3 minutes ago, puchooay said:

I think you'll find they left after the referendum but prior to Brexit. Those that sat it out soon realised the settlement scheme was quite straight forward. 

About 20 000 NHS workers quit every year , long hours and underpaid are the main reasons and they get better jobs elsewhere 

16 minutes ago, puchooay said:

I think you'll find they left after the referendum but prior to Brexit. Those that sat it out soon realised the settlement scheme was quite straight forward. 

Even if that's the case, you think it's a significant distinction that they left because of the Brexit vote but not because of Brexit? That's like saying that people left their homes because of the hurricane warnings but not because of the hurricane. Whether or not that hurricane struck, you would say that it was immaterial to their leaving?

14 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Because most people would accept personal experiences as truth and not make accusations suggesting otherwise. Only you and one other poster have a problem with my experiences. The rest of the posters are happy to accept them. 

 

So you take a lack of comment from others as some kind of endorsement? Really?

And just because you're not intentionally telling falsehoods, doesn't mean you're telling the truth. There's lots of psychological phenomena that account for that.

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The AUD seems to have stabilized in a range 23.6 - 23.9 baht to the dollar.

I'm predicting it will come back to 24.5.

Australia exports iron ore, natural gas, food, and lithium. I'm not aware of the UK exporting anything, apart from its citizens.

Pleased you used the words " I am unaware ".

20 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

About 20 000 NHS workers quit every year , long hours and underpaid are the main reasons and they get better jobs elsewhere 

So 10,000 EU citizens leave the NHS to return home as a direct result of Brexit.

 

Where 10,000 EU citizens leaving the NHS per year?

 

Of course not.

 

Like the idiot budget sending the economy into crisis, the cause and effect is plain, just some wish to stick their head in the sand and deny reality.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

So you take a lack of comment from others as some kind of endorsement? Really?

And just because you're not intentionally telling falsehoods, doesn't mean you're telling the truth. There's lots of psychological phenomena that account for that.

I remember the good old days. Sitting in the staff canteen, down the pub or just round mates' houses, talking about personal experiences and sharing thoughts.

 

No one ever asked for links or categorical proof. They were experiences and accepted as that. Help and guidance, knowledge and information for future use gained, acknowledged and thanked for.

 

It's not difficult to ascertain who amongst us would have been sitting in the corner having been black balled for being cantankerous.

 

It's a  sad state of affairs when those in the mix of things are ignored because of what has been in the media, politically motivated most of time. Never mind.

2 minutes ago, puchooay said:

I remember the good old days. Sitting in the staff canteen, down the pub or just round mates' houses, talking about personal experiences and sharing thoughts.

 

No one ever asked for links or categorical proof. They were experiences and accepted as that. Help and guidance, knowledge and information for future use gained, acknowledged and thanked for.

 

It's not difficult to ascertain who amongst us would have been sitting in the corner having been black balled for being cantankerous.

 

It's a  sad state of affairs when those in the mix of things are ignored because of what has been in the media, politically motivated most of time. Never mind.

Because you were in face to face discussions with people who knew you, you knew them and you all therefore had an idea of what each other’s personality was, truthfulness and importantly through social connection had a vested interest in maintaining your credibility.

 

I too remember such conversations, most people spoke honestly but there were also a small few who would exaggerate, make claims and statements that could not possibly be true. Others in the conversation could see this because they had firsthand knowledge of the person, and of course responded accordingly, often very bluntly.

 

You are making a false equivalence, this is not a face to face conversation between people who know each other.

18 minutes ago, itsari said:

Pleased you used the words " I am unaware ".

Actually Lacessit used the words "I am not aware." And it's a silly and stupid trick to use a truncated quote (or in your case misquote} as a rebuttal.

7 minutes ago, puchooay said:

I remember the good old days. Sitting in the staff canteen, down the pub or just round mates' houses, talking about personal experiences and sharing thoughts.

 

No one ever asked for links or categorical proof. They were experiences and accepted as that. Help and guidance, knowledge and information for future use gained, acknowledged and thanked for.

 

It's not difficult to ascertain who amongst us would have been sitting in the corner having been black balled for being cantankerous.

 

It's a  sad state of affairs when those in the mix of things are ignored because of what has been in the media, politically motivated most of time. Never mind.

What's actually sad is that some people believe that their necessarily limited personal perspective on a large complex problem has any dispositive value.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Actually Lacessit used the words "I am not aware." And it's a silly and stupid trick to use a truncated quote (or in your case misquote} as a rebuttal.

Even more stupid to be making statements that he is unaware of any UK exports .

Misquote it is not 

4 minutes ago, itsari said:

Even more stupid to be making statements that he is unaware of any UK exports .

Misquote it is not 

Well it is a misquote, and instead of truncating a quote, it's possible to actually refute it with your own words.

Just now, placeholder said:

Well it is a misquote, and instead of truncating a quote, it's possible to actually refute it with your own words.

There are no rules on  how to say the man knows nothing about UK exports .

I was being polite to the know nothing gentleman.

 

28 minutes ago, itsari said:

There are no rules on  how to say the man knows nothing about UK exports .

I was being polite to the know nothing gentleman.

 

How about "You are clearly not aware that "In 2021, the UK's exports of goods and services totalled £636 billion and imports totalled £654 billion."?

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02815/#:~:text=In 2021%2C the UK's exports,45% of imports in 2021.

 

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

How about "You are clearly not aware that "In 2021, the UK's exports of goods and services totalled £636 billion and imports totalled £654 billion."?

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02815/#:~:text=In 2021%2C the UK's exports,45% of imports in 2021.

 

Now you are distorting what was quoted .

His statement was he was unaware of any UK exports. That has nothing to do with any fluctuations in volume of exports .

Over and out Placeholder.

5 hours ago, itsari said:

There are no rules on  how to say the man knows nothing about UK exports .

I was being polite to the know nothing gentleman.

 

It was a joke, Joyce. What has happened to the Brit sense of humour?

15 hours ago, puchooay said:

My experiences are of EU nationals working in UK after Brexit.

 

You appear to have attempted to nullify my experiences by using those of Brits and EU nationals in Belgium during Brexit negotiations. Strange.

You are splitting hairs.

 

I don't see how I can nullify your experience any more than you can nullify mine, or why you should find my example 'strange'? I also don't understand why you wish to focus on this ancedotal evidence rather than address the wider issue?

 

Nevertheless, to avoid a charge that I am avoiding your point, here goes.

 

Are you suggesting that the uncertainty - and the negative effects on the lives of Brits living in the EU in 2016 - caused by the result of the referendum is irrelevant? Are the effects of events which take place within the UK's physical borders the only factors that should be taken into consideration?

 

Wrt the specific example I quoted about job offers to EU nationals being withdrawn. I assume that the UK based companies in question had to go to the time, trouble and expense of restarting the recruitment process. Do I know this for a fact? No. Does that negate my assertion that the result of the Brexit referendum has had negative economic effects on the UK since June 2016? No.

16 hours ago, puchooay said:

I believe your original posts regardingvthe UK economy were regarding UK post brexit. In that case, Brexit has not affected the value of the pound.

I am completely baffled.

 

My interpretation of your line of argument is, Brexit has happened therefore Brexit cannot be a contributory factor in any subsequent events?

 

Clearly this is nonsensical - and not what you meant - so can you please clarify.

31 minutes ago, RayC said:

Are you suggesting that the uncertainty - and the negative effects on the lives of Brits living in the EU in 2016 - caused by the result of the referendum is irrelevant? Are the effects of events which take place within the UK's physical borders the only factors that should be taken into consideration?

Your original question was regarding the labour market in UK. I answered that using personal experiences.

25 minutes ago, RayC said:

I am completely baffled.

 

My interpretation of your line of argument is, Brexit has happened therefore Brexit cannot be a contributory factor in any subsequent events?

 

Clearly this is nonsensical - and not what you meant - so can you please clarify.

Oh dear. Selective reading or twisting others comments?

 

You talked about sterling post Brexit. I said I acknowledged sterling had fallen on the announcement of the results of the referendum.

 

So. A question. Was the referendum pre or post Brexit? Just to avoid confusing you, when I say "Brexit" I mean the day the UK officially left EU.

15 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Your original question was regarding the labour market in UK. I answered that using personal experiences.

And I offered a counter example based on my experience. All of which is ancedotal and proves nothing.

 

So let's return to my original assertion and challenge to you: Some sectors of the UK labour market have been adversely affected by the result of the Brexit referendum.

 

Do you accept this? If not, please point out the flaws in the methodology and/or findings of the studies supporting this assertion. Ancedotal evidence doesn't pass muster 

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

Ancedotal evidence doesn't pass muster 

Funny.

 

So, when we read about someone saying " the cost of living crisis is so bad I had to use a food bank" but we don't see photos, that doesn't count?

 

When we hear someone on the TV talking about there energy bills allledgedly tripling but we don't see the bills, that doesn't count?

 

When we hear opposition leaders say " the government's plans won't work" but offer no figures, that doesn't count?

 

When the shadow chancellor accuses the government of giving tax relief to 1% of the population, but offers no figures, that doesn't count?

 

How about when a poster on a forum says " the wealthy benefit more, but won't confirm what " wealthy" is, that doesn't count?

 

How about a first minister saying how well off her country would be if independent but offers no figures, that doesn't count?

 

How about when posters on a forum call for a general election because a new government will do better but offer no figures or info as to why, that doesn't count?

 

OK. Let's shut down all forms of media. Anything anyone says just doesn't count, in the eyes of some.

24 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Oh dear. Selective reading or twisting others comments?

Neither. My post was clear. I didn't - and still don't - understand what you mean. I asked you to clarify it. You are apparently unable and/or unwilling to do so. Obviously that's up to you.

 

24 minutes ago, puchooay said:

 

You talked about sterling post Brexit. I said I acknowledged sterling had fallen on the announcement of the results of the referendum.

Great. Just to be obviously clear. You agree that the result of the referendum adversely affected sterling?

 

24 minutes ago, puchooay said:

 

So. A question. Was the referendum pre or post Brexit? Just to avoid confusing you, when I say "Brexit" I mean the day the UK officially left EU.

Why does this matter? "Brexit" is a generic term. 

 

The result of the referendum in June 2016 had immediate negative economic effects e.g. the decline in sterling. The UK's official departure from the EU in January 2019 had additional negative effects e.g. increased cost to businesses due to the introduction of border controls/ custom formalities. 

 

The point is that "Brexit" - irrespective of whether June 2016 or January 2019 is taken as the starting point - has adversely affected the UK economy.

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Funny.

 

So, when we read about someone saying " the cost of living crisis is so bad I had to use a food bank" but we don't see photos, that doesn't count?

 

When we hear someone on the TV talking about there energy bills allledgedly tripling but we don't see the bills, that doesn't count?

 

When we hear opposition leaders say " the government's plans won't work" but offer no figures, that doesn't count?

 

When the shadow chancellor accuses the government of giving tax relief to 1% of the population, but offers no figures, that doesn't count?

 

How about when a poster on a forum says " the wealthy benefit more, but won't confirm what " wealthy" is, that doesn't count?

 

How about a first minister saying how well off her country would be if independent but offers no figures, that doesn't count?

 

How about when posters on a forum call for a general election because a new government will do better but offer no figures or info as to why, that doesn't count?

 

OK. Let's shut down all forms of media. Anything anyone says just doesn't count, in the eyes of some.

If the statements cannot be substantiated then it is opinion, not fact. Does that mean it is without value? Not in my opinion!

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Funny.

 

So, when we read about someone saying " the cost of living crisis is so bad I had to use a food bank" but we don't see photos, that doesn't count?

 

When we hear someone on the TV talking about there energy bills allledgedly tripling but we don't see the bills, that doesn't count?

 

When we hear opposition leaders say " the government's plans won't work" but offer no figures, that doesn't count?

 

When the shadow chancellor accuses the government of giving tax relief to 1% of the population, but offers no figures, that doesn't count?

 

How about when a poster on a forum says " the wealthy benefit more, but won't confirm what " wealthy" is, that doesn't count?

 

How about a first minister saying how well off her country would be if independent but offers no figures, that doesn't count?

 

How about when posters on a forum call for a general election because a new government will do better but offer no figures or info as to why, that doesn't count?

 

OK. Let's shut down all forms of media. Anything anyone says just doesn't count, in the eyes of some.

Actually there is plenty of independently verifiable evidence to support or contradict most of the assertions you cited.

I don't understand why you think someone calling for a new election is anything more or less than someone calling for an election. That doesn't belong in your list.

 

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

I don't understand why you think someone calling for a new election is anything more or less than someone calling for an election. That doesn't belong in your list.

 

Why do people mis quote to try and prove a point?

 

This is what I said "How about when posters on a forum call for a general election because a new government will do better but offer no figures or info as to why, that doesn't count?".

 

That does belong on the list.

Help please. I am trying to figure out whether the UK has a government masquerading as a Whirling Dervish troop, or a Whirling Dervish troop masquerading as a government ????

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-63278993

 

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Why do people mis quote to try and prove a point?

 

This is what I said "How about when posters on a forum call for a general election because a new government will do better but offer no figures or info as to why, that doesn't count?".

 

That does belong on the list.

Because it's obviously a fact that they calling it but what is its significance? What is it evidence in support of? That some people want a new election? Is anyone denying that? What's your point?

21 hours ago, placeholder said:

Because it's obviously a fact that they calling it but what is its significance? What is it evidence in support of? That some people want a new election? Is anyone denying that? What's your point?

My point is, you misquoted me in an attempt to try to prove something. Then you picked again without acknowledging that misquote to try, once again, to prove something when all along all you are proving is that you don't like people disagreeing with you. You seem to mistake "wrong" and "disagree" quite a lot.

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

My point is, you misquoted me in an attempt to try to prove something. Then you picked again without acknowledging that misquote to try, once again, to prove something when all along all you are proving is that you don't like people disagreeing with you. You seem to mistake "wrong" and "disagree" quite a lot.

I certainly didn't misquote you since i didn't quote you at all. Just for your information a quotation is something framed by quotation marks that purports to be exactly the words uttered or written by some person. For instance, if I claimed "My point is, you quoted me in an attempt to try to prove something" that would be a misquotation because what you wrote was "My point is, you misquoted me in an attempt to try to prove something".

 

Perhaps you mean I misconstrued what you wrote? What you wrote is this: "How about when posters on a forum call for a general election because a new government will do better but offer no figures or info as to why, that doesn't count?".

I don't think I misconstrued it at all. You seem to believe that this is relevant data the way say the unemployment figures or other data are. I don't understand why you think that what some some members on aseannow.com believe has some sort of probative value. People on this forum believe all kinds of things including many conspiracy theories. 

 

4 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

My point is, you misquoted me in an attempt to try to prove something. Then you picked again without acknowledging that misquote to try, once again, to prove something when all along all you are proving is that you don't like people disagreeing with you. You seem to mistake "wrong" and "disagree" quite a lot.

Since you seem to feel you have license to do some psychological analysis, I think it's only fair that I take a shot at it, too. There are plenty of people whose comments I "like" via emojis. I diagnose that your feelings hurt because you're not one of them.