in itself should be no surprise as - unless all values in the sample are identical - it will be true by definition. However, no other conclusions can be drawn from your research.