Iran

[teamsaint]

TeamSaint, let's just for the sake of completeness apply some research into your statement...

This

http://www.uknetguide.co.uk/Latest-N...800316918.html

was widely quoted as a top news story. I remember quite clearly that it was the TOP news story on R3 bulletins the day it was released. it was widely reported that "nearly " 20 percent of the UK population would reach age 100. This "report" actually emanates from the DWP

Bad reporting. Pure and simple. The DWP never said that. The link you pointed at stated Nearly a fifth of people residing in the UK at the moment will live until they are at least 100, the government believes. is 100% wrong and a product of a lazy journalists fertile mind. It is NOT what the DWP said. Their statistical analysis linked to here http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd...y_20_50_80.pdf says that that sort of life expectancy is for someone born in 2011. Not 30% of ALL people living in the UK.

And this was the actual Press Release http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press...wp096-11.shtml. Nothing at all like you are suggesting.

How the BBC and others actually reported it is very important. People believe the BBC.
Secondly the report states that by 2066 500k people will be over 100 years old. This appears to me to be little more than supposition.There are 12000 today . 500k in 50 years time. That looks like a guess based on what they want us to be worried about.
They should get on with solving unemployment (and negotiating away the Iranian nuclear ambitions), instead of trying to scare their own people.

[Resurrection Man]

How the BBC and others actually reported it is very important. People believe the BBC.
Secondly the report states that by 2066 500k people will be over 100 years old. This appears to me to be little more than supposition.There are 12000 today . 500k in 50 years time. That looks like a guess based on what they want us to be worried about.
They should get on with solving unemployment (and negotiating away the Iranian nuclear ambitions), instead of trying to scare their own people.

You're missing my point.

First you said 'the media' are in thrall to 'Them'. We knocked that one on the head when you agreed that you hadn't seen Channel 4 for a while. I am sure that there are other media outlets that you haven't listened/watched. So to say 'the media' is plain wrong. Maybe some but certainly not all.

Then when challenged to produce an example of the media being in thrall you came up with a link to a news item that said that 30% of everyone living in the UK etc etc and you blamed the Govt misleading the media on that score. I have now shown to you that your statement was unfounded since the actual press release from the Govt said nothing of the sort.

Do you not agree that that is the case?

[heliocentric]

RM, are you trying to imply that the mass media are not in thrall to vested commercial and political interests? It would be very strange if they weren't. The very fact that most of these media are controlled by market forces implies that the velues they promulgate are overwhelmingly those of market capitalism, which we see to be indeed the case. They are also reliant on their "government sources" who might refuse to talk to them if they go too far off-message. The fact that the media behave by and large exactly as you'd expect them to behave if they were in thrall to establishment economic and political priorities would seem to suggest that they are. (These are some of the basic points of Chomsky and Herman's 1988 book Manufacturing Consent, which has in the meantime I think become more relevant if anything.) I don't think that the odd "grilling" given by Jeremy Paxman or whoever really alters this picture fundamentally.

[teamsaint]

You're missing my point.

First you said 'the media' are in thrall to 'Them'. We knocked that one on the head when you agreed that you hadn't seen Channel 4 for a while. I am sure that there are other media outlets that you haven't listened/watched. So to say 'the media' is plain wrong. Maybe some but certainly not all.

Then when challenged to produce an example of the media being in thrall you came up with a link to a news item that said that 30% of everyone living in the UK etc etc and you blamed the Govt misleading the media on that score. I have now shown to you that your statement was unfounded since the actual press release from the Govt said nothing of the sort.

Do you not agree that that is the case?

No.Not in the slightest. I am totally confident in the things I have been saying, which are, in short, that governments mislead us all the time, and that we are being (mis)led into a war with Iran.
The government and the media completely misled us about WMD, and about the population of people aged 100.
You also ignore the points you don't like, such as that the quadrupling of centenarians would STILL only give us 50k. The half a million figure is pure supposition, and in fact is as far as I can see, is not supported by evidence in the DWP release.
Believe the government and the BBC news if you want. Do you still believe Sadam had WMD?
Do you really believe nearly 20% of the population will reach 100 ?
Do you believe Iran is an imminent nuclear threat.
I don't.

[Simon]

And why, if it was all so well-known and unavoidable, has the Israeli state continued to persecute Mordechai Vanunu? :whistle:

Do you actually read posts before you comment on them?

I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of your question to my comment.

[MrGongGong]

Do you actually read posts before you comment on them?

I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of your question to my comment.

Seemed obvious to me
but (as I said) what do I know ?

[Resurrection Man]

No.Not in the slightest. I am totally confident in the things I have been saying, which are, in short, that governments mislead us all the time, and that we are being (mis)led into a war with Iran.
The government and the media completely misled us about WMD, and about the population of people aged 100.
You also ignore the points you don't like, such as that the quadrupling of centenarians would STILL only give us 50k. The half a million figure is pure supposition, and in fact is as far as I can see, is not supported by evidence in the DWP release.
Believe the government and the BBC news if you want. Do you still believe Sadam had WMD?
Do you really believe nearly 20% of the population will reach 100 ?
Do you believe Iran is an imminent nuclear threat.
I don't.

Rather pointless continuing this discussion. I talk fact based on what you originally said but when challenged you then change direction and start off on a different tack. I have better things to do with my time.

[MrGongGong]

Rather pointless continuing this discussion. I talk fact based on what you originally said but when challenged you then change direction and start off on a different tack. I have better things to do with my time.

Saucer of milk ?

[teamsaint]

Rather pointless continuing this discussion. I talk fact based on what you originally said but when challenged you then change direction and start off on a different tack. I have better things to do with my time.

sorry RM, but I keep saying the same things and providing evidence. you just deny them. I suspect that The truth scares you.
It should. It scares me.

[amateur51]

Do you actually read posts before you comment on them?

I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of your question to my comment.

Your loss rather than mine, I'd say. The relevance is clear to anyone with half a functioning brain cell.

[Resurrection Man]

sorry RM, but I keep saying the same things and providing evidence. you just deny them. I suspect that The truth scares you.
It should. It scares me.

You haven't provided any evidence at all. You just keep coming out with the same generalisations time after time after time. The one example that you provided I clearly and succinctly spelled out to you that it was bad journalism and that the original press release said nothing of the 30% etc that you claimed was Govt inspired. Rather than agree that you were wrong, you then swiftly side-stepped by ignoring this and introducing another topic.

Too many people on this part of the forum adopt the same tactics.

As far as Iran is concerned, if they have nothing to hide then why such a long list of prevarication regarding inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency? Full diarised reports here http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus...ml#september12 But I suppose that you are going to claim that the IAEA are also in bed with Them.

As I said before, having a strong naval presence in the region of the Straits of Hormuz at this moment in time is commonsense. Or would you prefer that our oil supplies were interdicted by Iran?

In an ideal world, we would all be giving each other big hugs and walking around naked. However vested interests/extremists/religious zealots/mafia/drug cartels/arms manufacturers/many politicians et al would conspire against this. Nothing wrong in dreaming of a perfect world in perfect harmony. Sounds like a cue for a song.

[Resurrection Man]

Do you actually read posts before you comment on them?

I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of your question to my comment.

Simon, you know how they try and have a rational discussion.

First, come out with a sweeping generalisation quoting ad nauseam from the Gruniad.

Next, ignore any rational argument made against them by re-iterating the original generalisation supported by more extracts from the Gruniad.

Then, when asked for specific examples, after some delay and pressure, will come out with a random piece of 'data' as evidence.

When then presented with incontrovertible evidence that this random piece of evidence is, well, um, random and of no relevance/flawed/plays no part in any rational discussion will introduce a red-herring or pick up on some obscure point bearing no relevance to the original generalisation and nit-pick.

Finally, when all else fails, throw in a random comment as Am51 did and then when asked to justify the random comment reply with 'you are thick'.

Was it ever thus.

Meanwhile back in the real world, life goes on.

[teamsaint]

I thought you had something better to do, RM

WMD's in Iraq. Made up. lie.
this report

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2010/dec-2010/dwp186-10-301210.shtml

I'll try one more time.
There 12000 people aged over 100 in the UK. The government want us to believe that in 2066 there will be over 500k.I simply do not believe it. The current rate of quadrupling every 20 years won't even get us half way there.
Even if it is true,the government really ought to concentrate on creating the kind of economy that could pay for this..you know, full employment, high skills etc.
But I admit, that really is wishful thinking of the kind you describe. there are banks to save and wars to fight. Oh, and Orwell's handbook to check on, in case they forget to scare us for half an hour.

"Back in the real world." Hard edged fact based argument.Good stuff.

Edit..would it be "nit picking" to mention that the 30% you quote is your number, and not one that anybody else has quoted or used? Or is it like the bad journalism at the BBC that you seem keen so keen to excuse ?

[MrGongGong]

First, come out with a sweeping generalisation quoting ad nauseam from the Gruniad.
.

Can you show me the quotes from the Guardian as I seem to have missed them ? :laugh:

surely having a "rational argument" means that you are referring to REAL not made up references ?

I'd be very wary of your "real world" as it seems to include newspaper articles written by ectoplasm :oh:

[Resurrection Man]

I thought you had something better to do, RM

WMD's in Iraq. Made up. lie.

No dispute. Never said anything otherwise.

this report

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2010/dec-2010/dwp186-10-301210.shtml

I'll try one more time.
There 12000 people aged over 100 in the UK. The government want us to believe that in 2066 there will be over 500k.I simply do not believe it. The current rate of quadrupling every 20 years won't even get us half way there.

The figures come from the Office of National Statistics. Now one can be paranoid and a fully paid up member of the Conspiracy Brigade but unless you are a better statistician and have access to the raw data that they have then you can post as much as you like about not believing the figures but at the end of the day it is your wishful thinking (which you are perfectly entitled to).

Even if it is true,the government really ought to concentrate on creating the kind of economy that could pay for this..you know, full employment, high skills etc.

Ignoring the demographic timebomb that is facing the UK, Canada and China to name but three countries - there are many more. In the timespan that we are talking about there won't be enough people in the population working to pay for the pensions needed by the ageing population. Google demographics. It's all there.