Today's Telegraph

RE: Today's Telegraph

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 08:58:03 GMT

We agree on something!

Wynne

i'll see if I can attach a smiling smiley - if not - blame Arlo

RE: Today's Telegraph

ruths — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:53:34 GMT

I don't dismiss anecdotes, but you claim an anecdote is well researched data.

and you friend sound great -

RE: Today's Telegraph

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 12:34:56 GMT

You will probably dismiss this as anecdote - in the same way you dismissed Grumpyoldman and Mark's obsevations. I have already alluded to the teacher who worked in a sink school. She had previously spent many years teaching in Jordan. Sorry if that doesn't exactly fit your image of a capitalist grinding the faces of the poor.

She told me the 2 things she liked best about Jordan were, firstly, the low crime rate - robbery was virtually unheard of. Secindly, her pupils were really enthusiastic and hard-working. They saw education as a way out of poverty, so were an absolute pleasure to teach.

The 2 things she disliked the most were the status of women - although Jordan is one of the more enlightened Middle-Eastern countries, and the appalling treatment of animals. The first animal she registered with me was a dog which she had befriended in Jordan, then paid to bring back through quarantine. That's the sort she is - one of the very best.

She was dreadfully disheartened when she returned to this country, and found a "Don't need to learn, 'cos I don't need to earn" attitude amongst the vast majority of her pupils.

Wynne

RE: Today's Telegraph

ruths — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:40:12 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

The Dept of Work and Pensions might not have been able to come up with exact figures to back Iain Duncan Smith's assertions, but I challenge you to proove that there aren't many 3 generation scrounger families.

Wynne

[/quote]

and you have the temerity to challenge me on my references to different newspapers?

You are talking about human beings.

RE: Today's Telegraph

ruths — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:38:31 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Wynne

[/quote]

wynne, this is direct from the DWP when they were asked if they could verify IDS's asserttion

'“Information on the number of children growing up in families where their parents and grandparents have never worked is not available, as there is no suitable data source which would allow us to produce a robust and representative estimate of this persistent multigenerational worklessness.'

The centre for market and public organisation (with the Univeristy of Bristol) and the National child development survey and the British Houselhold Panel survey have all failed to prove that there is a large amount of 3 generations of workless families.

They DID come up with figures that the number of two generation never worked families are less than 0.1% of the total claimants of benefit and they go on to conclude that the number of three generations is likely to be smaller than that.

I suspect that I can't find any data on how many 3 generations of familes who have never worked.

I don;t have anythign like the facilities that these researchers have.

But, now, I do believe that we agree here. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP IDS's CLAIMS.

The rest of what you choose to believe is up to your own prejuduce on the matter.

RE: Today's Telegraph

mariette asselbergs — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 11:15:38 GMT

"Maybe we should legalise cannabis - and get some income from taxes on it" Martin Atkinson

I was on hollidays in Colorado State 3 months after they legalised cannabis. The income from taxing it (heavily) had already paid for the education budget of the state! That is 2 years ago and no disasters have happened.

Mariette

RE: Today's Telegraph

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 10:27:30 GMT

Wynne

RE: Today's Telegraph

ruths — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 09:21:41 GMT

Ipso. Tbh Wynne I think you are going to struggle to convince anyone that journalism is a noble profession.

RE: Today's Telegraph

ruths — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 09:14:40 GMT

But the lack of evidence is from the dwp, wynne. They were asked to show their evidence for the 3 generations claims and they wrote back and said it wS anecdotal. Is this is no numericalevidence backing up that claim. it really doesn't matter who asked the question- the answer is from the DWP and states there is no evidence.

RE: Today's Telegraph

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 09:11:27 GMT

I've done some checking. Full Fact's own web-site states that they are an independant fact-checking organisation, funded by donations - and yes, they're registered by the Charity Comission, so they're legal.

Lower down on page 1 Enza Ferreri's blog stated that they weren't truly independant, and their core funding came from 3 charities, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Nuffield Foundation, and the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation (I'll now have to investigate all 3 to see if politically biased)

Page 2 "How Leveson was deniedthe full facts" - critical of the impartiality of Full Facts.

That's as far as I've gone at the moment.

Wynne

RE: Today's Telegraph

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:31:26 GMT

Has anyone replaced them?

Wynne

RE: Today's Telegraph

ruths — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 21:43:44 GMT

Wynne, the press complaints commission was debanded after the levison enquiry.

RE: Today's Telegraph

ruths — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 20:43:46 GMT

And as far as believing anything that is written I. The press is concerned- well, I don't. And that's why I go and find the back story to things and look to see the stufy thst they are quoting etc. the newspapers all put their political spin on every story- and I doubt anyone would debate that. I didn't have a funny name for the guardian or I'd have used it... This I now do remember privste eye calling it the gruaniad for years due to all the typos.

RE: Today's Telegraph

ruths — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 20:37:59 GMT

Actually, Wynne, it's of no consequence WHO asks for information under the freedom of information act. They asked the DWP for the evidence thst backed up IDS's statement and he DWP said they couldn't provide the evidence because it was based on somebody else's speculation. It's very similar to grumpyoldman's perception- and then it was used in a political speech as 'FACT' and there was no numerical evidence at all

RE: Today's Telegraph

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 18:39:46 GMT

I've never heard of fullfact, therefore can't (as yet) give a firm opinion. I will try to investigate them in order to find out if they are truly independant or merely claimimg to be.

You have also not justified your sneering comments on those sections of the press who don't agree with your left wing views - Daily Fail and Torygraph! Have you ever considered that if either published untruths, they would be stopped by the Press Complaints people (or will you allege that they are also part of a right wing conspiracy?). Maybe they are just publishing those aspects of the truth that left-wingers would rather were hidden fromthe public? One of the worst regimes ever for suppression of the truth was Soviet Russia!

Wynne

RE: Today's Telegraph

ruths — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 18:20:25 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

You haven't - to be honest you have about as much chance as I have of bursting your bubble on the automatic veracity of left wing sources.

Wynne

[/quote]

Did you read the link?

fullfact are an independant organisation

you seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is left wing and need the word 'loony' in front of it so you can immediately discredit them. If you notice- I give you evidence ( or lack of it) and you decide you won't belive it because it's 'from the left wing' so not to be trusted. Anything from the right wing ( the highly regarded telegraph) is telling the 'tRuth' and anything else is mad...

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

You haven't - to be honest you have about as much chance as I have of bursting your bubble on the automatic veracity of left wing sources.

Wynne

[/quote]

RE: Today's Telegraph

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 18:08:01 GMT

PS I've never made any claims about the % of 3 generation non-working families. I can tell you that a client who before her retirement used to be a teacher in a sink school used to complain that she couldn't motivate her pupils to either attend, do homework, or have ambitions to pass exams - because they freely admitted that they didn't see the point - they could live "on the social"

Wynne

RE: Today's Telegraph

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 18:02:39 GMT

You haven't - to be honest you have about as much chance as I have of bursting your bubble on the automatic veracity of left wing sources.

Wynne

RE: Today's Telegraph

ruths — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 17:28:10 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Iain Duncan-Smith was actually quoting FACTS - something the loony lefties absolutely HATE when it disprooves their theories - so they then lie, and deny these FACTS.

Wynne

[/quote]

i presumed this meant that IDS was quoting facts when he said that there were a large number of families who were 3 generations not working..

i asked for evidence of the figure of 20% that grumpyoldman came up wiht, but it's based on his personal observations and not on anything that would stand in a court of law tbf...

and IDS said this “Life expectancy on some estates, where often three generations of the same family have never worked, is lower than the Gaza Strip.” in 2012 at the Centre for Social Justice .

I thought you were referring to this when you siad his speech was based on FACTS.

I didn't read the torygraph page, for much the same reasons that I doubt you would read the Guardian.

It just seemed an odd thing to pick up on- this 3 generations of families out of work - I'd heard it before and looked for the evidence that this was true; the sort fo studies that are done on populations of peeople etc.

This is the thing that I'm asking for the evidecne about.

I'm not accusing anyone of lying, (I did link to two instances where IDS has been shown to have lied and aso one where he has been accused of m,isleading people)

It maybe that he was mistaken when he used these words in his speech. it maybe that the person who wrote his speech was mistaken.

A freedom of information request was made on IDS's ofice soon after that speech.

The Was NO evidence to give. No studies have shown a number of three generation unemployed. There may well be a number, and I don't dount that there are people in this situation.

I made this point because unless we question things and actually go back to the source of these sorts of 'FACTS' then we get misled and we believe things that are simply not proven. They become part of the reason that people hate one another and think of certin people was 'lesser' .

And we know where that goes.

here's a link to the freedom of information request about the 'FACTS' that IDS quoted https://fullfact.org/articles/are_there_thousands_of_never_worked_families-27515

I aksed you to find the evidence- ie the actual numbers of families that are 3 generation unemployed.

I'm not sure if you looked before you replied.

But I have looked, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence for his comment - 'often' when relating to the 3 generations.

There was no numerical evidence to back that claim up- it was pure speculation.

I have no idea what you will make of this post because it doesn't fit a need to belive that newspapers don't 'tell lies' or polititicans don't mislead the country.

They do.

It's a simple as that.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, as it were.

RE: Today's Telegraph

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 16:30:47 GMT

Ruths. I started this thread by reporting something I read in a highly respected national newspaper. Grumpyoldman added a reference to the 3 generation benefit claimants whom he knows. You assumed that he was quoting a speach made by Iain Duncan Smith.

My interpretation of the allegations made in your posts is that you think that either the Telegraph, or Iain Duncan Smith were lying. I challenged you to prove that IDS lied in his reference to 3 generation benefit claimants. This you have singularly failed to do.

My facts come from the front page of the Telegraph.

If you are alleging that either the Telegraph, or Iain Duncan Smith are lying, then it will require a court case to determine whether or not your allegations are libellous, and if so, the quontum of the damages.

Wynne

RE: Today's Telegraph

ruths — Fri, 03 Jul 2015 13:49:41 GMT

Is that 20% of all of your clients have 3 generations of unemplyed,

or people on the estate?

I'm still nto sure where this figure applies tbh..

And Wynne- where's the evidence/FACTS that you are quoting?

Re: Today's Telegraph

grumpyoldman — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 00:41:07 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]it's just interesting that this was a key issue in IDS's sppech some years ago and a favrouite of the daily fail.[/quote]

Its ok , cant remember reading the paper or hearing the speech , "yes minister" ruined politics for me never took any of it seriously after that.

Re: Today's Telegraph

ruths — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 00:11:50 GMT

My question was about the three generations of unemployed, that's all.

and you've answered it.

it's just interesting that this was a key issue in IDS's sppech some years ago and a favrouite of the daily fail.

Re: Today's Telegraph

grumpyoldman — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 00:11:10 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]

How do you actually know that the three generations haven't had a job. Do you ask or do they volunteer that information. Twenty percent just seems very high.

[/quote]

Working in the same place for over 25 years means you recognise the families and their offspring.

Re: Today's Telegraph

grumpyoldman — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 00:04:12 GMT

When people smell that bad , look like that , cannot string a coherent sentence together its pretty obvious that no one is going to employ them because they are unemployable, but the other clue "is do yer av discounts fer DHSS duck' ??. And then there is the street and post code which makes a regular guest star appearance on your bad debt list. So its not hard really and not exactly a quantum leap of an assumption.