TwoPints

Yes because everyone that comes here will wish to use the NHS all at once won't they. Migration into the UK earns more than it costs so not only are EU migrants paying for their use of the NHS, the taxman is making a nice little earner out of it too.

Great result. Last week Talk****e were banging on about how great Spurs are and how Leicester are feeling the pressure. No London bias from those ****s at all. Spurs did what they always do and just folded when they needed to get a result. Bloody brilliant

I'm afraid you might be disappointed http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/

Hmm.. Thats odd. He seems to be the one asking questions that Fox and Hoey are unable to answer. I admit he's a bit of a **** but he's made some decent points that seem to be resonating with the audience.

Direction

Isn't this part of the existing NHS budget? The allocation of funds seems to have been announced by the NHS not the government so it's not extra money for the NHS. Always happy to see the NHS properly funded but this just an announcement by the NHS as to how they're spending some of their budget isn't it?

They could quite easily bugger all of those up. Fingers crossed they do.

Just got in and seen the score. Bloody brilliant.

No you haven't. I know what I meant, you know what I meant but because it wasn't written exactly how you would like it you just like to pick holes in it. I see you were picked up on this very same thing in the EU referendum thread too. And for someone that's keen on picking up people on their posts, in your last one you claimed you'd given up but clearly you haven't. Maybe we all say things on posts that could have holes picked in them?

Yes. It is rather dull. You clearly seem to have read my quote that I would have preferred them to quote neither as somehow wanting them to quote false information. Pointless trying to get you to understand so I won't bother anymore as it's rally not that important.

It doesn't really matter what your point was, as you clearly don't understand mine. The basic concept is that if they think quoting the number for Muslims and not the general population is reasonable then I disagree. Whatever the reason why they shouldn't have quoted either, whether it be statistically insignificant or unjustified and sensationalist it was just wrong. That's all I'm saying, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe you could point out the post where I have said that Channel 4 shared false information. I haven't suggested any of their information was wrong but the way they chose to present it was unhelpful in my opinion. Apologies for getting the % round the wrong way. Genuine error.

No, my point has always been that if they're quoting 1% of the Muslim population as a number then they should do the same with the 4% quoted for the general population otherwise it suggests a certain level of bias by just doing so with one and not the other. I would have argued the same if they quoted the number of the general population and not the Muslim population as that would have suggested bias the other way and if you're after a reasonable and rational analysis of the figures, you want an even playing field. Nice try though.

Let me quote my post again: "if you want a fair reflection of the survey, you either quote both or neither. I would have preferred neither" Seems like a reasonable approach to me. The point being if C4 are happy to quote the number in respect of Muslims, then they should be happy to quote the number for the general population. Both numbers are completely misleading and unfounded, as you say, and they would have been better served quoting neither. However, by only quoting the number for Muslims that have some sympathy with suicide numbers it suggests a certain amount of bias. Agree or not?

I thought I'd explained my thoughts on this in my earlier post but clearly it hasn't registered with you and whilst I'm glad you're happy, to be honest it wasn't very helpful.

Blimey. You really do have issues don't you. Of course I got your ridiculous analogy. It was just that it was pathetic and purile. Rather like you throwing insults around when people happen to disagree with you.

And you have the nerve to pull me up on my post after your pathetic paedophiles on the park post? Unbelievable.

I really don't know what you're talking about here.

Ummm.. I'm neither animated nor upset. Not sure why you think I am. You appear to have agreed with my view that quoting 100k of Muslims wasn't very helpful. My point was, if you want a fair reflection of the survey, you either quote both or neither. I would have preferred neither so what's your problem, with that?

Did you watch the programme Whelk? One of the stats quoted was that their survey showed that 4% had some sympathy with suicide bombers and they were at great pains to point out, they did it twice in fact, that 4% equates to about 100,000 British Muslims. Whilst they also pointed out that the figure was only 1% of the general population, they failed to mention that 1% of, say, 60 million people, is 600,000. That's half a million more non Muslims that have some sympathy with suicide bombers than Muslims. So, who are you going to avoid in the park now?

One would be wrong.

OK, just googled it and found it within about 15 seconds. Not all that exciting really, don't know what all the fuss is about. If they hadn't bothered with the super injunction, no one would give a ****.

I thought you might

Ooh, I'll have to do some googling. Could it be John Terry, Wayne Bridge and Frankie Bridge?

Blimey, I hope so!

Judas