Mediterranean migrant deaths and CMD.

[Hastings gull]

So you are seriously suggesting that the daily mail quoting 'a spokesperson' is comparable with a cited, evidence based study by the university of Oxford?

No wonder we disagree on this topic.

No ,I am not, and as I made clear to you, unlike your believing self, I am wary of anyone, who makes claims about a subject that is so emotionally and politically charged. I gave you this as an example. Where we disagree is with your determination to accept "evidence-based" "studies" so long as it suits your views. You have obviously decided that the DM report is of dubious value, and you could be right, for all I know, but equally you could be wrong. Has that dawned on you at all?

A certain school, which will be anonymous, has a policy whereby Year 7 pupils study two modern foreign languages (MFL) and specialise later. Because of its location, MFL 1 is far more popular with the kids than MFL2. The staff are required to test the pupils twice a year, to show progress - fair enough. So they give pupils a test in MFL2 in October and the second test in June, but this time with MFL1. The results are given as the result for MFL in Year 1 and, hey presto, they show a dramatic improvement. No one in Senior Management ever asked whether it was the same language tested, as they had no vested interest in so doing. The only thing they wanted to do was use the stats to "demonstrate" how good the teaching, and therefore, the school was. The results were all evidence-based, but very misleading. The Police here have been accused regularly of investigating "crimes" such as a 9 year-old calling another kid "you gay" whatever, and once the child is interviewed in front of parents, then that "crime" has been solved and the stats look good accordingly. All evidence-based. It is so easy to do.
I just wonder what you would say if a University came up with stats and a "much-respected" study that are totally at variance with your views . . .

 

[BadFish]

No ,I am not, and as I made clear to you, unlike your believing self, I am wary of anyone, who makes claims about a subject that is so emotionally and politically charged. I gave you this as an example. Where we disagree is with your determination to accept "evidence-based" "studies" so long as it suits your views. You have obviously decided that the DM report is of dubious value, and you could be right, for all I know, but equally you could be wrong. Has that dawned on you at all?

A certain school, which will be anonymous, has a policy whereby Year 7 pupils study two modern foreign languages (MFL) and specialise later. Because of its location, MFL 1 is far more popular with the kids than MFL2. The staff are required to test the pupils twice a year, to show progress - fair enough. So they give pupils a test in MFL2 in October and the second test in June, but this time with MFL1. The results are given as the result for MFL in Year 1 and, hey presto, they show a dramatic improvement. No one in Senior Management ever asked whether it was the same language tested, as they had no vested interest in so doing. The only thing they wanted to do was use the stats to "demonstrate" how good the teaching, and therefore, the school was. The results were all evidence-based, but very misleading. The Police here have been accused regularly of investigating "crimes" such as a 9 year-old calling another kid "you gay" whatever, and once the child is interviewed in front of parents, then that "crime" has been solved and the stats look good accordingly. All evidence-based. It is so easy to do.

The thing with both you examples in that on closer inspection both cases fall apart. The sound good to start with and appear to make sense but once you look at them closer the evidence is proven to be of little or no value. I would suggest that this is similar to your DM article in that until 'the spokesperson' is names and the statistics cited we really have no idea if they are accurate or 'the spokesperson' has just plucked them out of thin air to justify their opinion or the DM has made up both the statisitcs and 'the spokesperson' to make their claims look credible (something that all papers are guilty off at one time or another, although come more than others).

You say that I only believe information that agrees with my point of view but i think that this is disingenuous and an easy get out. We seem to have got way off topic here and we now seem to be talking about your (inaccurate) perception of my media literacy skills. Once again i disagree that I just believe anything that agrees with my opinion (The DM article may be true, of course it might, but there is nothing there that proves that it is true. My opinion is based on what i consider to be accurate information gathered from sound sources (infant some information i have discovered has challenged my views and I am interested to investigate these further). One thing is correct though i do place a great deal of faith in universities and in academics. This is because they have the time and resources to properly investigate a subject. They do this with no political agenda and no emotional attachment (something that cannot be said for newspapers, especially tabloids. You complain yourself that this subject is too emotionally and politically charged and perhaps that is something that distance makes easier to avoid .Universities survive on their integrity and reputation if they were to publish information that showed a large amount of bias or was factually incorrect then other academics would pick up on that and both the university and the academics responsible would lose that reputation. I think you will agree that Oxford has a pretty good reputation to uphold.

As you have seen fit to question my media skills i think it is fair to point out that you depend too much on what 'could' be wrong with the statistics I provide rather than is what is actually wrong with them. So instead of vaguely questioning my media literacy skills and the validity of the information I post why don't you actually address the information and post some proof that the information is incorrect? What reasoning do you have that Oxford University is posting biased information? If you are so convinced that it is biased then surely you can do better than the DM article which you now say is not comparable with the Oxford.

Here are the findings of Free Britain to get you started http://www.freebritainnow.org/0/migration_observatory.htm

Can't find much else myself so I until i find otherwise I will remain happy that as an organisation its statistics and information are bias free and accurate.

 

[Hastings gull]

The thing with both you examples in that on closer inspection both cases fall apart. The sound good to start with and appear to make sense but once you look at them closer the evidence is proven to be of little or no value. I would suggest that this is similar to your DM article in that until 'the spokesperson' is names and the statistics cited we really have no idea if they are accurate or 'the spokesperson' has just plucked them out of thin air to justify their opinion or the DM has made up both the statisitcs and 'the spokesperson' to make their claims look credible (something that all papers are guilty off at one time or another, although come more than others).

You say that I only believe information that agrees with my point of view but i think that this is disingenuous and an easy get out. We seem to have got way off topic here and we now seem to be talking about your (inaccurate) perception of my media literacy skills. Once again i disagree that I just believe anything that agrees with my opinion (The DM article may be true, of course it might, but there is nothing there that proves that it is true. My opinion is based on what i consider to be accurate information gathered from sound sources (infant some information i have discovered has challenged my views and I am interested to investigate these further). One thing is correct though i do place a great deal of faith in universities and in academics. This is because they have the time and resources to properly investigate a subject. They do this with no political agenda and no emotional attachment (something that cannot be said for newspapers, especially tabloids. You complain yourself that this subject is too emotionally and politically charged and perhaps that is something that distance makes easier to avoid .Universities survive on their integrity and reputation if they were to publish information that showed a large amount of bias or was factually incorrect then other academics would pick up on that and both the university and the academics responsible would lose that reputation. I think you will agree that Oxford has a pretty good reputation to uphold.

As you have seen fit to question my media skills i think it is fair to point out that you depend too much on what 'could' be wrong with the statistics I provide rather than is what is actually wrong with them. So instead of vaguely questioning my media literacy skills and the validity of the information I post why don't you actually address the information and post some proof that the information is incorrect? What reasoning do you have that Oxford University is posting biased information? If you are so convinced that it is biased then surely you can do better than the DM article which you now say is not comparable with the Oxford.

Here are the findings of Free Britain to get you started http://www.freebritainnow.org/0/migration_observatory.htm

Can't find much else myself so I until i find otherwise I will remain happy that as an organisation its statistics and information are bias free and accurate.

It all depends on what you are prepared to believe, I assume. Of course there is an argument which says that a respected university will come out with something of value, but as to whether they must therefore, be necessarily be free of political bias - that is a very bold claim. I am not suggesting that they are deliberately lying, but it is easy, as I know , to gather info which might well be skewed. You are obviously fascinated by academics - I don't know what line of work you were in, but throughout my teaching career, I was plagued by idealistic, airy-fairy academics, who would come up with such nonsense as "the school should not cover books, as children need to feel their texture" when the school is trying to save money by prolonging its shelf life. Academics may well be intelligent folk, but they do tend to lack common sense, and thus I tend to be wary. Of course they can contribute magnificently to many areas of knowledge, I fully grant you. I suppose it boils down to the extent to which one is prepared to believe academics.
By the way, I am not questioning your media skills at all -not sure how you came to this, and I suppose it is because we are not face to face. There is obviously a misunderstanding. I will look later at the link -grand-daughter's school run beckons

 

[BadFish]

It all depends on what you are prepared to believe, I assume. Of course there is an argument which says that a respected university will come out with something of value, but as to whether they must therefore, be necessarily be free of political bias - that is a very bold claim. I am not suggesting that they are deliberately lying, but it is easy, as I know , to gather info which might well be skewed. You are obviously fascinated by academics - I don't know what line of work you were in, but throughout my teaching career, I was plagued by idealistic, airy-fairy academics, who would come up with such nonsense as "the school should not cover books, as children need to feel their texture" when the school is trying to save money by prolonging its shelf life. Academics may well be intelligent folk, but they do tend to lack common sense, and thus I tend to be wary. Of course they can contribute magnificently to many areas of knowledge, I fully grant you. I suppose it boils down to the extent to which one is prepared to believe academics.
By the way, I am not questioning your media skills at all -not sure how you came to this, and I suppose it is because we are not face to face. There is obviously a misunderstanding. I will look later at the link -grand-daughter's school run beckons

I am not willing to accept what an academic says just because they are an academic that is not the point I am making at all. Academics come out with as much nonsense as anyone else. What i trust in is the process that studies such as these must go through in order to be accepted. This process includes and involves rigorous discussion and dissection of their findings by others.

The point I am making is that you are dismissing the information I have posted based on your perception of academics rather than any failings in the actual studies or information. This is why I challenged you to actually find something wrong with the info i posted or find sound data that disputes it rather than being suspicious of it because of your suspicion of academics.

The reason I put my trust in the information I have posted is because I can see no reason to mistrust it, it is cited, the process used in its gathering looks sound to me and it tallies with other information I have read on the same subject. Not because it agrees with my beginning opinion (it didn't and I have adjusted my opinion in light of what I have discovered) and not because i have a blind faith in the person that wrote it. You obviously see it differently and i am very interested to know what it is that you dispute with in it.

 

[Ernest]

Was reading an article where it said that the solution is obvious, all over Eastern Europe countries have been emptied by their people migrating to the West so simply take the boat people and resettle them in Poland, Romania, Czech Republic etc where there is the space to take them and use their entrepeneurial skills to boost their new homelands.

 

[Hastings gull]

Was reading an article where it said that the solution is obvious, all over Eastern Europe countries have been emptied by their people migrating to the West so simply take the boat people and resettle them in Poland, Romania, Czech Republic etc where there is the space to take them and use their entrepeneurial skills to boost their new homelands.

Get a seat at one of the big conferences -they could do with your vision!

 

[Hastings gull]

I am not willing to accept what an academic says just because they are an academic that is not the point I am making at all. Academics come out with as much nonsense as anyone else. What i trust in is the process that studies such as these must go through in order to be accepted. This process includes and involves rigorous discussion and dissection of their findings by others.

The point I am making is that you are dismissing the information I have posted based on your perception of academics rather than any failings in the actual studies or information. This is why I challenged you to actually find something wrong with the info i posted or find sound data that disputes it rather than being suspicious of it because of your suspicion of academics.

The reason I put my trust in the information I have posted is because I can see no reason to mistrust it, it is cited, the process used in its gathering looks sound to me and it tallies with other information I have read on the same subject. Not because it agrees with my beginning opinion (it didn't and I have adjusted my opinion in light of what I have discovered) and not because i have a blind faith in the person that wrote it. You obviously see it differently and i am very interested to know what it is that you dispute with in it.

I though that I had actually made that clear. We see many TV programmes etc that give a very different picture to eg your assertion, according to stats, that 51000 potential immigrants have been deported as a result of a truly rigorous and doubtless time-consuming hearing. The process of all your stats might look sound to you, and may well tally with what you have read - that is the difference between us. You rely on what you read, because you have to:I prefer to go by not only what I read, but also what I see and hear often on a daily basis.
You are right in your assertion that I mistrust academics, but don't provide any stats to "disprove" what they say. One reason is that I simply do not have the time to trawl through material and do not have the same fanaticism as yourself. That is not a good reason, I accept. But if you mistrust academics, than part and parcel of that mistrust will be to question what they come up with, particularly when it does not always tally with the reality that I see and hear. Your absurdly simplistic stat of the 6 and 15% would be an excellent example of being wary of "studies."

 

[BadFish]

I though that I had actually made that clear. We see many TV programmes etc that give a very different picture to eg your assertion, according to stats, that 51000 potential immigrants have been deported as a result of a truly rigorous and doubtless time-consuming hearing. The process of all your stats might look sound to you, and may well tally with what you have read - that is the difference between us. You rely on what you read, because you have to:I prefer to go by not only what I read, but also what I see and hear often on a daily basis.
You are right in your assertion that I mistrust academics, but don't provide any stats to "disprove" what they say. One reason is that I simply do not have the time to trawl through material and do not have the same fanaticism as yourself. That is not a good reason, I accept. But if you mistrust academics, than part and parcel of that mistrust will be to question what they come up with, particularly when it does not always tally with the reality that I see and hear. Your absurdly simplistic stat of the 6 and 15% would be an excellent example of being wary of "studies."

Okay, I understand your point. So what are the things that you see and hear on a daily basis that contradict what I have posted? What am I missing?

 

[Hastings gull]

Okay, I understand your point. So what are the things that you see and hear on a daily basis that contradict what I have posted? What am I missing?

Everyday newspaper articles, items and interviews on the telly, and discussions with people, and folk who work in the Border agency, as we are quite close to Dover, plus family members in the Police, who have to round up "illegals" and then see them on the street again. It is as ever anecdotal, granted, but nonetheless an impression is formed.

 

[Hastings gull]

Everyday newspaper articles, items and interviews on the telly, and discussions with people, and folk who work in the Border agency, as we are quite close to Dover, plus family members in the Police, who have to round up "illegals" and then see them on the street again. It is as ever anecdotal, granted, but nonetheless an impression is formed.

I meant to say that my exam marking starts very soon, so will be unable to respond much at all. Of course you are welcome to carry on the debate, should you so wish, but it only seems to be the two of us!! Please don't spend any more time on my account.

 

[BadFish]

I meant to say that my exam marking starts very soon, so will be unable to respond much at all. Of course you are welcome to carry on the debate, should you so wish, but it only seems to be the two of us!! Please don't spend any more time on my account.

Fairs do's mate, we seem to have come to some kind of conclusion anyway. It has been good having a discussion with you. Thanks

I don't envy you marking exams sound like a tough gig.