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

the site has been described by the Telegraph as "a new dawn in grey power".
Casdon that did make me laugh 😂
The Telegraph!!

support each other through tough times and share a laugh.
Let's do that!

It’s not just a chat forum according to the blurb from Gransnet.

‘Gransnet is the busiest social networking site for the over 50s. Launched in May 2011, the site has been described by the Telegraph as "a new dawn in grey power".
At its heart is a buzzing forum where users debate the hot topics of the day, support each other through tough times and share a laugh. Brimming with useful content covering everything from fashion to food, travel to technology, as well as competitions and an incredibly popular book club, there is something on the site for everyone.’

So there we are, we’re part of a new dawn in grey power, surely we need to keep our end up with serious discussion of weighty topics as well as chat!

Thames Water has more to worry about than this, I think.

Their track record is appalling and they could start by fixing the leaks.

Water companies in England and Wales wasted over one trillion litres of water through leaks last year despite growing concern over Britain’s water supply, new analysis shows.

According to figures from the company’s 2023/24 annual reports, analysed by the Observer, millions of litres of water was leaked each day. (is it allowed to mention The Oberver?)
Embattled Thames Water came out worst, leaking 570.4 megalitres every day, equating to more than 200bn litres in total. The figure means Thames leaked around a quarter of its entire water supply.

Is this treated water? If so, that is even more wasteful.

It also amuses me when people pontificate about what Gnet 'should be'.

I've heard "Not in the spirit of Gransnet" before now, not my own phrase btw.

Perhaps we should have another thread on what we're expecting from a chat forum.

growstuff

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.

Sorry!

It's ok, I know no-one reads my posts

Perhaps, as the Times has issued a correction of the original figures, the OP might like to ask for the title of this thread to be changed and/or post her own ‘acceptance’ that her original post was incorrect?

growstuff

Maybe GN could have a Fake News section.

😁

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.

Sorry!

Wyllow3

But FGT, the O/P of this thread was pretty passionate and intense, and somewhat provocative, on the subject of irregular migrants, what do you expect when you then ask our opinion?

It passes the time I suppose and it's always fun to kick people when they are down.

Eloethan

You envy America??! The UK is in a hell of a state, I agree - largely because, in my opinion anyway, we have had 14 years of extreme mismanagement. But to envy America. Where virtually anyone can walk into a shop and buy several guns - there are more guns than people in the US. Where, if you can't afford health insurance, a chronic illness will unnecessarily reduce your life expectancy. Where many in the medical profession cannot be trusted to put a patient's welfare above opportunities for profit, Where private health insurance companies' direct their efforts to refusing their members' medical claims. Where you get 2 weeks per year holiday and no maternity pay Where 20 million people live in trailer homes. Where there is very poor local public transport and a car is virtually a necessity. Where there is a totally out of control opioid crisis.

... and where women are heading towards having the same rights as in Gilead.

hear hear, thank you.

Exactly, Wyllow. Nobody has a clue. I would have thought it pretty obvious that the ‘information’ in the OP was highly questionable. It shouldn’t have been posted as ‘shocking news’. I hate the expression, but it’s fake news.

You envy America??! The UK is in a hell of a state, I agree - largely because, in my opinion anyway, we have had 14 years of extreme mismanagement. But to envy America. Where virtually anyone can walk into a shop and buy several guns - there are more guns than people in the US. Where, if you can't afford health insurance, a chronic illness will unnecessarily reduce your life expectancy. Where many in the medical profession cannot be trusted to put a patient's welfare above opportunities for profit, Where private health insurance companies' direct their efforts to refusing their members' medical claims. Where you get 2 weeks per year holiday and no maternity pay Where 20 million people live in trailer homes. Where there is very poor local public transport and a car is virtually a necessity. Where there is a totally out of control opioid crisis.

Just face it FGT, you have been rumbled! You started a deliberately provocative thread, so you really cannot honestly expect most people to just accept what you have posted? To just be in an echo chamber of similar views? That wouldn't be much of a debate would it. On another side, I am saddened that the once reputable, if rather right wing, Daily Telegraph are peddling what they must know are inaccurate (to be polite) headlines, people see this as they pass newstands, queue to pay for groceries, and without the wisdom of the naysayers on GN to correct their initial response, they are none the wiser. It is rather like the wholly disproved number on the side of the Brexit bus, it gets into people's heads.

growstuff

FullFact doesn't claim that 1:13 is the correct figure. It suggests a different hypothesis and comes to the conclusion that an accurate figure is unprovable.

I have no doubt that there are people living in London illegally. However, I have no idea how anybody could produce anything like an accurate figure. It would probably be possible in a small, isolated community, but London's population is huge and very fluid at the best of times. If anybody has any suggestions, it would be interesting to hear them.

Its a complete muddle.

For those interested, here is the Times Newspaper correction of the original story,

www.thetimes.com/comment/register/article/corrections-and-clarifications-the-times-x9nbft5tq

"January 27, 2025
We wrongly said that a study on behalf of Thames Water showed “1 in 12 Londoners is an illegal migrant” (News, Jan 23). In fact the study covered only 7 million people in specific “water resource zones”, not the whole population of London, which is closer to 9 million. 1 in 12 was the highest of a range of estimates for the proportion of “irregular migrants”, but these estimates included some people who are not illegal immigrants, such as those given indefinite leave to remain, as well as some British-born children of migrants with irregular status"

The Telegraph and GB news have not offered corrections.

FullFact doesn't claim that 1:13 is the correct figure. It suggests a different hypothesis and comes to the conclusion that an accurate figure is unprovable.

I have no doubt that there are people living in London illegally. However, I have no idea how anybody could produce anything like an accurate figure. It would probably be possible in a small, isolated community, but London's population is huge and very fluid at the best of times. If anybody has any suggestions, it would be interesting to hear them.

Casdon

Read the two paragraphs following the one you just quoted FriedGreenTonatoes2, then read the whole article again. It’s not pedantry, it’s reading information in full so you understand the whole story, rather than picking out just the bits that reinforce your view.

Just re-read it. Casdon is right, full fact gives a whole slew of questions on the origin of reports and information (and the dates of that information and the lack of certain crucial information).

Succinctly illustrated Doodledog. Yes food for thought.
Thank you.

Okay Casdon I will read that Full Fact link again later and not ‘cherry pick’ what jumped out at me.

In the meantime I have to get on with the novel I need to finish.
Back later.

Read the two paragraphs following the one you just quoted FriedGreenTonatoes2, then read the whole article again. It’s not pedantry, it’s reading information in full so you understand the whole story, rather than picking out just the bits that reinforce your view.

I just read growstuff’s link. (Thank you).

Blimey!
Turns out that instead of 1:12 unaccounted people using Thames Water statistics as base for the article in the Telegraph …. It’s 1:13. 😂

If I sat round with a group of friends and one has insisted on Googling “Full Facts” and come up with such a TINY discrepancy in numbers I think we’d have laughed, disregarded it and carried on saying how shocking we found those figures in our capital city!

“ However, this “usual resident population” figure does not include the estimated 585,533 irregular migrants, and it’s unclear why the Telegraph appears not to have added the figure for irregular migrants to the city’s population when calculating its ‘up to one in 12’ figure—if it had, then the proportion of London’s population who are irregular migrants would have been slightly lower (about one in 13).”

This is what I refer to when I say ‘forensic interrogation’.
Didn’t alter much then really did it?

So … Not Fake News either!

I think pedantry has been more the issue on this topic.

But FGT, the O/P of this thread was pretty passionate and intense, and somewhat provocative, on the subject of irregular migrants, what do you expect when you then ask our opinion?

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?

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”. 🤷‍♀️

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.

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.