British public wrong about nearly everything...
Discussion
trickywoo said:
Are the statistics it says people are wrong about correct?
A very good point, though it may well not be enough to turn the tables on the article. People rarely carry official stats around waiting for a survey to call. One example:http://www.benefitfraud.org.uk/total-benefit-fraud...
but if you're ooop north try the BBC fortress in Salford.don4l said:
I'm really quite surprised that people have such faith in The Independent.
As a Daily Mail reader, I distrust anything that is printed in either The Independent or The Guardian. So, I was not surprised to see that the article contained some outright lies.
For example, the article claims that Foreign Aid is only 1.1% of Government spending. This is a gross understatement. The actual figure is nearly double that as a percentage of central government spending. If you include Local Government spending, then it is still out by more than 50%.
Well said. It's nearly 100% of DfID spending. And if you include previous years' it's well over 1000% (depending on how far back you go).As a Daily Mail reader, I distrust anything that is printed in either The Independent or The Guardian. So, I was not surprised to see that the article contained some outright lies.
For example, the article claims that Foreign Aid is only 1.1% of Government spending. This is a gross understatement. The actual figure is nearly double that as a percentage of central government spending. If you include Local Government spending, then it is still out by more than 50%.
Here is the full set of ten statistics;
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/res...
Looking at the full results, I think there is much of interest in there beyond the ten examples picked.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ipsos-...
Perhaps someone could extract the Daily Mail version of the report? Perhaps "poverty not as bad as people think it is" could be a starter for ten.
I do particularly like the questions which ask (locally) and (nationally) - people are pretty consistently more pessimistic about the wider picture than they are about their own experiences. An interesting quirk of human nature, I think.
One thing that does leap out at me is the religion question - the statistic being used for comparison is from the census. People are not entirely consistent with their answers in those situations. For instance, many more people will answer "Christian" to "what is your religion?" than will answer "yes" to "are you religious?". In the same survey, less than half of those who said they were Christian said that they believed that Jesus Christ was a real person who died and came back to life and was the son of God.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/res...
IPSOS MORI said:
1. Teenage pregnancy: on average, we think teenage pregnancy is 25 times higher than official estimates: we think that 15% of girls under 16 get pregnant each year, when official figures suggest it is around 0.6%[i].
2. Crime: 58% do not believe that crime is falling, when the Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that incidents of crime were 19% lower in 2012 than in 2006/07 and 53% lower than in 1995[ii]. 51% think violent crime is rising, when it has fallen from almost 2.5 million incidents in 2006/07 to under 2 million in 2012[iii].
3. Job-seekers allowance: 29% of people think we spend more on JSA than pensions, when in fact we spend 15 times more on pensions (£4.9bn vs £74.2bn)[iv].
4. Benefit fraud: people estimate that 34 times more benefit money is claimed fraudulently than official estimates: the public think that £24 out of every £100 spent on benefits is claimed fraudulently, compared with official estimates of £0.70 per £100[v].
5. Foreign aid: 26% of people think foreign aid is one of the top 2-3 items government spends most money on, when it actually made up 1.1% of expenditure (£7.9bn) in the 2011/12 financial year. More people select this as a top item of expenditure than pensions (which cost nearly ten times as much, £74bn) and education in the UK (£51.5bn)[vi].
6. Religion: we greatly overestimate the proportion of the population who are Muslims: on average we say 24%, compared with 5% in England and Wales. And we underestimate the proportion of Christians: we estimate 34% on average, compared with the actual proportion of 59% in England and Wales[vii].
7. Immigration and ethnicity: the public think that 31% of the population are immigrants, when the official figures are 13%[viii]. Even estimates that attempt to account for illegal immigration suggest a figure closer to 15%. There are similar misperceptions on ethnicity: the average estimate is that Black and Asian people make up 30% of the population, when it is actually 11% (or 14% if we include mixed and other non-white ethnic groups)[ix].
8. Age: we think the population is much older than it actually is – the average estimate is that 36% of the population are 65+, when only 16% are[x].
9. Benefit bill: people are most likely to think that capping benefits at £26,000 per household will save most money from a list provided (33% pick this option), over twice the level that select raising the pension age to 66 for both men and women or stopping child benefit when someone in the household earns £50k+. In fact, capping household benefits is estimated to save £290m[xi], compared with £5bn[xii] for raising the pension age and £1.7bn[xiii] for stopping child benefit for wealthier households.
10. Voting: we underestimate the proportion of people who voted in the last general election – our average guess is 43%, when 65% of the electorate actually did (51% of the whole population)[xiv].
Looks like the Indy cherry-picked the examples most congruent with the prejudices of their readers - how Daily Mail of them!2. Crime: 58% do not believe that crime is falling, when the Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that incidents of crime were 19% lower in 2012 than in 2006/07 and 53% lower than in 1995[ii]. 51% think violent crime is rising, when it has fallen from almost 2.5 million incidents in 2006/07 to under 2 million in 2012[iii].
3. Job-seekers allowance: 29% of people think we spend more on JSA than pensions, when in fact we spend 15 times more on pensions (£4.9bn vs £74.2bn)[iv].
4. Benefit fraud: people estimate that 34 times more benefit money is claimed fraudulently than official estimates: the public think that £24 out of every £100 spent on benefits is claimed fraudulently, compared with official estimates of £0.70 per £100[v].
5. Foreign aid: 26% of people think foreign aid is one of the top 2-3 items government spends most money on, when it actually made up 1.1% of expenditure (£7.9bn) in the 2011/12 financial year. More people select this as a top item of expenditure than pensions (which cost nearly ten times as much, £74bn) and education in the UK (£51.5bn)[vi].
6. Religion: we greatly overestimate the proportion of the population who are Muslims: on average we say 24%, compared with 5% in England and Wales. And we underestimate the proportion of Christians: we estimate 34% on average, compared with the actual proportion of 59% in England and Wales[vii].
7. Immigration and ethnicity: the public think that 31% of the population are immigrants, when the official figures are 13%[viii]. Even estimates that attempt to account for illegal immigration suggest a figure closer to 15%. There are similar misperceptions on ethnicity: the average estimate is that Black and Asian people make up 30% of the population, when it is actually 11% (or 14% if we include mixed and other non-white ethnic groups)[ix].
8. Age: we think the population is much older than it actually is – the average estimate is that 36% of the population are 65+, when only 16% are[x].
9. Benefit bill: people are most likely to think that capping benefits at £26,000 per household will save most money from a list provided (33% pick this option), over twice the level that select raising the pension age to 66 for both men and women or stopping child benefit when someone in the household earns £50k+. In fact, capping household benefits is estimated to save £290m[xi], compared with £5bn[xii] for raising the pension age and £1.7bn[xiii] for stopping child benefit for wealthier households.
10. Voting: we underestimate the proportion of people who voted in the last general election – our average guess is 43%, when 65% of the electorate actually did (51% of the whole population)[xiv].
Looking at the full results, I think there is much of interest in there beyond the ten examples picked.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ipsos-...
Perhaps someone could extract the Daily Mail version of the report? Perhaps "poverty not as bad as people think it is" could be a starter for ten.
I do particularly like the questions which ask (locally) and (nationally) - people are pretty consistently more pessimistic about the wider picture than they are about their own experiences. An interesting quirk of human nature, I think.
One thing that does leap out at me is the religion question - the statistic being used for comparison is from the census. People are not entirely consistent with their answers in those situations. For instance, many more people will answer "Christian" to "what is your religion?" than will answer "yes" to "are you religious?". In the same survey, less than half of those who said they were Christian said that they believed that Jesus Christ was a real person who died and came back to life and was the son of God.
otolith said:
6. Religion: we greatly overestimate the proportion of the population who are Muslims: on average we say 24%, compared with 5% in England and Wales.
Or, you might say, 5% of the people causing 24% of the angst!I believe crime works similarly; a relatively small number of families carrying out a large amount of UK crime.
don4l said:
I'm really quite surprised that people have such faith in The Independent.
As a Daily Mail reader, I distrust anything that is printed in either The Independent or The Guardian. So, I was not surprised to see that the article contained some outright lies.
For example, the article claims that Foreign Aid is only 1.1% of Government spending. This is a gross understatement. The actual figure is nearly double that as a percentage of central government spending. If you include Local Government spending, then it is still out by more than 50%.
Funnily enough, if I type "stories made up by [paper]" or "lies in [paper]" - through an anonymous search engine and a proxy - the only one that returns relevant results is "the daily mail".As a Daily Mail reader, I distrust anything that is printed in either The Independent or The Guardian. So, I was not surprised to see that the article contained some outright lies.
For example, the article claims that Foreign Aid is only 1.1% of Government spending. This is a gross understatement. The actual figure is nearly double that as a percentage of central government spending. If you include Local Government spending, then it is still out by more than 50%.
So I'm going to have to say: post a reliable source for that fact or I'm entirely justified in concluding that you're incapable of being objective.
paranoid airbag said:
don4l said:
I'm really quite surprised that people have such faith in The Independent.
As a Daily Mail reader, I distrust anything that is printed in either The Independent or The Guardian. So, I was not surprised to see that the article contained some outright lies.
For example, the article claims that Foreign Aid is only 1.1% of Government spending. This is a gross understatement. The actual figure is nearly double that as a percentage of central government spending. If you include Local Government spending, then it is still out by more than 50%.
Funnily enough, if I type "stories made up by [paper]" or "lies in [paper]" - through an anonymous search engine and a proxy - the only one that returns relevant results is "the daily mail".As a Daily Mail reader, I distrust anything that is printed in either The Independent or The Guardian. So, I was not surprised to see that the article contained some outright lies.
For example, the article claims that Foreign Aid is only 1.1% of Government spending. This is a gross understatement. The actual figure is nearly double that as a percentage of central government spending. If you include Local Government spending, then it is still out by more than 50%.
So I'm going to have to say: post a reliable source for that fact or I'm entirely justified in concluding that you're incapable of being objective.
Most British people consider the Times of London to be the most respectable “broadsheet” newspaper (as opposed to “tabloid” newspapers) in the UK, despite the fact that the Times, along with most British “broadsheet” newspapers, is now published in the tabloid size to make it easier for people to read it in crowded London subways. Last week, the Sunday Times published an article with the headline “Blonde women born to be warrior princesses.” The article reported that “Researchers claim that blondes are more likely to display a “warlike” streak because they attract more attention than other women and are used to getting their own way – the so-called “princess effect.”” The Times article quotes the evolutionary psychologist at the University of California – Santa Barbara, Aaron Sell, and his findings are purportedly published in his article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, written with the two Deans of Modern Evolutionary Psychology, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby.
As it turns out, however, none of this is true, as Sell explains in his angry letter to the Times. He and his coauthors do not mention blondes at all in their paper and they don’t even have hair color in their data. The supplementary analyses that Sell performed after the publication of the paper, as a personal favor to the Times reporter, show the exact opposite of what the Times article claims. After he presumably listened to Sell explain all of this on the phone, the Times reporter nonetheless made up the whole thing, and attributed it to Sell.
paranoid airbag said:
don4l said:
I'm really quite surprised that people have such faith in The Independent.
As a Daily Mail reader, I distrust anything that is printed in either The Independent or The Guardian. So, I was not surprised to see that the article contained some outright lies.
For example, the article claims that Foreign Aid is only 1.1% of Government spending. This is a gross understatement. The actual figure is nearly double that as a percentage of central government spending. If you include Local Government spending, then it is still out by more than 50%.
Funnily enough, if I type "stories made up by [paper]" or "lies in [paper]" - through an anonymous search engine and a proxy - the only one that returns relevant results is "the daily mail".As a Daily Mail reader, I distrust anything that is printed in either The Independent or The Guardian. So, I was not surprised to see that the article contained some outright lies.
For example, the article claims that Foreign Aid is only 1.1% of Government spending. This is a gross understatement. The actual figure is nearly double that as a percentage of central government spending. If you include Local Government spending, then it is still out by more than 50%.
So I'm going to have to say: post a reliable source for that fact or I'm entirely justified in concluding that you're incapable of being objective.
The British public are correct in their assumption that the Daily Mail makes up more stories than any other Daily.
Going by the thread title, that could be wrong as well!
In fact, you could apply this logic beyond the good old Brit public.
Weather forecasters are wrong about nearly every forecast they make.
The Governer of the BoE was wrong again.
'Experts' have had to reassess all their findings as they were wrong about everything.
So the answer is 'we're all wrong' ...except me!
ie it's all a load of tosh as I'll point out by the 'crime is falling' and why Joe Public doesn't believe it.
The figures prove FA. Evidence? My son's part-owned road-track car was stolen in broad daylight, it was 'seen' on 'signwritten' transporter, blah blah. All reported to police and they did FA. Well, that's not strictly correct, they did 'phone' the crims and 'ask' them if they had a car fitting the description of the stolen vehicle! You couldn't bloody make it up. Just one example of crime falling statistics.
Statistics?
Add lies and damned lies to it.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Or, you might say, 5% of the people causing 24% of the angst!
I believe crime works similarly; a relatively small number of families carrying out a large amount of UK crime.
Crime also suffers from the fact that minor crimes aren't worth the hassel of reporting my SatNav vanished from my car overnight a couple of months back no sign of forced entry and no other damage so no need to claim on the insurance so no need for a crime number.I believe crime works similarly; a relatively small number of families carrying out a large amount of UK crime.
Engineer1 said:
Crime also suffers from the fact that minor crimes aren't worth the hassel of reporting my SatNav vanished from my car overnight a couple of months back no sign of forced entry and no other damage so no need to claim on the insurance so no need for a crime number.
The suggestion was not that the crime figures show exactly how many crimes were committed, just that crime was falling.If the statistics are collected in the same way and the figures are dropping then the belief that crime is increasing is wrong.
For your argument to be worth anything one would have to accept that minor crimes were reported in the past at a higher rate than they are now, and there's nothing around to support that. In fact, just the reverse. In order to claim from an insurance company a crime number is often required and this encourages the reporting of crimes where the victim feels that there is no chance of them getting the property returned.
Further, in the west, crime figures are dropping generally. This is felt to be because of the change in the age demographic for one. Young people commit crime, and the number of youngsters drop, so will crime. Further, car crime has dropped remarkably because of the alarm/immobilisers fitted to most vehicles.
So there is a lot of supporting evidence to support crime dropping.
I would make two observations on the crime survey data;
1. Crime has indeed generally been falling lately
2. The official police statistics have historically been almost completely worthless as an indicator of the public experience of crime
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-st...
1. Crime has indeed generally been falling lately
2. The official police statistics have historically been almost completely worthless as an indicator of the public experience of crime
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-st...
rover 623gsi said:
and today's youth are too lazy to commit crime as they spend all thier time poncing about on social media, uploading selfies on instagram, sharing stupid memes on facebook and watching clips of cats skateboarding on youtube
Sometimes they combine them both though:http://www.pistonheads.com/GASSING/topic.asp?h=0&a...
otolith said:
I would make two observations on the crime survey data;
Seems a view 'victims' aren't happy with the way offences are classified in Scotland could be another observation:jaf01uk said:
McWigglebum4th said:
Could of been worse
they might of said something nasty on Facebook
That would bring plod crashing down on them
Annoyingly you are right, sorry to hear your news Craig, the point I was trying to get across was the fact that Police Scotland are being naughty and classing these incidents as car theft as opposed to burglary which should be viewed more harshly, manipulating stats? surely not?they might of said something nasty on Facebook
That would bring plod crashing down on them
Gary
paranoid airbag said:
don4l said:
I'm really quite surprised that people have such faith in The Independent.
As a Daily Mail reader, I distrust anything that is printed in either The Independent or The Guardian. So, I was not surprised to see that the article contained some outright lies.
For example, the article claims that Foreign Aid is only 1.1% of Government spending. This is a gross understatement. The actual figure is nearly double that as a percentage of central government spending. If you include Local Government spending, then it is still out by more than 50%.
Funnily enough, if I type "stories made up by [paper]" or "lies in [paper]" - through an anonymous search engine and a proxy - the only one that returns relevant results is "the daily mail".As a Daily Mail reader, I distrust anything that is printed in either The Independent or The Guardian. So, I was not surprised to see that the article contained some outright lies.
For example, the article claims that Foreign Aid is only 1.1% of Government spending. This is a gross understatement. The actual figure is nearly double that as a percentage of central government spending. If you include Local Government spending, then it is still out by more than 50%.
So I'm going to have to say: post a reliable source for that fact or I'm entirely justified in concluding that you're incapable of being objective.
The Guardian came up as the second result.
The daily mail didn't feature on the first page of results.
It didn't feature on the second, third or fourth pages.
I must admit that I don't know how to use an "anonymous search engine", or a "proxy". Do you think that these would allow me to get a more accurate result?
Why do lefties always try to distort the truth?
Edited by don4l on Wednesday 19th February 21:52
Top science search, dude! I am beginning to get the impression that you may actually be serious in your claim to read the Daily Mail, and that you may even believe what you read there. Good spoofing if I am wrong, and feel free to launch a parrot of whatever plumage you prefer, but if you are serious, and regard the Daily Mail as a reliable source of information about the world and/or as an expression of your world view, I can only say a big wow.
don4l said:
Funnily enough, I typed "Lies in newspaper" into Google.
The Guardian came up as the second result.
The daily mail didn't feature on the first page of results.
It didn't feature on the second, third or fourth pages.
I must admit that I don't know how to use an "anonymous search engine", or a "proxy". Do you think that these would allow me to get a more accurate result?
Why do lefties always try to distort the truth?
Ah yes, the "Google search term barometer of truth" The Guardian came up as the second result.
The daily mail didn't feature on the first page of results.
It didn't feature on the second, third or fourth pages.
I must admit that I don't know how to use an "anonymous search engine", or a "proxy". Do you think that these would allow me to get a more accurate result?
Why do lefties always try to distort the truth?
Edited by don4l on Wednesday 19th February 21:52
FWIW here are my results from going to google.co.uk and trying it in inverted commas and without inverted commas.
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=%22lies+in+newspapers%...
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=lies+in+newspapers
And further results using the term UK afterwards
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=lies+in+newspapers+uk
Interestingly, The Guardian result is for an article talking about how reporters deal with interviews spouting continual lies. The Daily mail is referenced twice. Both explicitly about lieing.
Good things to be "wrong" about though.
Like estimating the speed of an oncoming car before overtaking, over estimation leading to greater caution has a small downside, underestimation has much worse consequences for a marginal upside that could probably be achieved quite easily without the risk anyway.
No reason the public should know the government's take on these statistics, the point is that there is too much benefit fraud, too much illegal immigration, too much crime etc.
Like estimating the speed of an oncoming car before overtaking, over estimation leading to greater caution has a small downside, underestimation has much worse consequences for a marginal upside that could probably be achieved quite easily without the risk anyway.
No reason the public should know the government's take on these statistics, the point is that there is too much benefit fraud, too much illegal immigration, too much crime etc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff