[Livia]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

From my googling I didn't find any political affiliation so I'm not sure why you feel the stats cannot be trusted. They seem just as trustworthy as official stats produced by the government.

Just because they have no published political affiliations doesn't mean they don't have an agenda. Simply by the nature of who they are and what they do they're going to massage any statistics to prove their own points. I don't think the government's official stats can be trusted either, of course. What I'm saying is that the truth probably lays somewhere in the middle of the two.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Livia

Just because they have no published political affiliations doesn't mean they don't have an agenda. Simply by the nature of who they are and what they do they're going to massage any statistics to prove their own points. I don't think the government's official stats can be trusted either, of course. What I'm saying is that the truth probably lays somewhere in the middle of the two.

Possibly true but I want to see reports like this in the Daily Mail and not just to the e usual reactionary garbage they spout. There are clearly two opinions and two sets of stats regarding this issue but we often only get to hear from those who shout loudest.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Possibly true but I want to see reports like this in the Daily Mail and not just to the e usual reactionary garbage they spout. There are clearly two opinions and two sets of stats regarding this issue but we often only get to hear from those who shout loudest.

The thing is, the Daily Mail could publish those stats, and by the time their own people had massaged them, they'd say something else. It would be good to be able to turn to a neutral, trustworth source with no axe to grind and no agenda, who could give us actual data on the state of things. As it is I'm inclined to distrust statistics generally.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Yes. I know... I Googled them too. However, I still don't know if their statistics are any more accurate than the government's own. It always seems to me that people are willing to grasp statistics if it fits in with their own ideas.

My local town is an unremarkable little market town with a population of around 7,000. That's 7,000 people from a total of, say, 62 million in the country. I know of four women with no partner in their lives as far as anyone knows, who do not work and who have more than 10 kids. I know this is a fact because they have all used the MP's services to take up cases against various agencies. And yet the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and by extension, the Guardian, is asking me to believe that there are only another 126 families in that position in the remaining 61,999,874 people in the country?

Even the mail isnt far off that when they report...they reckon 'nearly 200' households are claiming for 10 or more kids. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...it-broods.html

I really think where you live must be the exception...

[Kizzy]

Trusting statistics compiled by sociologists and not political groups might be a start in getting to the truth.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Even the mail isnt far off that when they report...they reckon 'nearly 200' households are claiming for 10 or more kids. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...it-broods.html

I really think where you live must be the exception...

I doubt it's anything to do with where I live. This place is prosperous compared to where I come from. How many families have 9 kids? 8 kids? Anyhoo... we'll have to agree to differ. I just don't trust statistics 98% of people is nearly all of them.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

I doubt it's anything to do with where I live. This place is prosperous compared to where I come from. How many families have 9 kids? 8 kids? Anyhoo... we'll have to agree to differ. I just don't trust statistics 98% of people is nearly all of them.

~45k have 5 or more. According to the mail anyway (so if anythings up with the figures its likely to be less than that, not more)..theres a little breakdown table thing on the article.

Though 10k or so of those seem to be on disability benefits..would love to know how someone who is disabled can deal with that many kids. I couldnt do it myself and I'm not disabled :S

[Niamh.]

I've deleted some off topic/arguing posts in here, can we get back on topic now please?

I'm one of 6. My parents moved to the country though, so I doubt there was much else to do.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

I'm one of 6. My parents moved to the country though, so I doubt there was much else to do.

I'm one of two. My parents had a telly.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm one of two. My parents had a telly.

I am one of 3 (though theres 10 years between me and my brother)

I actually cant imagine having loads of kids. I'm stopping after the next one.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I am one of 3 (though theres 10 years between me and my brother)

I actually cant imagine having loads of kids. I'm stopping after the next one.

Try and time the next one for next year's Most Loved and perhaps Ben will give you better odds than he has this year! It honestly won't be the same this year without you going into labour. The things you mods will do to steal Marc's limelight...

[Kizzy]

Right I will attempt to stay on topic, here are some stats on families in the UK
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family...ouseholds.html

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Right I will attempt to stay on topic, here are some stats on families in the UK
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family...ouseholds.html

Not surprised there are less one person households..its so expensive to live alone. I barely managed, and I was working fulltime.

[Vicky.]

http://www.thefedonline.org.uk/disab...-benefit-stats

Seems IDS is going to be pulled up on his misleading use of statistics...wonder how that goes

[Omah]

http://www.thefedonline.org.uk/disab...-benefit-stats

The Commons work and pensions select committee has now decided to ask a work and pensions minister – ideally Duncan Smith himself – to answer key questions about how ministers have used those statistics.

The decision to hold the session was prompted by the Labour MP Sheila Gilmore, who has accused Conservative ministers of “knowingly misusing figures on benefits that disabled people rely on” as part of a campaign to undermine public trust in the welfare system.

McVey and Duncan Smith were both caught last month quoting increases in the overall number of disability living allowance (DLA) claimants – including older people and children – to try to explain why they needed to cut the number of people claiming DLA.

But they failed to point out that the number of working-age claimants – the only group who will be affected by the cuts – had actually been falling.

Caught out in manipulation of the truth .....

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

http://www.thefedonline.org.uk/disab...-benefit-stats

Seems IDS is going to be pulled up on his misleading use of statistics...wonder how that goes

He will be his smug, rotten, pompous and arrogant self as he always is.

Finding some way of going round all the houses in order to baffle and sound like he is in any way right even when told he is not.
Thankfully more and more people see him as one of most vile politicians around at present.
I just see him as totally cold and heartless anyway. How he has any say in peoples lives and incomes is competely beyond me,he is a truly horrible man.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Omah

http://www.thefedonline.org.uk/disab...-benefit-stats



Caught out in manipulation of the truth .....

Lying?.... No, I don't believe it