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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

15 pages now, Wyllow3 😯

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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 😀

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.

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!

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

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.

Maybe GN could have a Fake News section.

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.

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.

Gransnet say that there is something on the site for everyone, so if people want to discuss topics in detail there’s no reason why they shouldn’t. If others don’t want to discuss those topics that’s fine, there are plenty of other threads. You can guarantee that if you post inflammatory or factually incorrect information though, whatever it’s about, and wherever you post it, somebody will say so, which is fair enough in my opinion.

Elegran

FGT While chatting to your friends about "shocking" news items, do none of them ever ask "Where on earth did they get that information from? I thought these illegal immigrants arrived here secretly and are living under the radar? Who counted them?"

I wouldn't call that "forensic assessment" just normal scepticism.

I agree. It really doesn't take forensic analysis to wonder where that information could have come from. Where does anybody get information about "illegal" residents? The very nature of their status means they're not going to announce themselves. I know that the volume of waste products have been used to estimate population sizes. However, a city like London has millions of people passing through on a transient basis, the vast majority of whom have a perfectly legal right to be there.

Maybe somebody could have explained a legitimate way the population was assessed, but they didn't. Therefore, the information seemed dodgy at best. It's "common sense" to question the information.

Elegran

FGT While chatting to your friends about "shocking" news items, do none of them ever ask "Where on earth did they get that information from? I thought these illegal immigrants arrived here secretly and are living under the radar? Who counted them?"

I wouldn't call that "forensic assessment" just normal scepticism.

No, actually we don’t Elegran! Maybe we’re all a bit dim. (like attracts like as my dear mum used to say). 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).

I suppose we’re just all different how we discuss things.
Which is a Good Thing. 😊

This was supposed to be in ^^ as it was a quote:

think I’m out of step on here. Fair enough. 😁

But so am I, probably.