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

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

No, I don't think you are out of step in your idea about what is the essence, the whole point of Gransnet, FriedGreenTomatoes2, or at least what I and many others think it is.

A place for discussion, chat, advice, and an exchange of views but if anyone wants dissertations and lengthy indepth discussions about politics, lecturing and intolerance of others' views perhaps Gransnet is not the best place for that.

Btw I agree with what Elegran has said about normal sceptisim which is fair enough 🙂

I thought Gransnet was supposed to be more like chatting with friends where we might disagree but politely.

As you say, Maybee "once an idea has been placed in people’s minds it tends to stick anyway, true or not, so it’s done it’s job"

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.

Grandmabatty

The Times has issued a retraction about the 'story' and acknowledged the statistics were inaccurate. It'll be interesting to see if The Telegraph does too

Even so, once an idea has been placed in people’s minds it tends to stick anyway, true or not, so it’s done it’s job, sadly.

FriedGreen, I think you were perfectly entitled to put what you did in the post. It has generated debate which in my opinion is a good thing. If you’re going to out something on here that is even mildly contentious then you must know that some other people will post alternative views. As I’ve said, I don’t agree with the post but I for one don’t want to read things only I am in agreement with.

The Times has issued a retraction about the 'story' and acknowledged the statistics were inaccurate. It'll be interesting to see if The Telegraph does too

I aim to please nanna8 😂

Yes in some part I agree with you Doodldog of course statements can and perhaps should be challenged. It makes for a healthy debate.

However.
For instance PoliticsNerd’s challenges at her last post would need the skills of some quite robust researching! Who has the time (or the inclination) to put forward a dissertation on a given topic?

I do realise my threads are often put in the N&P forum and perhaps forensic assessment of subjects is above my pay grade but I think on a chatty forum too much assessment is boring and puts people off. “Read this link” (I bet very few folk do to be honest!).

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 think when a topic interests me I do probably just like to mull it over and ‘chat’ about it - as if I were sat with some of my friends in a group. They don’t tear a topic to pieces like terriers! We discuss and move on.

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

Answer to the final line in OP “What do you think about this newly released information?”:
I don’t consider it to be information because I can’t see any rigorous research from a credible source to back it up. I don’t believe everything I am told or read and when it comes to something as serious as this I try to stand back and look at the motives of those who peddle such “information”.

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

FriedGreenTomatoes2

This thread has become turgid. It’s like sitting down in front of a parliamentary Select Committee! Less of a discussion more of an inquisition. Mind you it’s still running (I admit to being surprised when I noticed).

Turgid? When people start questioning disinformation? That’s an interesting definition 😀. There was a deafening silence when I asked how people with ‘no right to be here’ could be counted, but when it is shown that the ‘figures’ have no substance the thread has become a ‘turgid inquisition’. Should people be able to post anything they like about other groups and not be questioned? On Holocaust Memorial Day the knowledge of where that can lead should be uppermost in our minds.

PoliticsNerd

Goodness. The FullFact article is pretty damming isn't it?

Yes.

This thread has become turgid. It’s like sitting down in front of a parliamentary Select Committee! Less of a discussion more of an inquisition. Mind you it’s still running (I admit to being surprised when I noticed).

"Doodledog Mon 27-Jan-25 12:22:36
I would love to see legislation whereby reports like this are regulated and when found to be disinformation the publishers are sanctioned and the findings publicised." Or perhaps, have to quote the whole report (or at least the final analysis and conclusion) in any comment or article.

HousePlantQueen

I agree, Doodledog I used to read the Telegraph years ago, and although it was right leaning, it was a responsible newspaper, it is now just The Daily Mail with longer words and better punctuation.

I agree. Some of the comments by DT readers make me wonder about their mentality. The DT is as bad as the Mail.

I don’t have a daily paper but I did pick up the Mail in a cafe having a coffee, there was so much just not true the rest was distorted.

"I would love to see legislation whereby reports like this are regulated and when found to be disinformation the publishers are sanctioned and the findings publicised." Doodledog

I agree but I'm afraid it may need a new enquiry.

Doodledog and HPQ, I found the same. The election tipped The Telegraph over the edge....

I do so agree about the telegraph, a once respected newspaper. Too posh for the likes of me nor was it my political choice then or now, but as HPQ says there is now little difference to the DM, which back in the day was a fairly respectable middle range newspaper.
I can’t believe I am using respectable and the DM in the same sentence but it changed for the worse about 40 years ago which was when we stopped reading it.

I agree, Doodledog I used to read the Telegraph years ago, and although it was right leaning, it was a responsible newspaper, it is now just The Daily Mail with longer words and better punctuation.

I would love to see legislation whereby reports like this are regulated and when found to be disinformation the publishers are sanctioned and the findings publicised.

'Some sources' would suffer more than others, I feel . It would be more difficult to roll out on social media, as sanctioning the publisher would hugely impact on the ability of the public to post their views, but at least applying it to papers and TV would make it clear that some sources are more reliable than others.

I always thought that the Telegraph, whilst being a long way from my political views, was a responsible paper, but I got a year's subscription a couple of years ago, and was appalled. It is positively rabid. At the time, there were so many stories about how we were on the verge of WW3, which coincided with numerous threads on MN from mothers of young children who were terrified that they wouldn't survive. My subscription had expired by the time of the election, and I didn't renew, but I can't imagine that it has got any less partial as a result of KS's win.

Very interesting growstuff, thank you. Clearly, immigrant waste products can be differentiated from visitor... golly, that's a horrid job for someone, sorting that.

Goodness. The FullFact article is pretty damming isn't it?

You're welcome. I have absolutely no idea how anybody (especially a water company) can differentiate between illegal immigrants, students and tourists in London.

Thank you growstuff.

This is what FullFact has to say about the article:

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