Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

Oh! On another thread a poster says Boris Johnson is a 'foreigner'. Don't think he's an immigrant, well perhaps he was about 52 years ago...

I just put this on the post-truth thread.

politicalscrapbook.net/2016/11/here-is-why-newspaper-claims-that-most-new-jobs-are-going-to-foreigners-are-often-wrong/

The Times said that 95% of new workers are foreigners. The link shows why they are not.

Jalima, if you read the two sentences under the fullfact you quote, it says only 78,000 people live in the constituency. Only 39,000 of them were employed in the relevant months. So there couldn't have been an 88,000 increase unless they suddenly took in thousands of refugees.

On the above link, Ana. If Boris isn't a foreigner, neither are thousands of other new workers here. That's the point of the article.

Jalima, if you read the two sentences under the fullfact you quote, it says only 78,000 people live in the constituency. Only 39,000 of them were employed in the relevant months. So there couldn't have been an 88,000 increase unless they suddenly took in thousands of refugees.
I realise that djen!
It would be impossible.

But I just wondered when she said it - and who on earth gave her the patently wrong statisitics!

Oh, sorry, Jalima. She said it at PMQs this week. It was one of those planted questions, obviously, because no PM would ever know statistics like that unless the question was fed to her department first.
Fullfact checks all PMQs and QTs, as well as lots of other stuff.

ps there are still lots of jobs advertised there and it is, in fact, quite a nice area although people always think 'Oh, the Black Country'
The Anglo-Saxons must have liked it there anyway:
Brownhills - Gold Hoard capital of Britain
The "Staffordshire Hoard" was discovered by amateur metal detector Terry Herbert in a field belonging to a farmer Fred Johnson, near Brownhills on the 5th July 2009. His find turned out to be the largest Anglo-Saxon hoard of gold ever found in the country - over 3,500 items in total - about 11lb of gold and 3 lb of silver. The artefacts of the Mercian Kingdom of 7th or 8th Century were declared treasure and so belong to The Crown. The hoard was valued at £3.285 million. The value of the hoard was shared between the finder and the landowner.^

Thanks djen

she must feel a bit daft now.

Not sure what you're getting at, maiz. There's a big difference between "foreign" and "foreign-born". Why would newspapers use the phrase "foreign-born" except to bump up the number of supposed "foreigners", i.e. immigrants?

It was the Times that did it.

Headline - 95% of new workers are foreigners.

The number of people in work increased by 454,000 between July and September last year and the same period this year. Workers born overseas made up nearly 95 per cent of the increase — just over 430,000.

However, if you look at the Political Scrapbook link above, you will see that they are wrong. As it said, Boris Johnson could be included in those figures.

Yes, well, like I said, it was/is deceptive. First sentence 'qualifies' the misleading header by using the phrase 'foreign-born'. Yes, BJ is foreign-born but not foreign. I expect there are quite a lot of others.

So it does look as if whoever wrote that piece is being deliberately misleading.

Fake/False News? Post-truth? Who knows any more...?

Who knew ever? It's safest to be sceptical about most things one reads in newspapers. That's why I prefer the comment sections—one gets opinions rather than distorted facts.

And it's the opinions I'm interested in—ideas, y'know.

It's all lies for the first 50 years or so anyway.

Times being put right by Fullfact. Not that the Times will be bothered. They probably got their point across to those they wanted to.

fullfact.org/economy/foreigners-working-uk/

Does the Times have to publish corrections, bags, on the front page if the article was on the front page?

This is what it says about corrections and clarifications:

"The Times takes complaints about editorial content seriously. We are committed to abiding by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (”IPSO”) rules and regulations and the Editors’ Code of Practice that IPSO enforces. Requests for corrections or clarifications should be sent by email to [email protected] or by post to Feedback, The Times, 1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF."

The first sentence of the article in question did say, as I pointed out earlier, that the article was talking about "foreign-born" workers, not foreigners. The heading or title of the article was wrong. I think headlines are written by someone other than the article writers. If that is what happened, perhaps that's why there is the discrepancy between the heading and the content.

It could be a non-deliberate deception. I'm going to read the article again...

The terms used in the article are (1) foreign-born, (2) workers born overseas.

Here are two opposing 'theories' in the article:

Jonathan Portes, a fellow at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said: “The figures once again illustrate that with unemployment at very low levels most of the growth in the labour force — and hence of the economy as a whole — relies on foreign-born workers. Of course, the implication of this is that substantial reductions in immigration, resulting from Brexit or from the government’s efforts to cut immigration more generally, will hit growth and tax receipts.”

Other experts said that companies seeking to fill vacancies were helped by a supply of cheap labour available for hire without the need to increase wages. John Philpott, director of the research consultancy Jobs Economist, said: “Most of the additional supply of labour is coming from abroad and employers are taking advantage of that. They might be filling existing vacancies, but often employers are creating additional opportunities and they can do that without increasing wages.”

Both sides of the story fairly covered, it seems to me, and a wrong header.

Let me know if you want the whole article copied and pasted but I'm going to bed now so it'll have to wait.

No, it's okay, I trust Fullfact to dissect an article correctly. I would like to know when the Times puts its correction in and where. Nowadays if there is a mistake on the front page it is expected to be corrected on the front page.
Can't imagine they will do a corect headline, though.
It's a headline that matters. People who buy other papers will see that headline and take note of it, particularly if it confirms their prejudices.

This is an interesting article. Why is the UK obsessed with net migration? Why does it matter so much?
If the figures come down over the next few years, it will be because the UK is not such a good place to work for both immigrants and indigenous people.

theconversation.com/britains-obsession-with-net-migration-makes-it-a-global-anomaly-67093

Interesting thread
But just as an aside Brownhills is not a part of the Black country. It is between Cannock and the City of Lichfield.
I'm sure you know that Jalima but others on GN may not
Historically it was a mining area and when mines closed there was large unemployment
Now however new houses have been built and there is work again in the surrounding area.
People are able to commute to work via Motorways such as M6 and dare I say it the toll motorway also by railway links to other towns & cities

The people I know who live in Brownhills are happy and optimistic for the future of the area

So the stats maybe wrong.
But there is plenty employment opportunities in the area

Cherrytree, the problem is that she said there were 88,000 more people in work in the constituency. There aren't that many people living in it. Those stats are definitely wrong; impossible in fact.

Bags, it's not just whether they were called foreigners or foreign-born. It's the fact that the headline said 95% of them were foreigners. It's actually just over 50%. Two mistakes in one headline. It breeds fear about immigrants.

It didn't breed any in me, dj, because when I read a statement like that headline, I start out with my bullshitometer at its highest measure point. Having said that, I understand what you're saying.

Most people would be unaware that the figure of 88,000 was incorrect and would retain the very positive impression that that statement conveyed.

So far as the boom in consumer spending is concerned, in January this year, the Independent reported:

"Shock new figures today revealed that household debt [excluding mortgages} has soared by two-fifths in just six months [Aviva's Family Finance Report].

"...the average debt is now 13,520, from 9,520 last summer

"Average credit card debt is now £2,370 and overdrafts £1,190.

".. couples with two or more children have the most debt at £18,830.

The Money Charity and other charities have warned that as rents keep rising and incomes continue to stagnate or fall in real terms many people are relying on borrowing to make up the shortfall.

Whilst I think it is important to try to think positively as to what the future of the UK will be, I think that many people in the UK are getting swept up with the notion that when we leave the EU we will be awash with money and jobs. Given the personal debt situation, this false sense of security could be very dangerous.

I think it's safe to say that your not like most people, bags.

I am thinking of people who went to pick up their normal paper and saw a very large headline next to it that said that 95% of jobs went to foreigners. It was in the Times, they will be thinking, so it must be true.
I can't wait for the headline, "Sorry, 95% of jobs did not go to foreigners."