I think it's useful to highlight misperception. I just don't think that infographic does it.
I doubt the quote in the OP was based on any data or government reports.
I didnt say I doubted the government's figures nor the infographic other than, by it's nature, the estimate of actual fraud. it was just that the infographic says it is dispelling myths and the statistics it uses (on their own) don't seem to in my opinion. All it is doing is selectively choosing certain statistics to suit its purpose.
No. And I doubt reading it will add anything. It seems that you and the TUC believe people's perceptions are based on things such as the DWPs reports, what politicians claim or even the TUC's reports. I would say that their perception is largely based on what they see and hear in their day to day lives and by what they read in tabloid newspapers, which isn't generally based on such reports either.
Rubbish - people invent children so this benefit can be claimed. It's not widespread, iirc, but fraud does occur from time to time:
I think it goes some way to doing it, but there you go.
It will have been based on the impression being given by the Government. An impression derived from - albeit very selectively quoted - government data.
We must differ, then. I see it as an illustrative example of how wide of the mark people's perceptions are, not necessarily a comprehensive overview of the state of the benefits system.
Well, I think you have a lot to learn about how those perceptions are created, then.
i don't think the attitudes are markedly different in that timeframe. I think benefit claimants have been stigmatised for over 20 years. The taunting of Liverpool football fans with "Sign on, sign on...You'll never got a job" has been going on for more than 20 years. The poorest people at my school whose families couldn't afford much for them were more likely to be picked on. I doubt the children at my school were much different than others around the country.
You are misjudging me. The only facts that I can see relevant to the argument that have been posted on the thread was the DWP report, which I reviewed, and the summary in the Independent's chart, neither of which I dispute. I'm not rubbishing anyone's views. I've just found a chart presented to be largely meaningless and had doubts about how anyone can accurately estimate the level of fraud in a system.
Is it any surprise with 50 being quoted that they got an average of 41 compared to the actual answer of 3?It's not really a report. Just largely a press release which the Independent largely copied and added a graph with big and small circles. The only thing of interest that wasn't in the Independent article is the questions they asked and how they get to their answers.
This might be noteworthy if she was a politician or otherwise famous person - her views would matter. As it is, she's just another nameless [to us] member of the public with right wing views when it comes to economics.I just want a late night rant, nothing special. I can't do or say anything about it. Ever. But it really annoys me (so much so I'll start a sentence with but)
She did a facebook post about something called Saints and Scroungers...no idea what it is but by what she was saying I got the idea....she had a rant about scroungers....I pointed out some stuff and some stats and said you know 'saints and scroungers' is a bit of a mind-fuck anyway (but not like that).
she posted.....
Honest to fucking god (I'm an atheist). 1700 people lost there jobs just before xmas when a food plant shut down here. I just want to rip her to fucking bits.
But....she's my best female friend's sister. So I leave it.
This obviously was not good enough for me, so I put it here.
If you link to a press release rather than the report, then yes, i guess it will appear as a press release. if you link to the actual report and figures it may not.
I'm not talking about negative attitudes towards the unemployed generally - I am talking about the increasingly hysterical attitude that regards anyone who claims benefits as in some way defrauding the rest of us. The litany of "not fair on the hard-working taxpayer" has, to some extent, always been there, but I think very few people would disagree that it has become increasingly strident over the last few years.
I am pleased to read this, because it suggests that perhaps you're naive rather than outright mendacious. The link to the TUC report in full WAS posted further up the thread, and - as butchersapron points out - is not the mere press release that you appear to have found instead. I'd dig out the link for the full report, but a) I don't really feel like doing your homework for you, and b) I am not convinced that it will be worth my effort, since you appear to be determined to stick to your own narrative regardless of the facts.
That link is not to a report. That is just the poll data. Please post a link to this magical report.
Ted Striker said:
smokedout said:
brogdale said:
The first one states "the provision of stats such as the above are little more than worthless." which was what my first post on the subject was trying to say, which is all I've largely been trying to defend.
And on what basis does it then go onto say they are worthless (and let's make this clear, he talks of the provision of stats, not the stats themselves)? I'll tell you - because people don't pay attention to them. Which is different from your contentions about the actual figures themselves. You appear to have even puzzled yourself now.
Please don't misrepresent me in the same way you are misrepresenting the facts. My point was that negativity towards the unemployed has always existed, but in the last few years it has become increasingly negative and vitriolic - SPECIFICALLY because of government propaganda.
I am really puzzled as to why you insist on referring to a report you've already said you have no intention of reading in scare quotes, and dismissing it as a "magical report". One might almost assume that you've already made up your mind about it, without having had the benefit of finding out what it says.
No, you're the puzzled one. I have never expressed doubts over the veracity of the figures (other than the accuracy of the fraud one, which is largely unknowable by its nature).
Yes you have.
You made a big deal about the veracity of the fraud figure - which was, and is, the primary point in contention on this thread, given the OP.
No, that post doesn't. The fact that you can't read a basic post suggests that there is no point discussing this with you anymore.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but for completely the opposite reason.
I'm pretty bored with all this now, especially the fact that you and butchersapron seem to misrepresent what I post.
Then I should stop posting on this thread, if I were you. It's pretty clear we're arguing to cross purposes, and I think the time and energy we'd have to devote just to reach some common ground on which we could all agree would be unlikely to be worth it. Perhaps we'll encounter each other on a thread somewhere that is on a topic we can at least see each other's point of view on, given a clear day and sufficient altitude.
