Off-topic, troll posts and replies reported and removed.

 

15 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Your figures are After housing costs  (AHC) , my figures where before housing costs 

 

 

"Let me do the math for you: 52 x276= 14352"

 

   Now add to that housing costs , rent money, council taxes and utility bills and the figure would be 27 000 at least .

   Now, please retract the accusation that I was making things up, thanks 

Yes, you are correct and I was wrong about those figures. You did not make them up. I apologize.

Just now, placeholder said:

Yes, you are correct and I was wrong about those figures. You did not make them up. I apologize.

That said, that figure of roughly 27,000 is misleading. It a celling not a median average. So that tells us nothing about the distribution of income. And it's for London, the most expensive areo of the UK to live in.

And since this was about determining the extent of poverty in the UK, not just London, there is more useful evidence available.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2021

 

Now this is disposable income, which means income tax is discounted. But given that the personal allowance is 12,5000 pounds, for the bottom quintile that probably won't amount to much.

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

Yes, you are correct and I was wrong about those figures. You did not make them up. I apologize.

Thank-you , very few posters have the decency or decorum  to admit to being wrong about anything , most would jut shy way from it . 

  Well done for being mature about it and the poster who gave a laugh emoji really needs to grow up 

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

That said, that figure of roughly 27,000 is misleading. It a celling not a median average. So that tells us nothing about the distribution of income. And it's for London, the most expensive areo of the UK to live in.

And since this was about determining the extent of poverty in the UK, not just London, there is more useful evidence available.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2021

 

Now this is disposable income, which means income tax is discounted. But given that the personal allowance is 12,5000 pounds, for the bottom quintile that probably won't amount to much.

Which is why I personally prefer the geometric mean.

Gary Linekar will not be presenting todays MotD

10 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

  Well done for being mature about it and the poster who gave a laugh emoji really needs to grow up 

You could always complain and ask them to ban emojis again if it hurts you. I am amazed that there are adults that actually care about that - personally I don't even look at what emojis have been clicked on my posts; who cares?

(It wasn't me by the way, I don't see the point in them but can't understand why people get so upset over them)

4 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

You could always complain and ask them to ban emojis again if it hurts you. I am amazed that there are adults that actually care about that - personally I don't even look at what emojis have been clicked on my posts; who cares?

(It wasn't me by the way, I don't see the point in them but can't understand why people get so upset over them)

Do stop saying untrue things . 

I never complaining about emojis and I never asked for them to be banned , now, will you do the honourable thing and retract your allegation ?

  Also, I didn't get upset by the emoji , I just think that one was used in an immature way .

  Now, will you be doing the honourable think and retracting your false allegations?

14 hours ago, Slip said:

Get well soon Gary.

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Do stop saying untrue things . 

I never complaining about emojis and I never asked for them to be banned , now, will you do the honourable thing and retract your allegation ?

  Also, I didn't get upset by the emoji , I just think that one was used in an immature way .

  Now, will you be doing the honourable think and retracting your false allegations?

Calm yourself down, I didn't accuse you of anything. Read it again slowly and take your time. I said if they hurt you you can ask for them to be banned again if you want.

Such a trivial thing to lose yourself over - "honourable thing", "false allegations", you are not at the Old Bailey you know.

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

Calm yourself down, I didn't accuse you of anything. Read it again slowly and take your time. I said if they hurt you you can ask for them to be banned again if you want.

Such a trivial thing to lose yourself over - "honourable thing", "false allegations", you are not at the Old Bailey you know.

You are the one who needs to read things slowly .

I haven't previously asked for them to be banned .

Could you not understand that the first time I posted it ?

That is a false accusation 

If you falsely accuse someone of doing something , and you were ring about it, its only decent to retract the allegation after you realise you were wrong .

16 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

You are the one who needs to read things slowly .

I haven't previously asked for them to be banned .

Could you not understand that the first time I posted it ?

That is a false accusation 

If you falsely accuse someone of doing something , and you were ring about it, its only decent to retract the allegation after you realise you were wrong .

Tiring. I'll try one more time. They were banned before, right?  As they were banned before if they are banned for a second time that would would mean they are being banned again, right? Therefore I said you can ask for them to be banned again if you like.

 

No where did I state, accuse, imply, or suggest that you were responsible for the first banning - you're the only one who is reading that into things. Got it now?

Again such a teeny tiny thing to get your knickers in a twist about.

2 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Tiring. I'll try one more time. They were banned before, right?  As they were banned before if they are banned for a second time that would would mean they are being banned again, right? Therefore I said you can ask for them to be banned again if you like.

 

No where did I state, accuse, imply, or suggest that you were responsible for the first banning - you're the only one who is reading that into things. Got it now?

Again such a teeny tiny thing to get your knickers in a twist about.

Oh I see what you mean now .

29 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Oh I see what you mean now .

No doubt you'll be doing the horourable thing and retracting your accusation?

3 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

No doubt you'll be doing the horourable thing and retracting your accusation?

It was a misunderstanding caused by you unclear use of the English language