Shocking news this morning. On the tv and in the papers.

Yes, me too Allira.
I think the more informal ‘Chat’ forum is the best way forward for my threads. Possibly a more acceptable choice by me as far as some posters are concerned too! I must drive them nuts.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Yes, me too Allira.
I think the more informal ‘Chat’ forum is the best way forward for my threads. Possibly a more acceptable choice by me as far as some posters are concerned too! I must drive them nuts.

You don't drive me nuts. However, most of your posts have an agenda, so I don't take them seriously.

Maybe GN could have a Fake News section.

It’s not going to work though FriedGreenTomatoes2 if we post inaccurately or say things which others strongly disagree with. I don’t mean you personally, it applies to us all. There’s nowhere to hide to do that on here.

Inflammatory posts, the intention of which are quite obvious, which are then found to be factually incorrect do drive me nuts, especially when I’m quite aware of the motivation behind them. Either way, the post has served its purpose hasn’t it. Well done

growstuff

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Yes, me too Allira.
I think the more informal ‘Chat’ forum is the best way forward for my threads. Possibly a more acceptable choice by me as far as some posters are concerned too! I must drive them nuts.

You don't drive me nuts. However, most of your posts have an agenda, so I don't take them seriously.

I rarely take anyone's posts seriously!

Casdon

It’s not going to work though FriedGreenTomatoes2 if we post inaccurately or say things which others strongly disagree with. I don’t mean you personally, it applies to us all. There’s nowhere to hide to do that on here.

Disagree with the posts yes.

It's when the personal attacks and disparaging comments begin that it shows the worst side of Gransnet.

Most posters don't do that and you don't Casdon but some do.

nanna8

As an aside and to lighten things up a little, I love the word ‘turgid’ - so evocative. I must use it more.
😀😀

Yes, it's a satisfying word to deliver. I must use it more often 😀

I don’t like personal attacks either Allira, disagreement about a topic is not an excuse to be offensive. One of the things it’s hard to know on here is how sensitive people are, because we tend to behave as ourselves, which means some of us like a robust argument, particularly about News and Politics, but others get upset when people disagree with them because they think they are being disrespected. It’s a fine line I think.

I agree Casdon. I suppose “play the ball and not the player” helps?
Some posters just go for the jugular! 😮

Might start a thread called "Wind up of the week ".
This is this week's one.
Seriously, we shouldn't start making policy on vague estimates.
Re ID cards, we already have various means of this, so it needs people to be asked for proof when stopped for some reason.

I don't think it's the alternative views that we need to worry about, but the dreadfully insulting tone used sometimes. Why should a poster be made to feel inferior with the derogatory and disparaging comments they receive - often carried over and cross referenced on every thread they then write on. (I'm not going to quote some of the malicious put downs here, but they aren't a necessary part of debate). It isn't the too much assessment that puts other posters off, it's the fear of receiving a sneery appraisal of their intelligence. I don't like that, but anything else about the content is OK.
I might be out of step on this, but I will stand by it.

Casdon

I don’t like personal attacks either Allira, disagreement about a topic is not an excuse to be offensive. One of the things it’s hard to know on here is how sensitive people are, because we tend to behave as ourselves, which means some of us like a robust argument, particularly about News and Politics, but others get upset when people disagree with them because they think they are being disrespected. It’s a fine line I think.

I think it's more than robust arguments, though.

It's the constant underhand and not always subtle remarks about lack of intelligence, lack or extent of reading prowess etc.

Posting some possibly erroneous information then saying:
What do you think about this newly released information?
invites comments.
Those comments might be 'well, I think that's a load of rubbish, I don't agree, let's check the facts' then posting alternative views.

It's the personal attacks on so many threads that are unwarranted.

I think there is room in a news and politics thread to cater for both chatting and serious fact based discussion.

In fact, thats what already happens in most News and Politics threads. Gransnet is what we make of it.

There is no right or wrong way to discuss news as long as it's within GN guidelines and I agree snidy comments on each other are out of line.

This O/P ended with "What do you think about this newly released information?

Inevitably, since there was virtually no information released in the O/P, people wanted to know not only what that "information" was, but its origins, in order to discuss it.

In fact one could hardly discuss it without more information.

Inevitably, since there was virtually no information released in the O/P, people wanted to know not only what that "information" was, but its origins, in order to discuss it.

There were enough points to invite robust discussion!!
And further investigation.

15 pages now, Wyllow3 😯

Indeed!

But like with lots of these long threads there has been a lot of wandering around in the meantime off topic.

Several pages on what sort of school you went to, for example and “what is a profession”, and a couple of pages on a naughty word…

We’ve only really come back to the topic really because of the full fact report last night which did address the O/P and the veracity of some MSM and gave the information needed.

growstuff

This is what FullFact has to say about the article:

fullfact.org/immigration/illegal-migrant-london-population/

I did post that link pages ago. Perhaps you and PoliticsNerd missed it.
Interesting.

I think in future I will post my musings about news or politics under ‘Chat’ and leave the very serious and grinding details to the more intellectual amongst us

I had to laugh when I read that. There is absolutely no way that posting something like this on 'Chat' would escape the attention of any of the posters who like evidence with their 'chat'. They'd still find you...

It also amuses me when people pontificate about what Gnet 'should be'. As Wyllow said earlier:

I think there is room in a news and politics thread to cater for both chatting and serious fact based discussion.

In fact, thats what already happens in most News and Politics threads. Gransnet is what we make of it.

Allira

growstuff

This is what FullFact has to say about the article:

fullfact.org/immigration/illegal-migrant-london-population/

I did post that link pages ago. Perhaps you and PoliticsNerd missed it.
Interesting.

I'm grateful to growstuff for posting the link because I'd been avoiding this thread as I had a feeling it was going to be dreadfully predictable.

I'd only ducked back in to have a look at the last page to see if I'dd been right in my supposition. So I'd probably not even read the page your link was on. Sorry...

If one sees /hears something on the news, or a headline in a newspaper (where the article is behind a paywall) I do not automatically think is this factual especially if it is in/on an established outlet.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between facts and maybes.

Poster’s verification sources are frequently challenged as they do not meet with other posters approval.

FGT You say that your friends discussion of a topic like this would result in something like
^"It’s more that I’d say something like the OP and they’d say “wow/goodness/really?” Followed by “where did you see that then?”
“Oh, on the tv this morning/in The Telegraph/the Daily Mail/the Euro weekly News”. Then we’d chat about it.
I suppose good natured lay agree it was shocking (or not) but never disputing the source(s)."^

Please don't get all offended by this - but when I read that, I couldn't help thinking that you and your friends sound like fertile ground in which the latest would-be "political influencer" journalist/agitator can plant the seeds of conversion to his party, view, attitude or conspiracy theory.

I don't have solemn analytical conversations when chatting to friends - but faced with the "fact" in the original post, their first reaction would be to ask how they counted these elusive creatures who were evading being noticed by all agencies. That is a minimal sceptical curiosity - "Who says so?"

If you and your friends never do that, you deserve to be conned - perhaps by a phone call from "Microsoft" offering to fix the "Fault" they have detected in your computer, if you will just follow this link and do as it says . . .

Is that so much different from in general having you believe someone without wondering how they know? After all, if you think about it, you know that Microsoft have no idea of your phone number or what make and model of computer you have, let alone whether there are any problems with it.

If you were not shocked by the news they give, you would have asked how they have your number, get theirs (probably faked, but at least you would have a chance of finding that out) for future reference, and have THEM tell YOU that you have a XXXX, model YYYY.

They rely on the "fact" being so overwhelming that your normal caution is overcome. So do the owners of media that specialise in sensationalist but unsourceable journalism. One of the hallmarks of it is the liberal use of words like "shocking" to get attention.

Yes, you did, Alliraon page 10, and Mamie had posted it on page 8. Mea culpa.

Got lost in my mind as we were busy discussing Trump at the time, and last night I was more interested looking at the gap between “full fact” and what was reported in the different newspapers rather than re-opening the sludge/immigrant topic.

I’m not offended at all Elegran. Thank you for responding.
I get where you’re coming from however I have to disagree in some respects. Our ‘friends’ discuss issues just lightly as they come up in conversation. They don’t question my choice of newspaper (some folk on here have been very personal and a bit out of line if you don’t mind me saying so) and I suppose if they were interested in the topic they MIGHT read up on it further later or check other news sources.

I’m pretty savvy (I think). I’ve never been scammed (hope I’ve not hexed myself now) and I’m cautious to a fault sometimes. And see ‘Red flags’ when people (or posters on here) share personal stories.

That said I’m with GG13 on this as I too do not automatically think ‘is this factual?’ especially if it is in/on an established outlet.

MaizieD that made me chuckle!

You’re probably right … running over to post news in “Chat” won’t (and ought not) deter posters from challenging OPs. I suppose I just thought they might be less intense about it all on there and “more chatty”. 🤷‍♀️

Isn't the point that regardless of fact checks it is blindingly obvious that people living under the radar can't be counted.

This was questioned right at the start, but the question was ignored. In any 'chat' I was having with friends this would be one of the first things someone asked about, as the claim just doesn't make sense.

It's not so much questioning the validity of a particular source (ie querying it because it was in the Telegraph), but questioning the basis of the 'information'. It's akin to saying 'Tall people are more likely to consider suicide than other members of the population' - how can that be verified without a register of tall people?