Grooming gangs

DanH said:
No link to an irrelevant Irish news story, eagle?
Click to expand...
On a two tier thread, i write about 2 tier laws in ireland.
On a knife crime thread , i write about knife crime in ireland.
My contributions on here are every bit as Palace as yourself.

D'Antifa, Why do you consistently deviate and obfuscate every sensible discussion with hurty accusations and irrelevancy ?

GROOMING RAPE GANGS WHO ACCIDENTALLY SPOKE URDU.
 
Getting back on topic...So why no mention of the Muslim grooming rape gangs on the BBC or sky or from most MSM on the report?

Do they simply not care or is the impartial broadcasters under order from the government?
 
PalazioVecchio said:
On a two tier thread, i write about 2 tier laws in ireland.
On a knife crime thread , i write about knife crime in ireland.
My contributions on here are every bit as Palace as yourself.

D'Antifa, Why do you consistently deviate and obfuscate every sensible discussion with hurty accusations and irrelevancy ?

GROOMING RAPE GANGS WHO ACCIDENTALLY SPOKE URDU.
Click to expand...

All rape gangs right, eagle?
 
PalazioVecchio said:
I have already mentioned Catholic institutional paedo rape gangs....often gay. And also the Rotherham/Oxford types.

A rape is a rape. Are you trolling again ?
Click to expand...

Unless it’s Russell Brand or Andrew Tate, apparently.

Wondered why you mentioned Urdu, eagle. Maybe start your our own thread on grooming gangs that speak Urdu rather than trolling this thread with irrelevant shite.
 
DanH said:
Wondered why you mentioned Urdu, eagle. Maybe start your our own thread on grooming gangs that speak Urdu rather than trolling this thread with irrelevant shite.
Click to expand...


Irrlevant ? On a thread about Grooming gangs. Yeah D'Antifa mate, whatever you say. Are you deliberately trying to bore us off the discussion ? Censorship by stealth ?

 
HKOwen said:
Key economists and institutions highlighting the impossibility of a definitive, exact figure include:
  • Dr. Graham Gudgin (Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge): He has repeatedly argued that backward-looking estimates rely heavily on flawed "doppelganger" or synthetic counterfactual models (comparing the UK to a basket of other economies). He points out that the G7 average has tracked similarly to the UK since 2016, and argues that more time and patience are needed to strip out confounding factors like Covid-19 and the energy crisis to make an accurate assessment. [1, 2, 3]
  • Catherine McBride (Trade Economist, Free Trade Expert): A vocal critic of mainstream consensus, she argues that attempts to quantify the exact cost of Brexit often conflate the withdrawal itself with domestic policies (like high taxes or energy costs). She notes that predicting what would have happened to UK trade if the country had remained in the single market relies heavily on assumption-driven models rather than solid, observable data. [1, 2]
  • The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR): In their meta-analysis of multiple Brexit studies, they concluded that wildly conflicting projections (ranging from small advantages to marked losses) are largely the result of the different methods, assumptions, and varying coverage of effects chosen by individual researchers. Forward-looking studies inherently struggle to factor in potential positive aspects of long-term economic integration. [1]
  • The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR): While the OBR and the Bank of England have published estimates—such as a roughly 4% reduction in productivity—they openly acknowledge this is just a "simple average" of highly reputable studies. They stress that long-run forecasting cannot give precise estimates of the effect of Brexit on GDP due to the sheer volume of unpredictable variables. [1, 2]
The core issue is that isolating the Brexit variable from other massive global shocks (e.g., the Covid-19 pandemic, Russian energy crises, and general inflation) requires creating a "counterfactual"—a hypothetical economic model of what the UK would look like today without leaving the EU. Because different economic models weight external factors differently, they produce widely varying figures, leading these economists to conclude that a perfect, universally agreed-upon number does not exist. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

There you are, Alan. I think these names trump Rachel Reeves, albeit they probably know nothing about handling customer complaints in a retail bank
Click to expand...


They all concur that it was bad overall.
 
DanH said:
Unless it’s Russell Brand or Andrew Tate, apparently.

Wondered why you mentioned Urdu, eagle. Maybe start your our own thread on grooming gangs that speak Urdu rather than trolling this thread with irrelevant shite.
Click to expand...

Both Russell Brand and Tate have been criticised on here.

We don't demonise them like you do because you're a 'believe all women' guy....accept you seem to have ignored all the women in Lowe's Rape Gang report.....have you even read it?.....I doubt it.

Too damning for your politics.

Too damning for the establishment and their mouthpieces like the BBC and other institutions.

I don't think you personally would allow these things, but the politics you subscribe to is up to its neck in creating the environment where it could and did happen......creating the fear that stopped anyone speaking up.
 
Stirlingsays said:
Both Russell Brand and Tate have been criticised on here.

We don't demonise them like you do because you're a 'believe all women' guy....accept you seem to have ignored all the women in Lowe's Rape Gang report.....have you even read it?.....I doubt it.

Too damning for your politics.

I don't think you personally would allow these things, but the politics you subscribe to is up to its neck in creating the environment where it could and did happen......creating the fear that stopped anyone speaking up.
Click to expand...

Believe all women ....except the youngest, most vulnerable, working-class ones.
 
HKOwen said:
Key economists and institutions highlighting the impossibility of a definitive, exact figure include:
  • Dr. Graham Gudgin (Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge): He has repeatedly argued that backward-looking estimates rely heavily on flawed "doppelganger" or synthetic counterfactual models (comparing the UK to a basket of other economies). He points out that the G7 average has tracked similarly to the UK since 2016, and argues that more time and patience are needed to strip out confounding factors like Covid-19 and the energy crisis to make an accurate assessment. [1, 2, 3]
  • Catherine McBride (Trade Economist, Free Trade Expert): A vocal critic of mainstream consensus, she argues that attempts to quantify the exact cost of Brexit often conflate the withdrawal itself with domestic policies (like high taxes or energy costs). She notes that predicting what would have happened to UK trade if the country had remained in the single market relies heavily on assumption-driven models rather than solid, observable data. [1, 2]
  • The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR): In their meta-analysis of multiple Brexit studies, they concluded that wildly conflicting projections (ranging from small advantages to marked losses) are largely the result of the different methods, assumptions, and varying coverage of effects chosen by individual researchers. Forward-looking studies inherently struggle to factor in potential positive aspects of long-term economic integration. [1]
  • The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR): While the OBR and the Bank of England have published estimates—such as a roughly 4% reduction in productivity—they openly acknowledge this is just a "simple average" of highly reputable studies. They stress that long-run forecasting cannot give precise estimates of the effect of Brexit on GDP due to the sheer volume of unpredictable variables. [1, 2]
The core issue is that isolating the Brexit variable from other massive global shocks (e.g., the Covid-19 pandemic, Russian energy crises, and general inflation) requires creating a "counterfactual"—a hypothetical economic model of what the UK would look like today without leaving the EU. Because different economic models weight external factors differently, they produce widely varying figures, leading these economists to conclude that a perfect, universally agreed-upon number does not exist. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

There you are, Alan. I think these names trump Rachel Reeves, albeit they probably know nothing about handling customer complaints in a retail bank
Click to expand...
This is my pet hobby horse.

We are so backward in this country collecting statistical data especially about the economy but other things as well.

How on earth can the BOE and the Treasury make informed decisions based on bad data which is often corrected months after decisions have been made based on the bad data. Other Western countries have introduced technology which means they are way more reliable.

The performance of the OBR is shockingly bad.

We don't know how many people live in this country, how many are productive, what the country is importing and exporting or what the public is spending money on.

You might as well just lick your finger and wave it in the air.
 
Badger11 said:
This is my pet hobby horse.

We are so backward in this country collecting statistical data especially about the economy but other things as well.

How on earth can the BOE and the Treasury make informed decisions based on bad data which is often corrected months after decisions have been made based on the bad data. Other Western countries have introduced technology which means they are way more reliable.

The performance of the OBR is shockingly bad.

We don't know how many people live in this country, how many are productive, what the country is importing and exporting or what the public is spending money on.

You might as well just lick your finger and wave it in the air.
Click to expand...
Or like hmg stick them in your ears and sing la la la
 
Badger11 said:
This is my pet hobby horse.

We are so backward in this country collecting statistical data especially about the economy but other things as well.

How on earth can the BOE and the Treasury make informed decisions based on bad data which is often corrected months after decisions have been made based on the bad data. Other Western countries have introduced technology which means they are way more reliable.

The performance of the OBR is shockingly bad.

We don't know how many people live in this country, how many are productive, what the country is importing and exporting or what the public is spending money on.

You might as well just lick your finger and wave it in the air.
Click to expand...
The "lifting children out of poverty lie" critique typically centers on how governments use statistical manipulation rather than genuine structural changes to declare victory. Skeptics argue that politicians often utilize these specific tactics to inflate their success: [1]
  • Semantic Sleight of Hand: Governments include people in poverty-reduction statistics who were already above the poverty line. For example, reversing planned cuts that were never enacted, then counting those "saved" individuals as lifted out of poverty. [1]
  • Arbitrary Definitions: Changing how poverty is measured makes it incredibly easy to alter poverty numbers without actually improving anyone's living standards. If an administration drops certain income metrics and uses a new multidimensional baseline, the overall rate can instantly "drop" on paper. [1]
  • Focusing on Relative Poverty: Relative poverty—often defined as earning less than 60% of the median income—means that millions of families can remain financially strained even if their income marginally rises. Critics argue this merely masks deep-rooted issues by adjusting the threshold. [1, 2, 3]
Labour always banging on about " lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty ", it's all a con of stastistical and definition manipulation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top