RayC

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.

You do know that they went off for rain yesterday, don't you? Do you think that fell from clear skies? Ever considered the possibility that -for whatever reason - the Aussie batsmen weren't as good and/or the English bowlers were better yesterday compared with Day 4? Clearly you know even less about cricket than me, especially if you think that this ball change was the biggest scandal in 30 years. It might have been a 5-run game without a ball change. It might also have been a 100-run victory for England. All if, buts and maybes.

I'm always keen to increase my knowledge when it comes to research. Perhaps you would be good enough to detail your approach? I'm still intrigued why you (seemingly) consider your findings a more accurate view of the 'real' world than the BBC survey, especially as you have both used Rightmove as a source?

Have you considered that the difference in overhead conditions on Day 5 might have played a part? Even if the ball was harder, we are talking about two openers who were well-set. Moreover, the changed ball didn't seem to bother Smith and Head too much for 25 overs and the best part of 100 runs. Maybe you think that the changed ball caused the last six wickets to fall for 70-odd? Sour grapes, perhaps?

Excellent series. Probably a fitting result although as an England supporter difficult not to think "if only" given rain cost us a likely victory at Old Trafford.

Literally a case of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"????

Absolutely????

I don't. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of the texts that explain the soundness of your statistical approach.

No Brit bashing here; only English bashing.

You certainly haven't proven the findings of the BBC/ Rightmove survey to be incorrect which is the subject of my posts. My knowledge of theoretical physics leaves a lot to be desired, so I can't offer an opinion regarding the existence of an alternative Blackpool in a parallel universe.

Notwithstanding that the findings of the BBC/Rightmove survey are the result of a nationwide survey with a large dataset - which has (presumably) followed a statistically valid methodology - and your findings are the result of "some simple searches" and a much smaller dataset, have you considered that it might be possible that your results are outliers, and not a true reflection of the 'real world'?

Care to elaborate for those of us slow on the uptake?

I hope that your health has improved. Your experience and the numerous surveys by reputable organisations pointing out the problems in the UK housing are all wrong. We are both lazy. The solutions are obvious: In my case, I should do my own research, which would clearly show that the various survey findings are all incorrect. In your case you simply " .... didn't search hard enough".????

Apologies. I forgot to post the link to the article previously. Not that it will make a blind bit of difference as you'll refuse to accept the evidence as it doesn't fit your narrative. (I'll save you the bother of looking for a city where you can get a 2-bed apartment for under £960/month: Dundee fits the bill. Therefore, there is no housing affordability issue' in the wider UK market excluding London) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66246223

But it is not just London. The article in the link is an extended version of the piece on yesterday's six o'clock news. The article is damning in its' own right but play around with parameters in the boxes and you will find that (1) in most UK cities, it is impossible to rent a 1-bedroom apartment for < £800 (2) those on mortgages are often finding that their monthly repayments have increased threefold. There will be exceptions but these are the norms. If this doesn't constitute major problems, I don't know what does.