Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. " Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone." Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. " How do you get such a low number percentage? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone." Everyone can vote to have their say. To me, 32% not voting are stating they don't mind which way the vote swings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story." Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out." It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. " Ok I'll elaborate (it's a moot point as it didn't happen) if 41% turn out was needed to action the result, and only 40% voted, the 98% is irrelevant as the result is negated (IE no strike action). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. Ok I'll elaborate (it's a moot point as it didn't happen) if 41% turn out was needed to action the result, and only 40% voted, the 98% is irrelevant as the result is negated (IE no strike action)." You're making up some hypothetical situation when we have a real situation that we can use data from. 98% is being used as a headline figure, which is playing the data and disingenuous at best. Also, The Guardian report a 62% turnout. It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. Ok I'll elaborate (it's a moot point as it didn't happen) if 41% turn out was needed to action the result, and only 40% voted, the 98% is irrelevant as the result is negated (IE no strike action). You're making up some hypothetical situation when we have a real situation that we can use data from. 98% is being used as a headline figure, which is playing the data and disingenuous at best. Also, The Guardian report a 62% turnout. It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous." Hypothetical figures not a hypothetical situation. Those voting and not voting understand the relevance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. Ok I'll elaborate (it's a moot point as it didn't happen) if 41% turn out was needed to action the result, and only 40% voted, the 98% is irrelevant as the result is negated (IE no strike action). You're making up some hypothetical situation when we have a real situation that we can use data from. 98% is being used as a headline figure, which is playing the data and disingenuous at best. Also, The Guardian report a 62% turnout. It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. Hypothetical figures not a hypothetical situation. Those voting and not voting understand the relevance." It's false relevance. Less than half of junior doctors voted to strike. Here's how I get to that conclusion: 2/3 of junior doctors are BMA members - 66%. Of those 62% voted. Of those 98% voted to strike. That brings that figure to around 43% of junior doctors, maybe my math is wrong though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. Ok I'll elaborate (it's a moot point as it didn't happen) if 41% turn out was needed to action the result, and only 40% voted, the 98% is irrelevant as the result is negated (IE no strike action). You're making up some hypothetical situation when we have a real situation that we can use data from. 98% is being used as a headline figure, which is playing the data and disingenuous at best. Also, The Guardian report a 62% turnout. It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. Hypothetical figures not a hypothetical situation. Those voting and not voting understand the relevance. It's false relevance. Less than half of junior doctors voted to strike. Here's how I get to that conclusion: 2/3 of junior doctors are BMA members - 66%. Of those 62% voted. Of those 98% voted to strike. That brings that figure to around 43% of junior doctors, maybe my math is wrong though. " It's not false relevance. Anyway, moving on to union membership, compare with nurses: unison end figure = no strike - therefore if their members went on strike they would be doing it illegally. NMC end figure = strike. So, those doctors who belong to a different union cannot be included in the BMA figure. Therefore 98% of the turn out of 62% is nearly 61%. Interestingly the second NMC vote for nurses equated to no strike as the turn out was too low (even though the result of the vote was in favour of striking). We'd have no govt most years if turn out was relevant  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. Ok I'll elaborate (it's a moot point as it didn't happen) if 41% turn out was needed to action the result, and only 40% voted, the 98% is irrelevant as the result is negated (IE no strike action). You're making up some hypothetical situation when we have a real situation that we can use data from. 98% is being used as a headline figure, which is playing the data and disingenuous at best. Also, The Guardian report a 62% turnout. It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. Hypothetical figures not a hypothetical situation. Those voting and not voting understand the relevance. It's false relevance. Less than half of junior doctors voted to strike. Here's how I get to that conclusion: 2/3 of junior doctors are BMA members - 66%. Of those 62% voted. Of those 98% voted to strike. That brings that figure to around 43% of junior doctors, maybe my math is wrong though. It's not false relevance. Anyway, moving on to union membership, compare with nurses: unison end figure = no strike - therefore if their members went on strike they would be doing it illegally. NMC end figure = strike. So, those doctors who belong to a different union cannot be included in the BMA figure. Therefore 98% of the turn out of 62% is nearly 61%. Interestingly the second NMC vote for nurses equated to no strike as the turn out was too low (even though the result of the vote was in favour of striking). We'd have no govt most years if turn out was relevant "I feel like you're rambling on about things that don't relate to your question of 'how did you get that figure?' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. Ok I'll elaborate (it's a moot point as it didn't happen) if 41% turn out was needed to action the result, and only 40% voted, the 98% is irrelevant as the result is negated (IE no strike action). You're making up some hypothetical situation when we have a real situation that we can use data from. 98% is being used as a headline figure, which is playing the data and disingenuous at best. Also, The Guardian report a 62% turnout. It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. Hypothetical figures not a hypothetical situation. Those voting and not voting understand the relevance. It's false relevance. Less than half of junior doctors voted to strike. Here's how I get to that conclusion: 2/3 of junior doctors are BMA members - 66%. Of those 62% voted. Of those 98% voted to strike. That brings that figure to around 43% of junior doctors, maybe my math is wrong though. It's not false relevance. Anyway, moving on to union membership, compare with nurses: unison end figure = no strike - therefore if their members went on strike they would be doing it illegally. NMC end figure = strike. So, those doctors who belong to a different union cannot be included in the BMA figure. Therefore 98% of the turn out of 62% is nearly 61%. Interestingly the second NMC vote for nurses equated to no strike as the turn out was too low (even though the result of the vote was in favour of striking). We'd have no govt most years if turn out was relevant
I feel like you're rambling on about things that don't relate to your question of 'how did you get that figure?'"And I'm rambling? You're now telling me you're responding to a question that wasn't posed to you on a post that it wasn't asked...
Looks like I need a crystal ball to work out the context of your posts (and I'm the one with brain issues? ). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. Ok I'll elaborate (it's a moot point as it didn't happen) if 41% turn out was needed to action the result, and only 40% voted, the 98% is irrelevant as the result is negated (IE no strike action). You're making up some hypothetical situation when we have a real situation that we can use data from. 98% is being used as a headline figure, which is playing the data and disingenuous at best. Also, The Guardian report a 62% turnout. It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. Hypothetical figures not a hypothetical situation. Those voting and not voting understand the relevance. It's false relevance. Less than half of junior doctors voted to strike. Here's how I get to that conclusion: 2/3 of junior doctors are BMA members - 66%. Of those 62% voted. Of those 98% voted to strike. That brings that figure to around 43% of junior doctors, maybe my math is wrong though. It's not false relevance. Anyway, moving on to union membership, compare with nurses: unison end figure = no strike - therefore if their members went on strike they would be doing it illegally. NMC end figure = strike. So, those doctors who belong to a different union cannot be included in the BMA figure. Therefore 98% of the turn out of 62% is nearly 61%. Interestingly the second NMC vote for nurses equated to no strike as the turn out was too low (even though the result of the vote was in favour of striking). We'd have no govt most years if turn out was relevant
I feel like you're rambling on about things that don't relate to your question of 'how did you get that figure?'
And I'm rambling? You're now telling me you're responding to a question that wasn't posed to you on a post that it wasn't asked...
Looks like I need a crystal ball to work out the context of your posts (and I'm the one with brain issues?)."Unless Mr 66 is also Mr F  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. Ok I'll elaborate (it's a moot point as it didn't happen) if 41% turn out was needed to action the result, and only 40% voted, the 98% is irrelevant as the result is negated (IE no strike action). You're making up some hypothetical situation when we have a real situation that we can use data from. 98% is being used as a headline figure, which is playing the data and disingenuous at best. Also, The Guardian report a 62% turnout. It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. Hypothetical figures not a hypothetical situation. Those voting and not voting understand the relevance. It's false relevance. Less than half of junior doctors voted to strike. Here's how I get to that conclusion: 2/3 of junior doctors are BMA members - 66%. Of those 62% voted. Of those 98% voted to strike. That brings that figure to around 43% of junior doctors, maybe my math is wrong though. It's not false relevance. Anyway, moving on to union membership, compare with nurses: unison end figure = no strike - therefore if their members went on strike they would be doing it illegally. NMC end figure = strike. So, those doctors who belong to a different union cannot be included in the BMA figure. Therefore 98% of the turn out of 62% is nearly 61%. Interestingly the second NMC vote for nurses equated to no strike as the turn out was too low (even though the result of the vote was in favour of striking). We'd have no govt most years if turn out was relevant
I feel like you're rambling on about things that don't relate to your question of 'how did you get that figure?'
And I'm rambling? You're now telling me you're responding to a question that wasn't posed to you on a post that it wasn't asked...
Looks like I need a crystal ball to work out the context of your posts (and I'm the one with brain issues?).
Unless Mr 66 is also Mr F "Oh, my apologies. I didn't realise you were the boss round here. I'll be sure never to answer anyone else's queries from here on. Silly me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. Ok I'll elaborate (it's a moot point as it didn't happen) if 41% turn out was needed to action the result, and only 40% voted, the 98% is irrelevant as the result is negated (IE no strike action). You're making up some hypothetical situation when we have a real situation that we can use data from. 98% is being used as a headline figure, which is playing the data and disingenuous at best. Also, The Guardian report a 62% turnout. It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. Hypothetical figures not a hypothetical situation. Those voting and not voting understand the relevance. It's false relevance. Less than half of junior doctors voted to strike. Here's how I get to that conclusion: 2/3 of junior doctors are BMA members - 66%. Of those 62% voted. Of those 98% voted to strike. That brings that figure to around 43% of junior doctors, maybe my math is wrong though. It's not false relevance. Anyway, moving on to union membership, compare with nurses: unison end figure = no strike - therefore if their members went on strike they would be doing it illegally. NMC end figure = strike. So, those doctors who belong to a different union cannot be included in the BMA figure. Therefore 98% of the turn out of 62% is nearly 61%. Interestingly the second NMC vote for nurses equated to no strike as the turn out was too low (even though the result of the vote was in favour of striking). We'd have no govt most years if turn out was relevant
I feel like you're rambling on about things that don't relate to your question of 'how did you get that figure?'
And I'm rambling? You're now telling me you're responding to a question that wasn't posed to you on a post that it wasn't asked...
Looks like I need a crystal ball to work out the context of your posts (and I'm the one with brain issues?).
Unless Mr 66 is also Mr F
Oh, my apologies. I didn't realise you were the boss round here. I'll be sure never to answer anyone else's queries from here on. Silly me. "Do what you like, it's not like I care. Context, I definitely care about context. If you provide none then I'm more than happy to "ramble".  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. Ok I'll elaborate (it's a moot point as it didn't happen) if 41% turn out was needed to action the result, and only 40% voted, the 98% is irrelevant as the result is negated (IE no strike action). You're making up some hypothetical situation when we have a real situation that we can use data from. 98% is being used as a headline figure, which is playing the data and disingenuous at best. Also, The Guardian report a 62% turnout. It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. Hypothetical figures not a hypothetical situation. Those voting and not voting understand the relevance. It's false relevance. Less than half of junior doctors voted to strike. Here's how I get to that conclusion: 2/3 of junior doctors are BMA members - 66%. Of those 62% voted. Of those 98% voted to strike. That brings that figure to around 43% of junior doctors, maybe my math is wrong though. It's not false relevance. Anyway, moving on to union membership, compare with nurses: unison end figure = no strike - therefore if their members went on strike they would be doing it illegally. NMC end figure = strike. So, those doctors who belong to a different union cannot be included in the BMA figure. Therefore 98% of the turn out of 62% is nearly 61%. Interestingly the second NMC vote for nurses equated to no strike as the turn out was too low (even though the result of the vote was in favour of striking). We'd have no govt most years if turn out was relevant
I feel like you're rambling on about things that don't relate to your question of 'how did you get that figure?'
And I'm rambling? You're now telling me you're responding to a question that wasn't posed to you on a post that it wasn't asked...
Looks like I need a crystal ball to work out the context of your posts (and I'm the one with brain issues?).
Unless Mr 66 is also Mr F
Oh, my apologies. I didn't realise you were the boss round here. I'll be sure never to answer anyone else's queries from here on. Silly me.
Do what you like, it's not like I care. Context, I definitely care about context. If you provide none then I'm more than happy to "ramble". "What context is there to provide? I've offered my opinion on the 98% figure and given you the math that concludes the 40odd% percent. Do with that what you will. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. Ok I'll elaborate (it's a moot point as it didn't happen) if 41% turn out was needed to action the result, and only 40% voted, the 98% is irrelevant as the result is negated (IE no strike action). You're making up some hypothetical situation when we have a real situation that we can use data from. 98% is being used as a headline figure, which is playing the data and disingenuous at best. Also, The Guardian report a 62% turnout. It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. Hypothetical figures not a hypothetical situation. Those voting and not voting understand the relevance. It's false relevance. Less than half of junior doctors voted to strike. Here's how I get to that conclusion: 2/3 of junior doctors are BMA members - 66%. Of those 62% voted. Of those 98% voted to strike. That brings that figure to around 43% of junior doctors, maybe my math is wrong though. It's not false relevance. Anyway, moving on to union membership, compare with nurses: unison end figure = no strike - therefore if their members went on strike they would be doing it illegally. NMC end figure = strike. So, those doctors who belong to a different union cannot be included in the BMA figure. Therefore 98% of the turn out of 62% is nearly 61%. Interestingly the second NMC vote for nurses equated to no strike as the turn out was too low (even though the result of the vote was in favour of striking). We'd have no govt most years if turn out was relevant
I feel like you're rambling on about things that don't relate to your question of 'how did you get that figure?'
And I'm rambling? You're now telling me you're responding to a question that wasn't posed to you on a post that it wasn't asked...
Looks like I need a crystal ball to work out the context of your posts (and I'm the one with brain issues?).
Unless Mr 66 is also Mr F
Oh, my apologies. I didn't realise you were the boss round here. I'll be sure never to answer anyone else's queries from here on. Silly me.
Do what you like, it's not like I care. Context, I definitely care about context. If you provide none then I'm more than happy to "ramble".
What context is there to provide? I've offered my opinion on the 98% figure and given you the math that concludes the 40odd% percent. Do with that what you will."Has your account been hacked cos I thought you were a lot more intelligent than you're now appearing  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An overwhelming 98% of the the 68% who voted, voted yes to continuing strike action." Labour will get it resolved straight after the GE so they just need to not agree a deal before then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Always thought junior doctors were doing like an apprentership and once complete can then take advantage of the very generous salaries and pensions! Mind you the whole NHS needs complete overall and rethink" Nope...they are not apprentices. It indicates that they are not specilists, consultants etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. Ok I'll elaborate (it's a moot point as it didn't happen) if 41% turn out was needed to action the result, and only 40% voted, the 98% is irrelevant as the result is negated (IE no strike action). You're making up some hypothetical situation when we have a real situation that we can use data from. 98% is being used as a headline figure, which is playing the data and disingenuous at best. Also, The Guardian report a 62% turnout. It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. Hypothetical figures not a hypothetical situation. Those voting and not voting understand the relevance. It's false relevance. Less than half of junior doctors voted to strike. Here's how I get to that conclusion: 2/3 of junior doctors are BMA members - 66%. Of those 62% voted. Of those 98% voted to strike. That brings that figure to around 43% of junior doctors, maybe my math is wrong though. It's not false relevance. Anyway, moving on to union membership, compare with nurses: unison end figure = no strike - therefore if their members went on strike they would be doing it illegally. NMC end figure = strike. So, those doctors who belong to a different union cannot be included in the BMA figure. Therefore 98% of the turn out of 62% is nearly 61%. Interestingly the second NMC vote for nurses equated to no strike as the turn out was too low (even though the result of the vote was in favour of striking). We'd have no govt most years if turn out was relevant
I feel like you're rambling on about things that don't relate to your question of 'how did you get that figure?'
And I'm rambling? You're now telling me you're responding to a question that wasn't posed to you on a post that it wasn't asked...
Looks like I need a crystal ball to work out the context of your posts (and I'm the one with brain issues?).
Unless Mr 66 is also Mr F
Oh, my apologies. I didn't realise you were the boss round here. I'll be sure never to answer anyone else's queries from here on. Silly me.
Do what you like, it's not like I care. Context, I definitely care about context. If you provide none then I'm more than happy to "ramble".
What context is there to provide? I've offered my opinion on the 98% figure and given you the math that concludes the 40odd% percent. Do with that what you will.
Has your account been hacked cos I thought you were a lot more intelligent than you're now appearing "Really? I know you have some issues but it's not nice to insult people who are engaging in polite conversation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"68% of junior doctor BMA members voted, and 98% of those voted to strike. That is approximately 46 - 52% of the junior doctors. Sounds familiar, a % of a % get to determine what happens to everyone. Doesn’t it just, but as per usual presenting some of the stats doesn’t tell the full story. Some of the stats? Both numbers have value in deciding the course of action providing a certain percentage voted. Say if only 40% turned out, the 98% becomes irrelevant. It's what happened with the nurses - lack of turn out. It isn't irrelevant when it's being used as the headline figure. The fact is that 98% of junior doctors didn't vote to strike. Ok I'll elaborate (it's a moot point as it didn't happen) if 41% turn out was needed to action the result, and only 40% voted, the 98% is irrelevant as the result is negated (IE no strike action). You're making up some hypothetical situation when we have a real situation that we can use data from. 98% is being used as a headline figure, which is playing the data and disingenuous at best. Also, The Guardian report a 62% turnout. It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. Hypothetical figures not a hypothetical situation. Those voting and not voting understand the relevance. It's false relevance. Less than half of junior doctors voted to strike. Here's how I get to that conclusion: 2/3 of junior doctors are BMA members - 66%. Of those 62% voted. Of those 98% voted to strike. That brings that figure to around 43% of junior doctors, maybe my math is wrong though. It's not false relevance. Anyway, moving on to union membership, compare with nurses: unison end figure = no strike - therefore if their members went on strike they would be doing it illegally. NMC end figure = strike. So, those doctors who belong to a different union cannot be included in the BMA figure. Therefore 98% of the turn out of 62% is nearly 61%. Interestingly the second NMC vote for nurses equated to no strike as the turn out was too low (even though the result of the vote was in favour of striking). We'd have no govt most years if turn out was relevant
I feel like you're rambling on about things that don't relate to your question of 'how did you get that figure?'
And I'm rambling? You're now telling me you're responding to a question that wasn't posed to you on a post that it wasn't asked...
Looks like I need a crystal ball to work out the context of your posts (and I'm the one with brain issues?).
Unless Mr 66 is also Mr F
Oh, my apologies. I didn't realise you were the boss round here. I'll be sure never to answer anyone else's queries from here on. Silly me.
Do what you like, it's not like I care. Context, I definitely care about context. If you provide none then I'm more than happy to "ramble".
What context is there to provide? I've offered my opinion on the 98% figure and given you the math that concludes the 40odd% percent. Do with that what you will.
Has your account been hacked cos I thought you were a lot more intelligent than you're now appearing
Really? I know you have some issues but it's not nice to insult people who are engaging in polite conversation."Apologies. However, I think your "voice" has changed. I've seen intelligent debate between you and _irldn, and yet you were purely argumentative with a different poster that resulted in a thread closure most recently. In this thread it took you many posts to give context after accusing me of rambling. I often do  but on this occasion I was trying to explicate and offer rationale.
Anyway, back to the doctors... The issue needs sorting. Or is this one of many things the govt is using delay tactics for the next govt to deal with? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous." That's how negotiation works. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. That's how negotiation works." You're right. Negotiations don't work if you go into them in bad faith. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. That's how negotiation works. You're right. Negotiations don't work if you go into them in bad faith. " The spectacular irony in that statement is spectacular. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. That's how negotiation works. You're right. Negotiations don't work if you go into them in bad faith. The spectacular irony in that statement is spectacular." Crazy isn't it. You have no idea which side I aimed that at. Could be both | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. That's how negotiation works. You're right. Negotiations don't work if you go into them in bad faith. The spectacular irony in that statement is spectacular. Crazy isn't it. You have no idea which side I aimed that at. Could be both "Nobody cares. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. That's how negotiation works. You're right. Negotiations don't work if you go into them in bad faith. The spectacular irony in that statement is spectacular. Crazy isn't it. You have no idea which side I aimed that at. Could be both
Nobody cares."Perhaps you'll both care enough to not bother replying | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. That's how negotiation works. You're right. Negotiations don't work if you go into them in bad faith. The spectacular irony in that statement is spectacular. Crazy isn't it. You have no idea which side I aimed that at. Could be both
Nobody cares.
Perhaps you'll both care enough to not bother replying "1. Grow up. 2. Say all of what you actually mean to say or pipe down. People care about other people's opinions here, at least enough to comment on them. Nobody with an adult mental age has any interest in playing your pathetic game of "ooh, can you guess what side I'm really on?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all nonsense anyway, they're asking for a 35% pay increase which is fucking ridiculous. That's how negotiation works. You're right. Negotiations don't work if you go into them in bad faith. The spectacular irony in that statement is spectacular. Crazy isn't it. You have no idea which side I aimed that at. Could be both
Nobody cares.
Perhaps you'll both care enough to not bother replying
1. Grow up.
2. Say all of what you actually mean to say or pipe down. People care about other people's opinions here, at least enough to comment on them. Nobody with an adult mental age has any interest in playing your pathetic game of "ooh, can you guess what side I'm really on?""
Someone woke up one the wrong side of bed this morning.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
