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

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

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.

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 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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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).

PoliticsNerd

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

Yes.

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.

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

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”.

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. 😁

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

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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. 😊

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.

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.