What Muslims believe CH4 last night

[hampshirebrightonboy]

Why the need for the irrelevant 'Catholic' label then?

Not irrelevant, they are learn all the Catholic customs, values etc. just that there is great emphasis on respecting other people not matter what they believe.

 

[Hastings gull]

Whilst that is fair logic, there's plenty of migrants living overseas who make no effort to speak the language, accept local customs, are a drain on local health services, make no effort whatsoever to integrate with the local community and live within their own (usually gated) communities - like many Brit ex pats on the Costa Del Sol for example?

But this not quite the same as the post you quote -interestingly, you leave out the bit about following the laws - and I think it is doubtful that ex pat brits do not accept local customs. Whilst you are right in that ex pats probably do not integrate particularly well, the fear with the muslim community here is that a significant minority is actually working against the host community's customs, which you really could not say for ex pats.

 

[narly101]

Not irrelevant, they are learn all the Catholic customs, values etc. just that there is great emphasis on respecting other people not matter what they believe.

The Catholic values of guilt?

 

[hampshirebrightonboy]

The Catholic values of guilt?

No Doubt! does not seem to be a major issue so far

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

I assume you mean the majority of the population who regularly cite immigration as their main concern regarding the future of Britain.

Hehe. It wasn't my thinking, but good point!

 

[Curious Orange]

People ridiculing a sample size of 1000 clearly know nothing about the maths behind statistical probability. You only need a random sample of THIRTY to be 95% confident of results.

If your random sample randomly picked out 30 Shia males that wouldn't be representative of all Muslims though, would it?

And I don't think anyone has ridiculed the sample size, just questioned it.

 

[Simster]

If your random sample randomly picked out 30 Shia males that wouldn't be representative of all Muslims though, would it?

No it wouldn't. I haven't looked at the surveys but is that what is happening here? If we are saying that all of those surveyed were Shia males, then I completely agree with you. However, if these surveys were conducted in a busy city shopping centre, and the first question was "are you muslim?" and all non-muslims were ignored, then I'd have confidence in the sample.

And I don't think anyone has ridiculed the sample size, just questioned it.

But a sample size of 1,000 is all that is required for 99% confidence in the results, as long as the sample is representative of the population at large. So for example, that means not standing in a muslim stronghold at 11pm doing the survey - because that way the results are likely to be skewed towards more men than women, and in favour of whatever muslim sect is prominent where the survey was conducted.


There are companies that specialise in surveying and they know these pitfalls. If a survey was conducted by Gallop, for example, I'd be tempted to take it seriously.

 

[Berty23]

I thumbsed-you-up; then read this: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/faq-sampling - 1000 is the accepted standard. But the poll itself (surprise surprise) appears flawed from the outset, with ICM (the polling company) saying the people polled live in areas where >20% of the population are Muslim. Which, to go back to your analogy, if there are a 1000 Albion fans living in a close community with 4,000 other non-Albion fans... well, you can imagine.

What seems irresponsible is the 'clickbait/let's all have a knee-jerk reaction' nature of the programme. So whereas Donald Trump and the rest of the nutty mouthpieces who will no doubt shortly be spouting off to Fox News and I expect Victoria Bloody Derbyshire, using the programme to justify their arguments for knocking down mosques/building more churches, and when The S*n last month admitted its headline "1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ Sympathy For Jihadis" was 'significantly misleading', the rest of us can do a bit of reading/Googling. Right?

Re the first paragraph. Representativeness is key and not sample size. There was a famous example of a massive sample in the 1936 us election where the survey showed that republican Landon would win comfortably. A far smaller survey which used a representative sample (I believe it was the launch of Gallup) shows democrat Roosevelt winning. The republicans laughed the small sample out of town.

What happened? One of the biggest landslides ever for Roosevelt. So what went wrong? The republicans used telephone directories from private member clubs and such like and phoned people to gather their views. This was 1936 so not everyone had a phone and obviously certain people join these clubs. The results were heavily skewed to republican voters.

So the point re only sampling in areas with 20% plus is important. This is NOT representative of the overall population. I would imagine that those who are in white dominated areas will have very different views. This links to much of the contact theory work that is being led by miles hewstone at Oxford uni.

 

[Curious Orange]

No it wouldn't. I haven't looked at the surveys but is that what is happening here? If we are saying that all of those surveyed were Shia males, then I completely agree with you. However, if these surveys were conducted in a busy city shopping centre, and the first question was "are you muslim?" and all non-muslims were ignored, then I'd have confidence in the sample.

But a sample size of 1,000 is all that is required for 99% confidence in the results, as long as the sample is representative of the population at large. So for example, that means not standing in a muslim stronghold at 11pm doing the survey - because that way the results are likely to be skewed towards more men than women, and in favour of whatever muslim sect is prominent where the survey was conducted.


There are companies that specialise in surveying and they know these pitfalls. If a survey was conducted by Gallop, for example, I'd be tempted to take it seriously.

Good, so we are in agreement about how the sample set should selected then? That it should be representative rather than truly random?

I'll admit to being a bit sceptical about the confidence level from a sample size of 1000, are we talking about an error of +/- 3% as that seems like quite a wide margin all things considered? Perhaps I'm just being affected by the poor polling during the election.

 

[Triggaaar]

No, but I have read some of the linked articles and do have a basic knowledge of what sort of size a statistically significant survey should be, and that is without going into the selection criteria.

I don't particularly doubt the findings as it happens, I just wonder how the same survey would look if done against other sections of society.

What do you mean? The same survey was done against other sections. It wasn't a slap dash effort.

 

[Curious Orange]

What do you mean? The same survey was done against other sections. It wasn't a slap dash effort.

I'm glad to hear that.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I would think if anything these numbers underplay the problem as muslims who took part in the poll would know admitting to values or beliefs opposing/threatening western values would likely bring increased resentment and mistrust. Did the polling company factor in a shy Jihadi element ...

 

[kevo]

All faith schools should be banned. They only breed intolerance, insularity and prejudice. If children mix with kids from different backgrounds and religions from an early age, it can surely only be a good thing.

 

[Triggaaar]

Except of course the Telegraph who now no longer publish articles critical of China

Blimey, I didn't know that (not that I ever read it).

if someone did a survey on 1000 football fans and made a TV show called "What football fans REALLY think" I don't think many would take their views too seriously.

I would, if they sufficiently made sure the sample was representative.

Accentuate the positive from those polls:

77% do NOT believe that there should be areas of Sharia Law introduced.

Nope, that still comes across as shockingly bad. It's Sharia Law FFS! Surely at least 99% should be against it.

The best bit of the program was the end. The idea that schools limit the amount of ethnic minorities in their intake, in order to make sure different cultures mix with each other, looks like a really good one.

 

[Triggaaar]

I would think if anything these numbers underplay the problem as muslims who took part in the poll would know admitting to values or beliefs opposing/threatening western values would likely bring increased resentment and mistrust. Did the polling company factor in a shy Jihadi element ...

For questions they thought might be too personal and bring out the shy Tory, they handed over a part of the questionnaire to be filled in and returned (still face to face) in a blank envelope.

C4 say they used the top company (whom they named) to carry out the survey, and I don't think they made that up.

 

[kevo]

The best bit of the program was the end. The idea that schools limit the amount of ethnic minorities in their intake, in order to make sure different cultures mix with each other, looks like a really good one.

Will never happen. Politicians from all parties seem to think faith schools are a good idea. Madness.

 

[Triggaaar]

All faith schools should be banned. They only breed intolerance, insularity and prejudice.

I'm an atheist, but my children go to a faith school, and I know 100% that you are wrong (because you say they only breed intolerance, as if there are no exceptions). The school my kids go to certainly does not breed intolerance. Children from other faiths are also welcome there.

If children mix with kids from different backgrounds and religions from an early age, it can surely only be a good thing.

I completely agree, I'm sure that's the way forward. But you can have faith schools that take in pupils from different faiths.

Will never happen. Politicians from all parties seem to think faith schools are a good idea. Madness.

See above.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

For questions they thought might be too personal and bring out the shy Tory, they handed over a part of the questionnaire to be filled in and returned (still face to face) in a blank envelope.

C4 say they used the top company (whom they named) to carry out the survey, and I don't think they made that up.

That would certainly help although I'm still not sure how many people are likely to tell a stranger even if anonymously they support Islamic terrorism.

Wasn't there a question where two thirds said they wouldn't inform the authorities if they suspected a fellow muslim was involved in extremism/terrorism

 

[Goldstone1976]

Politicians from all parties seem to think faith schools are a good idea.

Do they though? I thought it was more that they believe that the State prohibiting faith schools (any ban would have to be of all denominations/religions in order to avoid accusations of racism) would be more of an evil (infringement of liberty) than allowing them and trying to deal with the fall out from/close the bad apples. I've not seen any politician actively promote faith schools as a "good idea". I could be wrong though - it's not a subject I keep myself up to date on...

 

[KZNSeagull]

Nope, that still comes across as shockingly bad. It's Sharia Law FFS! Surely at least 99% should be against it.

It is bad, so we have to help the 77% to educate the 23%. Particularly the women. Women hold the key to solving this problem, I reckon.