A new survey for the Royal Statistical Society and King's College London shows public opinion is repeatedly off the mark on issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration.

The research, carried out by Ipsos Mori from a phone survey of 1,015 people aged 16 to 75, lists ten misconceptions held by the British public. Among the biggest misconceptions are:

- Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34.

- Immigration: some 31 per cent of the population is thought to consist of recent immigrants, when the figure is actually 13 per cent. Even including illegal immigrants, the figure is only about 15 per cent. On the issue of ethnicity, black and Asian people are thought to make up 30 per cent of the population, when the figure is closer to 11 per cent.

- Crime: some 58 per cent of people do not believe crime is falling, when the Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that incidents of crime were 19 per cent lower in 2012 than in 2006/07 and 53 per cent lower than in 1995. Some 51 per cent think violent crime is rising, when it has fallen from almost 2.5 million incidents in 2006/07 to under 2 million in 2012.

- Teen pregnancy is thought to be 25 times higher than the official estimates: 15 per cent of of girls under 16 are thought to become pregnant every year, when official figures say the amount is closer to 0.6 per cent.

Among the other surprising figures are that 26 per cent of people think foreign aid is in the top three items the Government spends money on (it actually makes up just 1.1 per cent of expenditure), and that 29 per cent of people think more is spent on Jobseekers' Allowance than pensions.

In fact we spend 15 times more on pensions - £4.9 billion on JSA vs £74.2 billion on pensions.

Hetan Shah, executive director of the Royal Statistical Society, said: "Our data poses real challenges for policymakers. How can you develop good policy when public perceptions can be so out of kilter with the evidence?

"We need to see three things happen. First, politicians need to be better at talking about the real state of affairs of the country, rather than spinning the numbers. Secondly, the media has to try and genuinely illuminate issues, rather than use statistics to sensationalise.

"And finally we need better teaching of statistical literacy in schools, so that people get more comfortable in understanding evidence."

Bobby Duffy, the managing director of Ipsos Mori Social Research Institute, said: "A lack of trust in government information is also very evident in other questions in the survey - so 'myth-busting' is likely to prove a challenge on many of these issues. But it is still useful to understand where people get their facts most wrong."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

:Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

yes useful to justify to those who want to justify their beliefs even when they are not based on any facts isn't it?

It reflects the media agenda......profit before facts.

:Lies, dam_n lies, and statistics.

You've got a good point there. The 70 pence in £100 figure is absurd, and here's why. Take out the proportion of the spending which is automatically paid to pensioners for reaching the age of retirement, just that alone which is an absolute right, then have a look at the figure again. There are over 10 million pensioners in the country now.

If you then take out the other areas such as child benefit, another absolute right, the pot gets smaller again. There will be other "absolute right" categories, so then you end up with the elective spending pot, money allocated upon need not right, and that pot is getting raped by fraud. I know dozens of people claiming all sorts of benefits that they are not entitled to.

You're right Mosha, lies, damned lies, and statistics.

:Lies, dam_n lies, and statistics.

You've got a good point there. The 70 pence in £100 figure is absurd, and here's why. Take out the proportion of the spending which is automatically paid to pensioners for reaching the age of retirement, just that alone which is an absolute right, then have a look at the figure again. There are over 10 million pensioners in the country now.

If you then take out the other areas such as child benefit, another absolute right, the pot gets smaller again. There will be other "absolute right" categories, so then you end up with the elective spending pot, money allocated upon need not right, and that pot is getting raped by fraud. I know dozens of people claiming all sorts of benefits that they are not entitled to.

You're right Mosha, lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I don't think the Royal Statistical Society would consider "I know dozens of people claiming all sorts of benefits that they are not entitled to" to be statistically valid

Not only the British public, but the public of most other countries, are wrong about nearly everything. That's why they have votes in elections. Giving votes only to those who are well-informed would be quite unfair.

:Lies, dam_n lies, and statistics.

You've got a good point there. The 70 pence in £100 figure is absurd, and here's why. Take out the proportion of the spending which is automatically paid to pensioners for reaching the age of retirement, just that alone which is an absolute right, then have a look at the figure again. There are over 10 million pensioners in the country now.

If you then take out the other areas such as child benefit, another absolute right, the pot gets smaller again. There will be other "absolute right" categories, so then you end up with the elective spending pot, money allocated upon need not right, and that pot is getting raped by fraud. I know dozens of people claiming all sorts of benefits that they are not entitled to.

You're right Mosha, lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I don't think the Royal Statistical Society would consider "I know dozens of people claiming all sorts of benefits that they are not entitled to" to be statistically valid

No they wouldn't, but the example stands. Setting aside the "absolute" benefits, how much of the elective spend is being defrauded? Far more than 70 pence/ £100.00.

Not only the British public, but the public of most other countries, are wrong about nearly everything. That's why they have votes in elections. Giving votes only to those who are well-informed would be quite unfair.

But very sensible.

As only 25% to 45% of the electorate vote, depending on the type of election (general, local, European, bye-election) then I would assume that the well-informed are more likely to participate.

With regard to SBK's original post - she quotes a 'fact' that 1.1% of the budget goes on foreign aid. Yet our moron of a Prime Minister says that only 0.7% goes on foreign aid. Is he lying to us?

And what does that 1.1% actually mean? On a budget figure of around £ 750 billion, it represents a total of £ 8,250,000,000.00 being given away - £ 120 for every man, woman and child in the country. Did we vote for this? No. But being forced to have the undemocratic 'party' system of government, we cannot express our views, only vote for one of two or three major political parties that more closely represents our views. Even if one joins a political party in the hope of putting forward one's views, then one finds that as a new member you are in a minority of one for the first few years, then maybe progressing to a more senior position - even a delegate to the annual party conference. But once there one finds that the agenda has already been set by the mandarins from Central Office and one is restricted in voting rights on many subjects.

There is a group of people in the country who have the control of politics well sewn up and Joe Public has only the choice between bad and worse.

Not only the British public, but the public of most other countries, are wrong about nearly everything. That's why they have votes in elections. Giving votes only to those who are well-informed would be quite unfair.

But very sensible.

As only 25% to 45% of the electorate vote, depending on the type of election (general, local, European, bye-election) then I would assume that the well-informed are more likely to participate.

With regard to SBK's original post - she quotes a 'fact' that 1.1% of the budget goes on foreign aid. Yet our moron of a Prime Minister says that only 0.7% goes on foreign aid. Is he lying to us?

And what does that 1.1% actually mean? On a budget figure of around £ 750 billion, it represents a total of £ 8,250,000,000.00 being given away - £ 120 for every man, woman and child in the country. Did we vote for this? No. But being forced to have the undemocratic 'party' system of government, we cannot express our views, only vote for one of two or three major political parties that more closely represents our views. Even if one joins a political party in the hope of putting forward one's views, then one finds that as a new member you are in a minority of one for the first few years, then maybe progressing to a more senior position - even a delegate to the annual party conference. But once there one finds that the agenda has already been set by the mandarins from Central Office and one is restricted in voting rights on many subjects.

There is a group of people in the country who have the control of politics well sewn up and Joe Public has only the choice between bad and worse.

My point exactly, HB.

Interesting the things you choose to cherry pick out of the entire article.

Only cherry picking out the statistic that is patently wrong. You would need to live in Britain to see how laughable that figure is.......70 pence in £100,

Incidentally I answered the point in post three, the British public in reality are only reflecting the barrage of headlines from the newspapers. They're at fault here for filling people full of yaboo negative headlines.

:Lies, dam_n lies, and statistics.

You've got a good point there. The 70 pence in £100 figure is absurd, and here's why. Take out the proportion of the spending which is automatically paid to pensioners for reaching the age of retirement, just that alone which is an absolute right, then have a look at the figure again. There are over 10 million pensioners in the country now.

If you then take out the other areas such as child benefit, another absolute right, the pot gets smaller again. There will be other "absolute right" categories, so then you end up with the elective spending pot, money allocated upon need not right, and that pot is getting raped by fraud. I know dozens of people claiming all sorts of benefits that they are not entitled to.

You're right Mosha, lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Got any tips tb?

Only cherry picking out the statistic that is patently wrong. You would need to live in Britain to see how laughable that figure is.......70 pence in £100,

So how much out of every £100 paid in benefits do you think is fraudulently claimed?

What evidence do you have to back up your figure?

Only cherry picking out the statistic that is patently wrong. You would need to live in Britain to see how laughable that figure is.......70 pence in £100,

So how much out of every £100 paid in benefits do you think is fraudulently claimed?

What evidence do you have to back up your figure?

Did you read my earlier answer?

Yes; all of them.

None of which contain an answer to either of my questions.

Should add that whilst you are almost certainly correct in implying that fraudulently claiming the state pension is extremely difficult, you are wrong about the other benefits you refer to as "absolute right categories."

People do claim NIC based benefits fraudulently; Contribution based Jobseekers Allowance when they are working, for example.

People do claim Child Benefit and Tax Credits to which they are not entitled.

You simply cannot exclude these benefits from the calculation of total benefit fraud.

Should add that whilst you are almost certainly correct in implying that fraudulently claiming the state pension is extremely difficult, you are wrong about the other benefits you refer to as "absolute right categories."

People do claim NIC based benefits fraudulently; Contribution based Jobseekers Allowance when they are working, for example.

People do claim Child Benefit and Tax Credits to which they are not entitled.

You simply cannot exclude these benefits from the calculation of total benefit fraud.

I think you'll find that the pension benefits paid on the basis of age obtained will be a very substantial part of the benefits bill. The next two fall into the fraud category.

Outside that I can't be bothered, it's a Friday night and I'm going out. See you later.

Indeed, claiming what you call "absolute right categories" one is not entitled to claim is fraud and so cannot be taken out of the equation to make, as you put it, the pot get smaller.

If you then take out the other areas such as child benefit, another absolute right, the pot gets smaller again. There will be other "absolute right" categories, so then you end up with the elective spending pot, money allocated upon need not right.........

Glad to see you have changed your mind on that.

I look forward to reading your answers to my two questions on the morrow.

Have a good evening.

There is a lot of discussion on the idiot box about state benefits, allowances, pensions and fraudulent claims.

My understanding is that the state pension and pension credits (together the Old Age Pension) plus benefits such as the winter heating allowance and 'cold week' allowance make up 60% of the total benefit bill. Child support and similar are another 15%. Job-seekers, disability and housing support make up the remaining 25%. Of this last, maybe 10% at most id fraudulently claimed - thus a maximum of 2.5% of the total benefits account - more probably less than 1% of the total.

The media, and successive governments, fulminate over these fraudulent claims as putting the whole system in danger, when Whitehall has wasted every year far more than the maximum possible amount of benefit fraud. But we, Joe Public, have no possible way of knowing exactly how much, as it is never openly published. To dismiss one half of all civil servants employed in and around Whitehall would save the country many millions without in any way impeding the running of the country. Amalgamate many of the book-keeping and accounting functions, which are computerised anyway, plus procurement facilities and sell off many of the buildings, which are sitting in a high-value area, and we could be back in the black.

So, its ok to pick out the ones you think are incorrect but ignore the rest? Is that much different than the people who ignorantly believe incorrect information and then spread it around as fact even though they are wrong?

So, its ok to pick out the ones you think are incorrect but ignore the rest? Is that much different than the people who ignorantly believe incorrect information and then spread it around as fact even though they are wrong?

Yes, if those are the only ones where you have accurate information (or think you do!).

"A greater proportion of foreign nationals get degrees and top jobs than native Britons, according figures released by the Office for National Statistics. The data also reveal that nearly 90 per cent of foreign nationals living in the UK speak English very well.

The figures, which come from the 2011 census, dispel many of the stereotypes that exist about the prevalence of unskilled immigrants. The release of the statistics comes after a recent OECD analysis which said that immigrants put more into the public purses of Western nations than they take out."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/they-come-over-here-speak-good-english-get-good-jobs-immigrants-get-better-jobs-than-native-britons-figures-reveal-8706554.html

There are many articles in the newspaperas and on television at the moment about there being half a million unprocessed immigrants, I assume from outside the EU, and another half million illegal immigrants in the UK at the moment. These are not students from abroad, nor skilled people brought in by companies to work on engineering, medical or other scientific skilled items, nor are they bankers, merchandisers or other skilled trades.

These are the people working at below minimum wage, receiving benefits, sweat-shop slaves, seasonal workers.

And our vaunted civil service reckon it will take 37 years to clear the documentation of all these immigrants, plus the 4,000 and more that are listed already for deportation. In my view that best way would be to put them all on trains bound for Brussels and start again with a whole new Border Security Force.

Only cherry picking out the statistic that is patently wrong. You would need to live in Britain to see how laughable that figure is.......70 pence in £100,

So how much out of every £100 paid in benefits do you think is fraudulently claimed?

What evidence do you have to back up your figure?

No answer then?

Don't say that you have answered; you haven't. You have merely dodged the question.

There are many articles in the newspaperas and on television at the moment about there being half a million unprocessed immigrants I assume from outside the EU................

And our vaunted civil service reckon it will take 37 years to clear the documentation of all these immigrants, plus the 4,000 and more that are listed already for deportation. In my view that best way would be to put them all on trains bound for Brussels and start again with a whole new Border Security Force.

As they are from outside the EU, what's Brussels got to do with it?

Would you include people in a similar situation to a friend of ours?

Entered the UK on a spouse visa, became pregnant, abandoned by her husband, her child's father, while she was pregnant and before she had ILR.

Made an application under the Zambrano ruling to remain in the UK to care for her British son.

Been waiting for a decision now for over a year.

She is currently living in a local authority bed and breakfast and receiving minimal benefits due to her son. He is too young to be left alone while she worked, she has no one who could care for him while she did work, she could not afford to pay for child care while she worked and as her spouse visa has long expired she cannot legally work.

So what would you do to her? Kick her and her British son out?

So, its ok to pick out the ones you think are incorrect but ignore the rest? Is that much different than the people who ignorantly believe incorrect information and then spread it around as fact even though they are wrong?

Yes, if those are the only ones where you have accurate information (or think you do!).

Alas accurate information is often hard to come by if said access is deemed politically sensitive.

Only cherry picking out the statistic that is patently wrong. You would need to live in Britain to see how laughable that figure is.......70 pence in £100,

So how much out of every £100 paid in benefits do you think is fraudulently claimed?

What evidence do you have to back up your figure?

No answer then?

Don't say that you have answered; you haven't. You have merely dodged the question.

I've learned not to engage with you 7x7, it always ends up in a 20 page argument, so if you don't mind I'll pass.

Feel free to have the last word.

There are many articles in the newspaperas and on television at the moment about there being half a million unprocessed immigrants I assume from outside the EU................

And our vaunted civil service reckon it will take 37 years to clear the documentation of all these immigrants, plus the 4,000 and more that are listed already for deportation. In my view that best way would be to put them all on trains bound for Brussels and start again with a whole new Border Security Force.

As they are from outside the EU, what's Brussels got to do with it?

Would you include people in a similar situation to a friend of ours?

Entered the UK on a spouse visa, became pregnant, abandoned by her husband, her child's father, while she was pregnant and before she had ILR.

Made an application under the Zambrano ruling to remain in the UK to care for her British son.

Been waiting for a decision now for over a year.

She is currently living in a local authority bed and breakfast and receiving minimal benefits due to her son. He is too young to be left alone while she worked, she has no one who could care for him while she did work, she could not afford to pay for child care while she worked and as her spouse visa has long expired she cannot legally work.

So what would you do to her? Kick her and her British son out?

At least she is in the UK.

My filipina wife and daughter are not able to get a visa to come to the UK as I am now retired and my income is below £ 22.5k p.a.

If I had applied while still working, there would have been no problem, but my wifwe works as a hotel manager and did not want to leave her job. Now that our daughter is at school they wish to come and have a British education, rather than a Bisayan one. But no go, even though I own my own house, have some pension income and my wife could find a job withion hours of arriving here.

And of those half million waiting for their papers to be processed, many have been in the UK for decades. Your case is one that will probably not be solved for many years and it would be better for both if they returned to the mother's country of origin, where she would probably have some sort of family support.

From today the total benefits going into any one household are being capped at £26k p.a. So this should sort out a lot of the excessive abuses in the system, but will also leave a lot of large families in poverty.

Further, in your case, there may be doubt regarding Zambrano.

That was about the rights of the parents to stay in the country (Belgium) and work to support their children (born in Belgium) despite the parents being illegal immigrants. You may wish to consider

In contrast the Tribunal and Court of Appeal in the UK (see W (China) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1494) have held that Chen cannot be used to ‘create’ a right a work that did not previously exist independently.

We do not kow-tow to all European Union laws, although we do seem to take far too many on board.