Cyclone Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 So you're saying other people are wrong and you are right? Did he say that? Where? ---------- Post added 11-07-2013 at 07:32 ---------- It doesn't stop the government, aided and abetted by the rightwing press, putting the boot into people on benefits though, does it? No it doesn't, but if people actually understood the numbers, this one included, then attacking the "benefits culture" would be impossible, tax evasion would be the area the government would be forced to look at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted July 11, 2013 Author Share Posted July 11, 2013 So you're saying other people are wrong and you are right? I'm saying that the general public are often misinformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 B Abortions are confidential, but they are also reported in a confidential way, the system knows exactly how many abortions were performed (legally anyway). I'm sure that private abortion clinics don't require proof of ID, so whilst they will know how many abortions are carried out, they can't be sure of the age of each patient or if they are British. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Wonder what the survey would have shown if it was carried out in Ladywood Birmingham, "Ladywood, Birmingham, is utterly dominated by single-parent families Relationships break down fast and frequently Children of single mothers often end up single mothers themselves Absent fathers are a common factor among criminals, drug addicts, and self-harmers" Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2359643/My-week-man-desert-In-parts-Britain-70-children-live-fathers-YASMIN-ALIBHAI-BROWN-visited-discovered-devastating-consequences.html#ixzz2Yis8GS7R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Wonder what the survey would have shown if it was carried out in Ladywood Birmingham, "Ladywood, Birmingham, is utterly dominated by single-parent families Relationships break down fast and frequently Children of single mothers often end up single mothers themselves Absent fathers are a common factor among criminals, drug addicts, and self-harmers" Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2359643/My-week-man-desert-In-parts-Britain-70-children-live-fathers-YASMIN-ALIBHAI-BROWN-visited-discovered-devastating-consequences.html#ixzz2Yis8GS7R merely that individual areas do not always reflect the nation as a whole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 If you randomly choose 1000 benefits claimants, and then extensively and rigorously investigate them all for fraud, and you find 7 of them making fraudulent claims, then you have good evidence that the level of fraud is 0.7%. If you hear about a few cases on the news, and then make up a number of 24%, you have no evidence of anything. So basically a guesstimate. All that proves is that they can only find enough evidence to show that 0.7% of the people investigated were committing fraud, the other 99.3% could also be committing fraud. If I use your method of calculating the personage and I know 10 people that claim benefits with 2 are claiming fraudulently, then nationally 20% of claimant must be committing fraud, which would clearly be nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I'm saying that the general public are often misinformed. But why would they be informed to such a statistical level of detail in the first place? It's not like asking something they might have learnt at school, suh as % of nitrogen or oxygen in the air. Also the figures change. Benefit fraud has been cut by two thirds since 2001 (down from £60m to £20m in 2011). The survey is asking people about something they naturally wouldn't know anything about or wouldn't be expected to know the right answer in the first place. When asking somebody to guess a percentage, they basically have a 1/100 chance of being correct, so the odds are stacked against a correct guess. Even if you apply a +/- 5% tolerance to the correct answer to accept as being correct (so if an answer was 12% and I say 10% that would be accepted as a correct answer), that still leaves only a 1 in 10 chance for the public to get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 the point isn't about knowledge - it is about perception - or, in this case - misperception Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 So basically a guesstimate. All that proves is that they can only find enough evidence to show that 0.7% of the people investigated were committing fraud, the other 99.3% could also be committing fraud. If I use your method of calculating the personage and I know 10 people that claim benefits with 2 are claiming fraudulently, then nationally 20% of claimant must be committing fraud, which would clearly be nonsense. You do realise that all those opinion polls saying UKIP are doing well are based on a sample size of about 1000. Are you saying that those polls are greatly overestimating the support for UKIP? A representative sample of 1000 is considered big enough for you to get a good idea of an answer that can reasonably be extrapolated to the rest of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I want to know where all the plaudits and thanks are for the people that don't claim the benefits to which they are entitled, totalling around ten billion pounds in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.