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 |  |
and we aint even left yet  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet "Sorry you should have put "BUT we havent left yet"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Sorry you should have put "BUT we havent left yet" "Oh ye . Nevermind I'm sure somebody will | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Woo Hoo..........i wonder what tax breaks, we the tax payers offered to get these companies to rip us off a couple of years down the road....it is a crap shoot and you know it "Love the smell of optimism in the mornings
what nonsense | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet "Of course, that is good news. But, how do you know it's got anything to do with the prospect of Brexit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Of course, that is good news.
But, how do you know it's got anything to do with the prospect of Brexit?"well, because Brexit is happening and if it hasn't encouraged them at the very least it hasn't put them off. And the Department for International Trade which didn't exist before the referendum has assisted in securing some of this investment, so a more pro active approach towards attracting business has been taken as a consequence of Brexit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Of course, that is good news.
But, how do you know it's got anything to do with the prospect of Brexit?
well, because Brexit is happening and if it hasn't encouraged them at the very least it hasn't put them off. And the Department for International Trade which didn't exist before the referendum has assisted in securing some of this investment, so a more pro active approach towards attracting business has been taken as a consequence of Brexit"Exactly
Game Set And Match | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Of course, that is good news.
But, how do you know it's got anything to do with the prospect of Brexit?
well, because Brexit is happening and if it hasn't encouraged them at the very least it hasn't put them off. And the Department for International Trade which didn't exist before the referendum has assisted in securing some of this investment, so a more pro active approach towards attracting business has been taken as a consequence of Brexit"So, let me get this straight, when various people said the pound fell because of Brexit they were ridiculed and told is was going to happen anyway. But now we're claiming exactly the same thing for these foreign investments? Your claim that the Department for International Trade's involvement means this links to Brexit is tenuous at best as whichever department had the matter before the new one was was created did just have the responsibility shifted to the new one. In other words, a government department would have been involved, the new one hasn't had time to create this all on its own, so it isn't a Brexit benefit. Also, whilst £16.3b is great, we really don't know if it may have been even more if we'd voted remain do we? And before you bang back at me on this, no, we don't know if it would have been worse either. So, in essence, good news but your link to Brexit is very, very, difficult to sustain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Of course, that is good news.
But, how do you know it's got anything to do with the prospect of Brexit?
well, because Brexit is happening and if it hasn't encouraged them at the very least it hasn't put them off. And the Department for International Trade which didn't exist before the referendum has assisted in securing some of this investment, so a more pro active approach towards attracting business has been taken as a consequence of Brexit
So, let me get this straight, when various people said the pound fell because of Brexit they were ridiculed and told is was going to happen anyway. But now we're claiming exactly the same thing for these foreign investments?
Your claim that the Department for International Trade's involvement means this links to Brexit is tenuous at best as whichever department had the matter before the new one was was created did just have the responsibility shifted to the new one. In other words, a government department would have been involved, the new one hasn't had time to create this all on its own, so it isn't a Brexit benefit.
Also, whilst £16.3b is great, we really don't know if it may have been even more if we'd voted remain do we? And before you bang back at me on this, no, we don't know if it would have been worse either.
So, in essence, good news but your link to Brexit is very, very, difficult to sustain. "And with FACTS like this any PROJECTIONS of bad news about Brexit are even harder to sustain aren't they? So maybe you could explain why investment is still coming into thd UK? And at a higher rate than most if not all of the other EU countries? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
well done brexit! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Of course, that is good news.
But, how do you know it's got anything to do with the prospect of Brexit?
well, because Brexit is happening and if it hasn't encouraged them at the very least it hasn't put them off. And the Department for International Trade which didn't exist before the referendum has assisted in securing some of this investment, so a more pro active approach towards attracting business has been taken as a consequence of Brexit
So, let me get this straight, when various people said the pound fell because of Brexit they were ridiculed and told is was going to happen anyway. But now we're claiming exactly the same thing for these foreign investments?
Your claim that the Department for International Trade's involvement means this links to Brexit is tenuous at best as whichever department had the matter before the new one was was created did just have the responsibility shifted to the new one. In other words, a government department would have been involved, the new one hasn't had time to create this all on its own, so it isn't a Brexit benefit.
Also, whilst £16.3b is great, we really don't know if it may have been even more if we'd voted remain do we? And before you bang back at me on this, no, we don't know if it would have been worse either.
So, in essence, good news but your link to Brexit is very, very, difficult to sustain.
And with FACTS like this any PROJECTIONS of bad news about Brexit are even harder to sustain aren't they?
So maybe you could explain why investment is still coming into thd UK? And at a higher rate than most if not all of the other EU countries?"Funny how you like facts when it suits you!
Anyway, I don't need to explain anything, my point being you that you can't link it to Brexit can you?
As you know, correlation does not equal causation. And, as I'm also sure you're aware, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Can you sustain your comment that this inward investment is at a greater rate than most if not all other EU countries? With your love of facts please quote some. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well considering that investment into the UK in the year 2015-2016 was higher than into any other EU country, details of which can be found on the bbc or governments own website, and inward investment has continued along those lines since the referendum then I think it's pretty safe to say. But I'm sure you will be able to prove that investment into other EU countries is now higher won't you?" Maybe, maybe not. Can't be bothered ! But, if I did, I'd research and quote facts not just be 'pretty sure'. But then I live in my silly evidence based reality!
Oh, and there's a world of difference between inward investment and rate of investment isn't there, even though you seem to be switching between the two interchangeably? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"UK Trade and Investment website says we had £44bn of FDI in 2014. So if we have had £16bn in the 6 months since Brexit, that is quite a significant drop (28%). That's not something I would chose to celebrate, but then I want to see the UK economy do well, because I love the UK. I guess if you want to celebrate a 28% decrease in foreign investment you must have a different perspective from me." Ah, now we're getting a different perspective, bloody facts again! Are we still saying Brexit's responsible? Are we still saying game, set and match? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"UK Trade and Investment website says we had £44bn of FDI in 2014. So if we have had £16bn in the 6 months since Brexit, that is quite a significant drop (28%). That's not something I would chose to celebrate, but then I want to see the UK economy do well, because I love the UK. I guess if you want to celebrate a 28% decrease in foreign investment you must have a different perspective from me." and Q1 2016 it was 4.9 so a growth | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Q3 2016 (post Brexit) £2.5 billion growth on Q2 Game set and match" I still dont understand why you are celebrating a fall in FDI of 28%  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Q3 2016 (post Brexit) £2.5 billion growth on Q2 Game set and match I still dont understand why you are celebrating a fall in FDI of 28% "its not though is it! duh 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"UK Trade and Investment website says we had £44bn of FDI in 2014. So if we have had £16bn in the 6 months since Brexit, that is quite a significant drop (28%). That's not something I would chose to celebrate, but then I want to see the UK economy do well, because I love the UK. I guess if you want to celebrate a 28% decrease in foreign investment you must have a different perspective from me." Your figures are skewed and misleading (as usual). Your 2014 figure is for a full 12 months, and the figure you posted for 2016 is for only half a year (6 months) since the referendum vote in June. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"UK Trade and Investment website says we had £44bn of FDI in 2014. So if we have had £16bn in the 6 months since Brexit, that is quite a significant drop (28%). That's not something I would chose to celebrate, but then I want to see the UK economy do well, because I love the UK. I guess if you want to celebrate a 28% decrease in foreign investment you must have a different perspective from me. Your figures are skewed and misleading (as usual). Your 2014 figure is for a full 12 months, and the figure you posted for 2016 is for only half a year (6 months) since the referendum vote in June. " its probably only 3 months | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever. But it would be interesting if someone could explain why, if the investments are not due to the prospect of Brexit, they are still happening despite Brexit? Wasn't everyone supposed to be running for the hills?" That was Cameron and Osborne's Project Fear which we now know to be a load of bullshit. I was watching the news last night and the FTSE 100 closed yesterday on an all time record high (again). This Christmas was a record high spending year in the shops, (was a record high spending year in the shops for Halloween too). For those looking for links to prove it try watching the news now and again, all this was on the news last night. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"UK Trade and Investment website says we had £44bn of FDI in 2014. So if we have had £16bn in the 6 months since Brexit, that is quite a significant drop (28%). That's not something I would chose to celebrate, but then I want to see the UK economy do well, because I love the UK. I guess if you want to celebrate a 28% decrease in foreign investment you must have a different perspective from me. Your figures are skewed and misleading (as usual). Your 2014 figure is for a full 12 months, and the figure you posted for 2016 is for only half a year (6 months) since the referendum vote in June. " I doubled the 6 month figure to make 32bn and compared 44bn to 32bn. So not skewed or misleading. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"UK Trade and Investment website says we had £44bn of FDI in 2014. So if we have had £16bn in the 6 months since Brexit, that is quite a significant drop (28%). That's not something I would chose to celebrate, but then I want to see the UK economy do well, because I love the UK. I guess if you want to celebrate a 28% decrease in foreign investment you must have a different perspective from me. Your figures are skewed and misleading (as usual). Your 2014 figure is for a full 12 months, and the figure you posted for 2016 is for only half a year (6 months) since the referendum vote in June. " Skewed how? if £16Bn is for six months, then making the assumption that is would be double for 12 months is £32 Bn. £32Bn is about 28% less than £44Bn. The maths is correct. If you are saying that the 6 months since the referendum has been a boom, then that means that the 6 months before referendum figure would be lower... so you would be right in saying £32Bn is misleading. The number would be lower than £32Bn and hence the drop since the referendum as a percentage is actually greater than 28%. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can £16 billion be for 6 months its not all calculated yet. And since Brexit FDI is bigger than the previous 6 months. Why is that?" Oh it must be £16 billion because CLCC says so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can £16 billion be for 6 months its not all calculated yet. And since Brexit FDI is bigger than the previous 6 months. Why is that? Oh it must be £16 billion because CLCC says so. "Just going by the figure the OP gave  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can £16 billion be for 6 months its not all calculated yet. And since Brexit FDI is bigger than the previous 6 months. Why is that? Oh it must be £16 billion because CLCC says so.
Just going by the figure the OP gave "The OP said £16.3 billion, so doubling that would make the figure closer to £33 billion, nice of you to casually knock a billion off but never mind. Anyway the OP just said it's not all been calculated yet.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can £16 billion be for 6 months its not all calculated yet. And since Brexit FDI is bigger than the previous 6 months. Why is that? Oh it must be £16 billion because CLCC says so.
Just going by the figure the OP gave "yes but the 6 months are not up or calculated yet are they? 2014 may have been a good year, not looked, so what? Do you think investments stay the same or always rise? The point is, investment has been good since Brexit and better than the previous 6 months. How come? Is it possible that some see Brexit as an opportunity and a good thing do you think? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can £16 billion be for 6 months its not all calculated yet. And since Brexit FDI is bigger than the previous 6 months. Why is that? Oh it must be £16 billion because CLCC says so.
Just going by the figure the OP gave
yes but the 6 months are not up or calculated yet are they? 2014 may have been a good year, not looked, so what? Do you think investments stay the same or always rise? The point is, investment has been good since Brexit and better than the previous 6 months. How come? Is it possible that some see Brexit as an opportunity and a good thing do you think?"So you're saying that your own figures are bollocks? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can £16 billion be for 6 months its not all calculated yet. And since Brexit FDI is bigger than the previous 6 months. Why is that? Oh it must be £16 billion because CLCC says so.
Just going by the figure the OP gave
yes but the 6 months are not up or calculated yet are they? 2014 may have been a good year, not looked, so what? Do you think investments stay the same or always rise? The point is, investment has been good since Brexit and better than the previous 6 months. How come? Is it possible that some see Brexit as an opportunity and a good thing do you think?"Majority of business leaders seem to think so. Institute of Directors which has around 35,000 members released a poll earlier this week. 15% think they will be worse off next year while 60% expect a windfall with higher profitability and increased revenues next year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can £16 billion be for 6 months its not all calculated yet. And since Brexit FDI is bigger than the previous 6 months. Why is that? Oh it must be £16 billion because CLCC says so.
Just going by the figure the OP gave
yes but the 6 months are not up or calculated yet are they? 2014 may have been a good year, not looked, so what? Do you think investments stay the same or always rise? The point is, investment has been good since Brexit and better than the previous 6 months. How come? Is it possible that some see Brexit as an opportunity and a good thing do you think?
Majority of business leaders seem to think so. Institute of Directors which has around 35,000 members released a poll earlier this week. 15% think they will be worse off next year while 60% expect a windfall with higher profitability and increased revenues next year. "Hrmm.. must be some other IoD. on the 16th Dec the IoD released their annual survey in which amongst the stats: Do you believe the vote will impact growth in your business in the next 5 years? 54% - likely to hinder growth in my business 30% - no effect 16% - likely to boost growth in my business Over the past 4 months, have you noticed any impact on your business from the outcome of the referendum? 58% - no 34% - yes, the vote has had a negative impact 8% - yes, the vote has had a positive impact And then regarding the question of "top priorities in negotiations with the EU" some of the responses: 68% - Securing continued membership of the single market in services 57% - Securing continued membership of the single market in goods So according to that survey of their members you can pretty safely conclude that Brexit has had a more negative effect than positive effect for companies so far and that more members believe it will hinder growth rather than encourage it. And that the majority of members surveyed believe that the UK should remain part of the EU single market. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can £16 billion be for 6 months its not all calculated yet. And since Brexit FDI is bigger than the previous 6 months. Why is that? Oh it must be £16 billion because CLCC says so.
Just going by the figure the OP gave
yes but the 6 months are not up or calculated yet are they? 2014 may have been a good year, not looked, so what? Do you think investments stay the same or always rise? The point is, investment has been good since Brexit and better than the previous 6 months. How come? Is it possible that some see Brexit as an opportunity and a good thing do you think?
Majority of business leaders seem to think so. Institute of Directors which has around 35,000 members released a poll earlier this week. 15% think they will be worse off next year while 60% expect a windfall with higher profitability and increased revenues next year.
Hrmm.. must be some other IoD. on the 16th Dec the IoD released their annual survey in which amongst the stats:
Do you believe the vote will impact growth in your business in the next 5 years?
54% - likely to hinder growth in my business
30% - no effect
16% - likely to boost growth in my business
Over the past 4 months, have you noticed any impact on your business from the outcome of the referendum?
58% - no
34% - yes, the vote has had a negative impact
8% - yes, the vote has had a positive impact
And then regarding the question of "top priorities in negotiations with the EU" some of the responses:
68% - Securing continued membership of the single market in services
57% - Securing continued membership of the single market in goods
So according to that survey of their members you can pretty safely conclude that Brexit has had a more negative effect than positive effect for companies so far and that more members believe it will hinder growth rather than encourage it. And that the majority of members surveyed believe that the UK should remain part of the EU single market.
-Matt"Hmm, Matt, it almost sounds like you are saying Centaur deliberately tried to mislead us.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmm, Matt, it almost sounds like you are saying Centaur deliberately tried to mislead us.... "No, I am merely reporting the results of the IoD 2016 annual study published two weeks ago in respect to the points referring to the views of the IoD members and the impact of Brexit on their businesses. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmm, Matt, it almost sounds like you are saying Centaur deliberately tried to mislead us....
No, I am merely reporting the results of the IoD 2016 annual study published two weeks ago in respect to the points referring to the views of the IoD members and the impact of Brexit on their businesses.
-Matt"The one you saw must be different to the one I saw then, as I said the one I saw was published in the last week, which would be after the 16th December when you saw yours. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can £16 billion be for 6 months its not all calculated yet. And since Brexit FDI is bigger than the previous 6 months. Why is that? Oh it must be £16 billion because CLCC says so.
Just going by the figure the OP gave
yes but the 6 months are not up or calculated yet are they? 2014 may have been a good year, not looked, so what? Do you think investments stay the same or always rise? The point is, investment has been good since Brexit and better than the previous 6 months. How come? Is it possible that some see Brexit as an opportunity and a good thing do you think?
Majority of business leaders seem to think so. Institute of Directors which has around 35,000 members released a poll earlier this week. 15% think they will be worse off next year while 60% expect a windfall with higher profitability and increased revenues next year.
Hrmm.. must be some other IoD. on the 16th Dec the IoD released their annual survey in which amongst the stats:
Do you believe the vote will impact growth in your business in the next 5 years?
54% - likely to hinder growth in my business
30% - no effect
16% - likely to boost growth in my business
Over the past 4 months, have you noticed any impact on your business from the outcome of the referendum?
58% - no
34% - yes, the vote has had a negative impact
8% - yes, the vote has had a positive impact
And then regarding the question of "top priorities in negotiations with the EU" some of the responses:
68% - Securing continued membership of the single market in services
57% - Securing continued membership of the single market in goods
So according to that survey of their members you can pretty safely conclude that Brexit has had a more negative effect than positive effect for companies so far and that more members believe it will hinder growth rather than encourage it. And that the majority of members surveyed believe that the UK should remain part of the EU single market.
-Matt
Hmm, Matt, it almost sounds like you are saying Centaur deliberately tried to mislead us.... "No misleading at all, look at the dates posted, mine differs from the one Poi Lucy said he saw, do try to keep up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can £16 billion be for 6 months its not all calculated yet. And since Brexit FDI is bigger than the previous 6 months. Why is that?" I know others have already commented, but you told us it was! So now you're saying your own figures aren't correct? And you and others blame CLCC for twisting figures? Oh dear! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmm, Matt, it almost sounds like you are saying Centaur deliberately tried to mislead us....
No, I am merely reporting the results of the IoD 2016 annual study published two weeks ago in respect to the points referring to the views of the IoD members and the impact of Brexit on their businesses.
-Matt
The one you saw must be different to the one I saw then, as I said the one I saw was published in the last week, which would be after the 16th December when you saw yours. "Well then, since it seems a tad unlikely that they posted 2 contrary sets of figures a week apart, I thin the onus is now on you to post your figures, cited of course. Please. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmm, Matt, it almost sounds like you are saying Centaur deliberately tried to mislead us....
No, I am merely reporting the results of the IoD 2016 annual study published two weeks ago in respect to the points referring to the views of the IoD members and the impact of Brexit on their businesses.
-Matt
The one you saw must be different to the one I saw then, as I said the one I saw was published in the last week, which would be after the 16th December when you saw yours.
Well then, since it seems a tad unlikely that they posted 2 contrary sets of figures a week apart, I thin the onus is now on you to post your figures, cited of course. Please."I already posted the figures on the thread, scroll up and you'll see them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmm, Matt, it almost sounds like you are saying Centaur deliberately tried to mislead us....
No, I am merely reporting the results of the IoD 2016 annual study published two weeks ago in respect to the points referring to the views of the IoD members and the impact of Brexit on their businesses.
-Matt
The one you saw must be different to the one I saw then, as I said the one I saw was published in the last week, which would be after the 16th December when you saw yours. "I've been searching about, but whilst I can see plenty of newspapers reporting the figures you say, I can't see any link to the source of them. On the IoD website there appears to be no mention of those figures that I can find. Apart from the appointment of a new DG the annual survey I took those figures from above is the latest news on Brexit in their news section. The only vague link I could see was in a Guardian article which stated: "Sentiment about the prospects for the economy post-Brexit vote had improved since the middle of the year, with more than 60% of IoD members voicing optimism about their own firms’ prospects in 2017. Expectations for the UK economy were also improved." ie. 60% of firms thing that they are optimistic about 2017, nothing to do with brexit. ie. despite the negative aspect Brexit has had and will have on their business they still feel optimism for 2017. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmm, Matt, it almost sounds like you are saying Centaur deliberately tried to mislead us....
No, I am merely reporting the results of the IoD 2016 annual study published two weeks ago in respect to the points referring to the views of the IoD members and the impact of Brexit on their businesses.
-Matt
The one you saw must be different to the one I saw then, as I said the one I saw was published in the last week, which would be after the 16th December when you saw yours.
Well then, since it seems a tad unlikely that they posted 2 contrary sets of figures a week apart, I thin the onus is now on you to post your figures, cited of course. Please.
I already posted the figures on the thread, scroll up and you'll see them. "Fair enough, now please cite their source. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmm, Matt, it almost sounds like you are saying Centaur deliberately tried to mislead us....
No, I am merely reporting the results of the IoD 2016 annual study published two weeks ago in respect to the points referring to the views of the IoD members and the impact of Brexit on their businesses.
-Matt
The one you saw must be different to the one I saw then, as I said the one I saw was published in the last week, which would be after the 16th December when you saw yours.
Well then, since it seems a tad unlikely that they posted 2 contrary sets of figures a week apart, I thin the onus is now on you to post your figures, cited of course. Please.
I already posted the figures on the thread, scroll up and you'll see them.
Fair enough, now please cite their source."See post above yours. Lucy Poi just confirmed it was reported in several newspapers in the last week. I assume you know how to use Google or another search engine of your choice? Do you also ask for someone to spoon feed you when you eat? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmm, Matt, it almost sounds like you are saying Centaur deliberately tried to mislead us....
No, I am merely reporting the results of the IoD 2016 annual study published two weeks ago in respect to the points referring to the views of the IoD members and the impact of Brexit on their businesses.
-Matt
The one you saw must be different to the one I saw then, as I said the one I saw was published in the last week, which would be after the 16th December when you saw yours.
Well then, since it seems a tad unlikely that they posted 2 contrary sets of figures a week apart, I thin the onus is now on you to post your figures, cited of course. Please.
I already posted the figures on the thread, scroll up and you'll see them.
Fair enough, now please cite their source.
See post above yours. Lucy Poi just confirmed it was reported in several newspapers in the last week. I assume you know how to use Google or another search engine of your choice?
Do you also ask for someone to spoon feed you when you eat? "Yes, and if you read what I stated, I can't find any source of that figure that the newspapers are all reporting. I'm very curious to find the source so as to find out why the IoD supposedly said what they did. As I said, the two figures could both be valid. Ie. that businesses do expect to have higher profits next year, but still believe that Brexit has caused them damage and will hinder their growth over the next 5 years. ie. if we had not voted to leave the EU they would have been doing even better. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How can £16 billion be for 6 months its not all calculated yet. And since Brexit FDI is bigger than the previous 6 months. Why is that? Oh it must be £16 billion because CLCC says so.
Just going by the figure the OP gave
yes but the 6 months are not up or calculated yet are they? 2014 may have been a good year, not looked, so what? Do you think investments stay the same or always rise? The point is, investment has been good since Brexit and better than the previous 6 months. How come? Is it possible that some see Brexit as an opportunity and a good thing do you think?
Majority of business leaders seem to think so. Institute of Directors which has around 35,000 members released a poll earlier this week. 15% think they will be worse off next year while 60% expect a windfall with higher profitability and increased revenues next year.
Hrmm.. must be some other IoD. on the 16th Dec the IoD released their annual survey in which amongst the stats:
Do you believe the vote will impact growth in your business in the next 5 years?
54% - likely to hinder growth in my business
30% - no effect
16% - likely to boost growth in my business
Over the past 4 months, have you noticed any impact on your business from the outcome of the referendum?
58% - no
34% - yes, the vote has had a negative impact
8% - yes, the vote has had a positive impact
And then regarding the question of "top priorities in negotiations with the EU" some of the responses:
68% - Securing continued membership of the single market in services
57% - Securing continued membership of the single market in goods
So according to that survey of their members you can pretty safely conclude that Brexit has had a more negative effect than positive effect for companies so far and that more members believe it will hinder growth rather than encourage it. And that the majority of members surveyed believe that the UK should remain part of the EU single market.
-Matt"no, if you can count you can safely conclude that Brexit has had a positive or no impact for the majority of companies in that 'survey'. Then again 8 out of 10 cats prefer horse lung | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmm, Matt, it almost sounds like you are saying Centaur deliberately tried to mislead us....
No, I am merely reporting the results of the IoD 2016 annual study published two weeks ago in respect to the points referring to the views of the IoD members and the impact of Brexit on their businesses.
-Matt
The one you saw must be different to the one I saw then, as I said the one I saw was published in the last week, which would be after the 16th December when you saw yours.
Well then, since it seems a tad unlikely that they posted 2 contrary sets of figures a week apart, I thin the onus is now on you to post your figures, cited of course. Please.
I already posted the figures on the thread, scroll up and you'll see them.
Fair enough, now please cite their source.
See post above yours. Lucy Poi just confirmed it was reported in several newspapers in the last week. I assume you know how to use Google or another search engine of your choice?
Do you also ask for someone to spoon feed you when you eat?
Yes, and if you read what I stated, I can't find any source of that figure that the newspapers are all reporting.
I'm very curious to find the source so as to find out why the IoD supposedly said what they did. As I said, the two figures could both be valid. Ie. that businesses do expect to have higher profits next year, but still believe that Brexit has caused them damage and will hinder their growth over the next 5 years. ie. if we had not voted to leave the EU they would have been doing even better.
-Matt"Are you suggesting all those newspapers are reporting false information then? Besides you already did post the source, you said it was from the Institute of Directors website news section. If it's false then what is it doing on the institute of Directors website news section? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmm, Matt, it almost sounds like you are saying Centaur deliberately tried to mislead us....
No, I am merely reporting the results of the IoD 2016 annual study published two weeks ago in respect to the points referring to the views of the IoD members and the impact of Brexit on their businesses.
-Matt
The one you saw must be different to the one I saw then, as I said the one I saw was published in the last week, which would be after the 16th December when you saw yours.
Well then, since it seems a tad unlikely that they posted 2 contrary sets of figures a week apart, I thin the onus is now on you to post your figures, cited of course. Please.
I already posted the figures on the thread, scroll up and you'll see them.
Fair enough, now please cite their source.
See post above yours. Lucy Poi just confirmed it was reported in several newspapers in the last week. I assume you know how to use Google or another search engine of your choice?
Do you also ask for someone to spoon feed you when you eat?
Yes, and if you read what I stated, I can't find any source of that figure that the newspapers are all reporting.
I'm very curious to find the source so as to find out why the IoD supposedly said what they did. As I said, the two figures could both be valid. Ie. that businesses do expect to have higher profits next year, but still believe that Brexit has caused them damage and will hinder their growth over the next 5 years. ie. if we had not voted to leave the EU they would have been doing even better.
-Matt
Are you suggesting all those newspapers are reporting false information then?
Besides you already did post the source, you said it was from the Institute of Directors website news section.
If it's false then what is it doing on the institute of Directors website news section?"I posted the source of my figures. From the IoD website news section yes. As I stated, nowhere in there could I find the 60% optimistic figure you mentioned. If it is in there, they seem to have buried it quite well for some reason. And, no I am not stating the newspapers are reporting false information. Again, read what I wrote. I am curious to find the source of that information so as to work out what seems at first glance like a contradiction. As I, again, said above, there may be a reason for it. ie. that businesses are optimistic despite saying Brexit will dampen their growth over the next 5 years, and they have already felt negative impacts of the vote result. If that is the case, I am curious as to if the IoD have any thoughts on the reason for that optimism. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hmm, Matt, it almost sounds like you are saying Centaur deliberately tried to mislead us....
No, I am merely reporting the results of the IoD 2016 annual study published two weeks ago in respect to the points referring to the views of the IoD members and the impact of Brexit on their businesses.
-Matt
The one you saw must be different to the one I saw then, as I said the one I saw was published in the last week, which would be after the 16th December when you saw yours.
Well then, since it seems a tad unlikely that they posted 2 contrary sets of figures a week apart, I thin the onus is now on you to post your figures, cited of course. Please.
I already posted the figures on the thread, scroll up and you'll see them.
Fair enough, now please cite their source.
See post above yours. Lucy Poi just confirmed it was reported in several newspapers in the last week. I assume you know how to use Google or another search engine of your choice?
Do you also ask for someone to spoon feed you when you eat? "Now, now, no need to be rude! Especially as you should be aware that the onus is on the person using the facts to cite their source. I have read Matt's post thank you. And I note that basically the info you quote is unsourced by the papers. Which, of course, means it is suspect at best. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you also ask for someone to spoon feed you when you eat? " So much irony. This whole conversation is you not understanding what other people are saying and having to have things explained 3 times. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Of course, that is good news.
But, how do you know it's got anything to do with the prospect of Brexit?
well, because Brexit is happening and if it hasn't encouraged them at the very least it hasn't put them off. And the Department for International Trade which didn't exist before the referendum has assisted in securing some of this investment, so a more pro active approach towards attracting business has been taken as a consequence of Brexit"Or the pound falling on its arse with companies putting money in as it's cheap. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you also ask for someone to spoon feed you when you eat? So much irony. This whole conversation is you not understanding what other people are saying and having to have things explained 3 times." I've not asked for anyone to provide any links. I know how to use Google thanks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's the data on the last day of business in 2017 that will give a more reliable indication of what lies ahead...... Post Art.50 business confidence is the vital thing here, when we will know more about the impact of Brexit.....if any." Despite many Remainers telling us all the effects of a leave vote would be IMMEDIATE and catastrophic. When that never materialised you've now switched to saying "after article 50 is triggered". When that doesn't materialise what will your excuse be then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you also ask for someone to spoon feed you when you eat? So much irony. This whole conversation is you not understanding what other people are saying and having to have things explained 3 times. I've not asked for anyone to provide any links. I know how to use Google thanks. " What a, frankly, ridiculous comment! Your implication that we ask for cited sources because we can't find them ourselves is pathetic. Do you really not understand this basic point of presenting your side of an argument? Or are you being deliberately belligerent to see if you can wind other people up? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet "Could the weak pound and not the prospect of leaving be responsible?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you also ask for someone to spoon feed you when you eat? So much irony. This whole conversation is you not understanding what other people are saying and having to have things explained 3 times. I've not asked for anyone to provide any links. I know how to use Google thanks. What a, frankly, ridiculous comment! Your implication that we ask for cited sources because we can't find them ourselves is pathetic. Do you really not understand this basic point of presenting your side of an argument? Or are you being deliberately belligerent to see if you can wind other people up? " The only ones winding people up are you Remainers with all your constant pessimism and bitching and moaning that we're all doomed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's the data on the last day of business in 2017 that will give a more reliable indication of what lies ahead...... Post Art.50 business confidence is the vital thing here, when we will know more about the impact of Brexit.....if any. Despite many Remainers telling us all the effects of a leave vote would be IMMEDIATE and catastrophic. When that never materialised you've now switched to saying "after article 50 is triggered". When that doesn't materialise what will your excuse be then?" Trawl back through my posts and you will not find ANYWHERE where I have ever suggested immediate damage to our economy after the referendum......you will find I've always given my opinion that post Art.50 is where we will find out. So please cut out the sniping about my personal views..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you also ask for someone to spoon feed you when you eat? So much irony. This whole conversation is you not understanding what other people are saying and having to have things explained 3 times. I've not asked for anyone to provide any links. I know how to use Google thanks. What a, frankly, ridiculous comment! Your implication that we ask for cited sources because we can't find them ourselves is pathetic. Do you really not understand this basic point of presenting your side of an argument? Or are you being deliberately belligerent to see if you can wind other people up? The only ones winding people up are you Remainers with all your constant pessimism and bitching and moaning that we're all doomed. " Winding people up? So, above I quoted the figures from the IoD99 annual survey published a few weeks ago that showed that the majority of their members that responded feel that Brexit will hamper their growth over the next 5 years. This being in response to you plucking some seemingly un-substantiated number from the papers that we still can't find the source of. Why is that winding you up? Is reporting the outcome of a business survey of dynamic small businesses and startups in the UK being pessimistic, or is it being realistic? -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you also ask for someone to spoon feed you when you eat? So much irony. This whole conversation is you not understanding what other people are saying and having to have things explained 3 times. I've not asked for anyone to provide any links. I know how to use Google thanks. What a, frankly, ridiculous comment! Your implication that we ask for cited sources because we can't find them ourselves is pathetic. Do you really not understand this basic point of presenting your side of an argument? Or are you being deliberately belligerent to see if you can wind other people up? The only ones winding people up are you Remainers with all your constant pessimism and bitching and moaning that we're all doomed. Winding people up? So, above I quoted the figures from the IoD99 annual survey published a few weeks ago that showed that the majority of their members that responded feel that Brexit will hamper their growth over the next 5 years. This being in response to you plucking some seemingly un-substantiated number from the papers that we still can't find the source of. Why is that winding you up? Is reporting the outcome of a business survey of dynamic small businesses and startups in the UK being pessimistic, or is it being realistic? -Matt" It's our fault, all our fault! We don't accept the post truth arguments here and still resort to evidence and tell people where it came from so they can check it for themselves. What are we thinking of? Evidence? Who needs it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Despite many Remainers telling us all the effects of a leave vote would be IMMEDIATE and catastrophic. When that never materialised you've now switched to saying "after article 50 is triggered". When that doesn't materialise what will your excuse be then?" Most people thought there would be an immediate negative effect, which there was, but the catastrophic part was not predicted to be immediate by most remainers. the negative effect is going to be a slow drip drip as the barriers and red tape we were used to doing without go up, inflation kicks in, more cuts take effect and some businesses relocate to Europe. Unless we stay in the Single Market. All this will be compounded by more Tory legislation replacing better EU legislation and continuing the 35 years of economic policies that caused the problems most brexiters railed against. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Unless we stay in the Single Market" Well apparently, according to The Sun, we are leaving the single market it has been confirmed... "OUT AND INTO THE WORLD Britain WILL leave the EU’s Single Market after Brexit, a Tory Minister has finally confirmed" https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2504920/britain-will-leave-the-eus-single-market-after-brexit-a-tory-minister-has-finally-confirmed/ Or rather... a junior minister said: “As the UK is party to the EEA agreement only in its capacity as an EU member state, once we leave the European Union the EEA agreement will automatically cease to apply to the UK.” which is a complete non-statement at all, as it is what many have claimed all along. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Could the weak pound and not the prospect of leaving be responsible? "It has helped I'm sure. And the problem with that is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's the data on the last day of business in 2017 that will give a more reliable indication of what lies ahead...... Post Art.50 business confidence is the vital thing here, when we will know more about the impact of Brexit.....if any. Despite many Remainers telling us all the effects of a leave vote would be IMMEDIATE and catastrophic. When that never materialised you've now switched to saying "after article 50 is triggered". When that doesn't materialise what will your excuse be then? Trawl back through my posts and you will not find ANYWHERE where I have ever suggested immediate damage to our economy after the referendum......you will find I've always given my opinion that post Art.50 is where we will find out. So please cut out the sniping about my personal views....." I wasn't referring to your personal view, I was referring to what all the leading figures of the Remain campaign told us during the referendum, which was that the effects of a leave vote would be immediate and catastrophic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you also ask for someone to spoon feed you when you eat? So much irony. This whole conversation is you not understanding what other people are saying and having to have things explained 3 times. I've not asked for anyone to provide any links. I know how to use Google thanks. What a, frankly, ridiculous comment! Your implication that we ask for cited sources because we can't find them ourselves is pathetic. Do you really not understand this basic point of presenting your side of an argument? Or are you being deliberately belligerent to see if you can wind other people up? The only ones winding people up are you Remainers with all your constant pessimism and bitching and moaning that we're all doomed. Winding people up? So, above I quoted the figures from the IoD99 annual survey published a few weeks ago that showed that the majority of their members that responded feel that Brexit will hamper their growth over the next 5 years. This being in response to you plucking some seemingly un-substantiated number from the papers that we still can't find the source of. Why is that winding you up? Is reporting the outcome of a business survey of dynamic small businesses and startups in the UK being pessimistic, or is it being realistic? " It's not only in the newspapers it's on the institute of directors website, that is what you said yourself earlier in the thread, and that is where the newspapers got it from. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you also ask for someone to spoon feed you when you eat? So much irony. This whole conversation is you not understanding what other people are saying and having to have things explained 3 times. I've not asked for anyone to provide any links. I know how to use Google thanks. What a, frankly, ridiculous comment! Your implication that we ask for cited sources because we can't find them ourselves is pathetic. Do you really not understand this basic point of presenting your side of an argument? Or are you being deliberately belligerent to see if you can wind other people up? The only ones winding people up are you Remainers with all your constant pessimism and bitching and moaning that we're all doomed. Winding people up? So, above I quoted the figures from the IoD99 annual survey published a few weeks ago that showed that the majority of their members that responded feel that Brexit will hamper their growth over the next 5 years. This being in response to you plucking some seemingly un-substantiated number from the papers that we still can't find the source of. Why is that winding you up? Is reporting the outcome of a business survey of dynamic small businesses and startups in the UK being pessimistic, or is it being realistic? -Matt It's our fault, all our fault! We don't accept the post truth arguments here and still resort to evidence and tell people where it came from so they can check it for themselves. What are we thinking of? Evidence? Who needs it?" Maybe if you knew how to use Google you could find it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you also ask for someone to spoon feed you when you eat? So much irony. This whole conversation is you not understanding what other people are saying and having to have things explained 3 times. I've not asked for anyone to provide any links. I know how to use Google thanks. What a, frankly, ridiculous comment! Your implication that we ask for cited sources because we can't find them ourselves is pathetic. Do you really not understand this basic point of presenting your side of an argument? Or are you being deliberately belligerent to see if you can wind other people up? The only ones winding people up are you Remainers with all your constant pessimism and bitching and moaning that we're all doomed. Winding people up? So, above I quoted the figures from the IoD99 annual survey published a few weeks ago that showed that the majority of their members that responded feel that Brexit will hamper their growth over the next 5 years. This being in response to you plucking some seemingly un-substantiated number from the papers that we still can't find the source of. Why is that winding you up? Is reporting the outcome of a business survey of dynamic small businesses and startups in the UK being pessimistic, or is it being realistic? It's not only in the newspapers it's on the institute of directors website, that is what you said yourself earlier in the thread, and that is where the newspapers got it from. "No. For the 3rd time. As you seem to be unable to read or comprehend. I could NOT find the 60% optimistic figure you quoted from the newspaper on the IoD website. If you can, please let me know where. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"UK Trade and Investment website says we had £44bn of FDI in 2014. So if we have had £16bn in the 6 months since Brexit, that is quite a significant drop (28%). That's not something I would chose to celebrate, but then I want to see the UK economy do well, because I love the UK. I guess if you want to celebrate a 28% decrease in foreign investment you must have a different perspective from me. Your figures are skewed and misleading (as usual). Your 2014 figure is for a full 12 months, and the figure you posted for 2016 is for only half a year (6 months) since the referendum vote in June. I doubled the 6 month figure to make 32bn and compared 44bn to 32bn. So not skewed or misleading." You've compared 2016 with 2014. What were the figures for 2015? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Apart from the appointment of a new DG the annual survey I took those figures from above is the latest news on Brexit in their news section. The only vague link I could see was in a Guardian article which stated: "Sentiment about the prospects for the economy post-Brexit vote had improved since the middle of the year, with more than 60% of IoD members voicing optimism about their own firms’ prospects in 2017. Expectations for the UK economy were also improved." " Lucy Poi, this is a snippet from one of your own posts earlier in the thread. In it you said it was on the news section on the IoD website. The Guardian (along with many other newspapers) say the source of the information was the Institute of Directors. If you and others have a problem with that then it's not my problem. But as we appear to be living in a post truth age it's upto you if you want to ignore the evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever. But it would be interesting if someone could explain why, if the investments are not due to the prospect of Brexit, they are still happening despite Brexit? Wasn't everyone supposed to be running for the hills? That was Cameron and Osborne's Project Fear which we now know to be a load of bullshit. I was watching the news last night and the FTSE 100 closed yesterday on an all time record high (again). This Christmas was a record high spending year in the shops, (was a record high spending year in the shops for Halloween too). For those looking for links to prove it try watching the news now and again, all this was on the news last night. " FTSE 100 closed at a record high again tonight. Records keep being broken. This is the 3rd night in a row the FTSE 100 record has been broken now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Apart from the appointment of a new DG the annual survey I took those figures from above is the latest news on Brexit in their news section. The only vague link I could see was in a Guardian article which stated: "Sentiment about the prospects for the economy post-Brexit vote had improved since the middle of the year, with more than 60% of IoD members voicing optimism about their own firms’ prospects in 2017. Expectations for the UK economy were also improved." Lucy Poi, this is a snippet from one of your own posts earlier in the thread. In it you said it was on the news section on the IoD website. The Guardian (along with many other newspapers) say the source of the information was the Institute of Directors. If you and others have a problem with that then it's not my problem. But as we appear to be living in a post truth age it's upto you if you want to ignore the evidence. " Right. And in that post you refer to, the paragraph before the one you quoted I said: "I've been searching about, but whilst I can see plenty of newspapers reporting the figures you say, I can't see any link to the source of them. On the IoD website there appears to be no mention of those figures that I can find. Apart from the appointment of a new DG the annual survey I took those figures from above is the latest news on Brexit in their news section." Why is this so hard for you? I'm really trying to not call you a fucking idiot at this point but you really are making it quite hard to to refrain. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Apart from the appointment of a new DG the annual survey I took those figures from above is the latest news on Brexit in their news section. The only vague link I could see was in a Guardian article which stated: "Sentiment about the prospects for the economy post-Brexit vote had improved since the middle of the year, with more than 60% of IoD members voicing optimism about their own firms’ prospects in 2017. Expectations for the UK economy were also improved." Lucy Poi, this is a snippet from one of your own posts earlier in the thread. In it you said it was on the news section on the IoD website. The Guardian (along with many other newspapers) say the source of the information was the Institute of Directors. If you and others have a problem with that then it's not my problem. But as we appear to be living in a post truth age it's upto you if you want to ignore the evidence. Right. And in that post you refer to, the paragraph before the one you quoted I said: "I've been searching about, but whilst I can see plenty of newspapers reporting the figures you say, I can't see any link to the source of them. On the IoD website there appears to be no mention of those figures that I can find. Apart from the appointment of a new DG the annual survey I took those figures from above is the latest news on Brexit in their news section." Why is this so hard for you? I'm really trying to not call you a fucking idiot at this point but you really are making it quite hard to to refrain. -Matt" I can't see why this is so hard for you to accept. The Guardian (and many other newspapers) say the source was the Institute of Directors. THERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE. If you deny it then you are in effect saying the Guardian and other newspapers who published the story have all published false information. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Apart from the appointment of a new DG the annual survey I took those figures from above is the latest news on Brexit in their news section. The only vague link I could see was in a Guardian article which stated: "Sentiment about the prospects for the economy post-Brexit vote had improved since the middle of the year, with more than 60% of IoD members voicing optimism about their own firms’ prospects in 2017. Expectations for the UK economy were also improved." Lucy Poi, this is a snippet from one of your own posts earlier in the thread. In it you said it was on the news section on the IoD website. The Guardian (along with many other newspapers) say the source of the information was the Institute of Directors. If you and others have a problem with that then it's not my problem. But as we appear to be living in a post truth age it's upto you if you want to ignore the evidence. Right. And in that post you refer to, the paragraph before the one you quoted I said: "I've been searching about, but whilst I can see plenty of newspapers reporting the figures you say, I can't see any link to the source of them. On the IoD website there appears to be no mention of those figures that I can find. Apart from the appointment of a new DG the annual survey I took those figures from above is the latest news on Brexit in their news section." Why is this so hard for you? I'm really trying to not call you a fucking idiot at this point but you really are making it quite hard to to refrain. -Matt I can't see why this is so hard for you to accept. The Guardian (and many other newspapers) say the source was the Institute of Directors. THERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE. If you deny it then you are in effect saying the Guardian and other newspapers who published the story have all published false information. " I think post-truth really only works if you have the stage presence or charisma of Trump or Farage. I don't think you have it. You can repeatedly try and say that I said the opposite of what I actually said. But it is right above for everyone to see. Despite me reiterating multiple times that I could not find those figures there, you still say that I claimed the figures you originally quoted of '60% optimistic' were on the IoD website. Despite me multiple times stating that I don't think the papers are lying, but I would like to see the source of the '60% optimistic' figure to try and understand better what seems like a contradiction.., you still keep asking me if I think the papers are lying. This is my last post on this thread. You've plainly showed you either can't read, or deliberately mis-read what is right in front of you. I'll leave others to draw their own conclusions of this. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Apart from the appointment of a new DG the annual survey I took those figures from above is the latest news on Brexit in their news section. The only vague link I could see was in a Guardian article which stated: "Sentiment about the prospects for the economy post-Brexit vote had improved since the middle of the year, with more than 60% of IoD members voicing optimism about their own firms’ prospects in 2017. Expectations for the UK economy were also improved." Lucy Poi, this is a snippet from one of your own posts earlier in the thread. In it you said it was on the news section on the IoD website. The Guardian (along with many other newspapers) say the source of the information was the Institute of Directors. If you and others have a problem with that then it's not my problem. But as we appear to be living in a post truth age it's upto you if you want to ignore the evidence. Right. And in that post you refer to, the paragraph before the one you quoted I said: "I've been searching about, but whilst I can see plenty of newspapers reporting the figures you say, I can't see any link to the source of them. On the IoD website there appears to be no mention of those figures that I can find. Apart from the appointment of a new DG the annual survey I took those figures from above is the latest news on Brexit in their news section." Why is this so hard for you? I'm really trying to not call you a fucking idiot at this point but you really are making it quite hard to to refrain. -Matt I can't see why this is so hard for you to accept. The Guardian (and many other newspapers) say the source was the Institute of Directors. THERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE. If you deny it then you are in effect saying the Guardian and other newspapers who published the story have all published false information. I think post-truth really only works if you have the stage presence or charisma of Trump or Farage. I don't think you have it. You can repeatedly try and say that I said the opposite of what I actually said. But it is right above for everyone to see. Despite me reiterating multiple times that I could not find those figures there, you still say that I claimed the figures you originally quoted of '60% optimistic' were on the IoD website. Despite me multiple times stating that I don't think the papers are lying, but I would like to see the source of the '60% optimistic' figure to try and understand better what seems like a contradiction.., you still keep asking me if I think the papers are lying. This is my last post on this thread. You've plainly showed you either can't read, or deliberately mis-read what is right in front of you. I'll leave others to draw their own conclusions of this. -Matt" The only one who appears to be guilty of post truth on this thread is you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Despite many Remainers telling us all the effects of a leave vote would be IMMEDIATE and catastrophic. When that never materialised you've now switched to saying "after article 50 is triggered". When that doesn't materialise what will your excuse be then? Most people thought there would be an immediate negative effect, which there was, but the catastrophic part was not predicted to be immediate by most remainers. the negative effect is going to be a slow drip drip as the barriers and red tape we were used to doing without go up, inflation kicks in, more cuts take effect and some businesses relocate to Europe. Unless we stay in the Single Market. All this will be compounded by more Tory legislation replacing better EU legislation and continuing the 35 years of economic policies that caused the problems most brexiters railed against." It was by the government. .. An immediate and catastrophic effect... By the end of 2017 unemployment will have risen by between 500,000 and 800,000. House prices will fall by 18%. Etc,etc. Their report said immediate..... And it was on official govt website | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread really sums up the difference between the two sides of the debate. Remainers are interested in the facts, and making sure the source of those facts are cited, verifiable and credible. The Leavers on the other hand either dismiss the facts (see the "whatever" response to my post showing a 28% decrease in FDI) or when they try to use facts, they are unable to provide the sources so their facts can't be verified. The most astounding fact is though that the OP introduced some un-cited statistic in the opening post, and then attacked other posters for using them. If you can't stand behind your data, don't introduce it. Please can be have evidence based debate with cited sources? Obviously this is not always possible depending on the topic, but in cases like this thread, it is entirely achievable. " Unbelievable
It is the Brexiters that come out with FACTS and Remainers that come out with doom laden projections and ridiculous figures.
You will find the 'uncited statistic' in any news source. The only thing I said was that the figure would be higher by the end of the year | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread really sums up the difference between the two sides of the debate. Remainers are interested in the facts, and making sure the source of those facts are cited, verifiable and credible. The Leavers on the other hand either dismiss the facts (see the "whatever" response to my post showing a 28% decrease in FDI) or when they try to use facts, they are unable to provide the sources so their facts can't be verified. The most astounding fact is though that the OP introduced some un-cited statistic in the opening post, and then attacked other posters for using them. If you can't stand behind your data, don't introduce it. Please can be have evidence based debate with cited sources? Obviously this is not always possible depending on the topic, but in cases like this thread, it is entirely achievable. Unbelievable
It is the Brexiters that come out with FACTS and Remainers that come out with doom laden projections and ridiculous figures.
You will find the 'uncited statistic' in any news source. The only thing I said was that the figure would be higher by the end of the year"Once again, this appears to be a post truth comment. You started the thread with a figure that you then told various people off for using, in other words, you don't trust your own figures. Throughout this, and other, threads the remainers generally quote cited sources for their facts and projections, you do not. You have shown a total lack of understanding about why people cite sources. You talk about it as if it's all about people being too lazy or incapable of doing their own research, thus showing you don't understand why it's done. This has been explained ad nauseam but you still don't get it. You talk as if only you can do research when it is clear that (a) plenty of us on here can and (b) your own research skills are patently lacking, or at least, you hide them well. Personally, I am always ready to change my views if the evidence shows I should. Naturally, I am human so it will take a while for me to come round, but over the years my views on many things have changed radically as the evidence has shown thar I was mistaken. As regards Brexit, I hope that I will also change my mind because I want Britain to succeed. The evidence, however, is that for Britain to succeed one of the worst things we should do is to leave the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread really sums up the difference between the two sides of the debate. Remainers are interested in the facts, and making sure the source of those facts are cited, verifiable and credible. The Leavers on the other hand either dismiss the facts (see the "whatever" response to my post showing a 28% decrease in FDI) or when they try to use facts, they are unable to provide the sources so their facts can't be verified. The most astounding fact is though that the OP introduced some un-cited statistic in the opening post, and then attacked other posters for using them. If you can't stand behind your data, don't introduce it. Please can be have evidence based debate with cited sources? Obviously this is not always possible depending on the topic, but in cases like this thread, it is entirely achievable. Unbelievable
It is the Brexiters that come out with FACTS and Remainers that come out with doom laden projections and ridiculous figures.
You will find the 'uncited statistic' in any news source. The only thing I said was that the figure would be higher by the end of the year
Once again, this appears to be a post truth comment.
You started the thread with a figure that you then told various people off for using, in other words, you don't trust your own figures.
Throughout this, and other, threads the remainers generally quote cited sources for their facts and projections, you do not.
You have shown a total lack of understanding about why people cite sources. You talk about it as if it's all about people being too lazy or incapable of doing their own research, thus showing you don't understand why it's done. This has been explained ad nauseam but you still don't get it.
You talk as if only you can do research when it is clear that (a) plenty of us on here can and (b) your own research skills are patently lacking, or at least, you hide them well.
Personally, I am always ready to change my views if the evidence shows I should. Naturally, I am human so it will take a while for me to come round, but over the years my views on many things have changed radically as the evidence has shown thar I was mistaken. As regards Brexit, I hope that I will also change my mind because I want Britain to succeed. The evidence, however, is that for Britain to succeed one of the worst things we should do is to leave the EU."what evidence? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread really sums up the difference between the two sides of the debate. Remainers are interested in the facts, and making sure the source of those facts are cited, verifiable and credible. The Leavers on the other hand either dismiss the facts (see the "whatever" response to my post showing a 28% decrease in FDI) or when they try to use facts, they are unable to provide the sources so their facts can't be verified. The most astounding fact is though that the OP introduced some un-cited statistic in the opening post, and then attacked other posters for using them. If you can't stand behind your data, don't introduce it. Please can be have evidence based debate with cited sources? Obviously this is not always possible depending on the topic, but in cases like this thread, it is entirely achievable. " The facts about the institute of directors poll is there for all to see. The evidence is the Guardian newspaper, and many other newspapers who published the story. The Guardian and many other newspapers cite the source of the poll as the institute of directors. It's all laid out for you, but some on this thread just plain refuse to believe what's in front of them. Now I'm used to lefties and Remainers rubbishing links to sky news/The Sun as Murdoch biased, Telegraph/Torygraph biased, Daily Express biased, Daily Mail/Daily Fail biased nonsense, lefties and remainers usually trust the Guardian but this thread shows even the Guardian is not a good enough link to prove a point now.
You ask for evidence, when George Galloway went up before congress in a court of law in America for having links to Saddam Hussain he used stories published in the Telegraph as EVIDENCE to clear his name. If it's good enough in a court of law then why not here?
I can provide a link to the footage of the court room proceedings where George Galloway uses newspapers as EVIDENCE if you like the footage is very easy to find on YouTube. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread really sums up the difference between the two sides of the debate. Remainers are interested in the facts, and making sure the source of those facts are cited, verifiable and credible. The Leavers on the other hand either dismiss the facts (see the "whatever" response to my post showing a 28% decrease in FDI) or when they try to use facts, they are unable to provide the sources so their facts can't be verified. The most astounding fact is though that the OP introduced some un-cited statistic in the opening post, and then attacked other posters for using them. If you can't stand behind your data, don't introduce it. Please can be have evidence based debate with cited sources? Obviously this is not always possible depending on the topic, but in cases like this thread, it is entirely achievable. The facts about the institute of directors poll is there for all to see. The evidence is the Guardian newspaper, and many other newspapers who published the story. The Guardian and many other newspapers cite the source of the poll as the institute of directors. It's all laid out for you, but some on this thread just plain refuse to believe what's in front of them. Now I'm used to lefties and Remainers rubbishing links to sky news/The Sun as Murdoch biased, Telegraph/Torygraph biased, Daily Express biased, Daily Mail/Daily Fail biased nonsense, lefties and remainers usually trust the Guardian but this thread shows even the Guardian is not a good enough link to prove a point now.
You ask for evidence, when George Galloway went up before congress in a court of law in America for having links to Saddam Hussain he used stories published in the Telegraph as EVIDENCE to clear his name. If it's good enough in a court of law then why not here?
I can provide a link to the footage of the court room proceedings where George Galloway uses newspapers as EVIDENCE if you like the footage is very easy to find on YouTube. "You see thats what you don’t understand about Remainers, we don’t just believe something because its printed in the guardian. We check it. Now I will ask you one more time. Please can you provide the PRIMARY source of the data that you are claiming. Not a secondary source like a newspaper report about the primary data, but the actual data itself. As Matt has provided, the IoD themselves state the following: Over the past 4 months have you noticed any impact on your business as a result of the referendum? Yes, the vote had a positive impact - 8% Yes, the vote had a negative impact - 34% No - 58% This is the primary data. Can you provide primary data to support your assertion? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Either way its 66% no impact or positive. Result. " You think its good that 92% of businesses questioned found it had either no impact or a negative impact on their business? This is the great economic miracle of Brexit it?
Again, I don’t know how you can celebrate these figures unless you hate the UK and its economy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread really sums up the difference between the two sides of the debate. Remainers are interested in the facts, and making sure the source of those facts are cited, verifiable and credible. The Leavers on the other hand either dismiss the facts (see the "whatever" response to my post showing a 28% decrease in FDI) or when they try to use facts, they are unable to provide the sources so their facts can't be verified. The most astounding fact is though that the OP introduced some un-cited statistic in the opening post, and then attacked other posters for using them. If you can't stand behind your data, don't introduce it. Please can be have evidence based debate with cited sources? Obviously this is not always possible depending on the topic, but in cases like this thread, it is entirely achievable. The facts about the institute of directors poll is there for all to see. The evidence is the Guardian newspaper, and many other newspapers who published the story. The Guardian and many other newspapers cite the source of the poll as the institute of directors. It's all laid out for you, but some on this thread just plain refuse to believe what's in front of them. Now I'm used to lefties and Remainers rubbishing links to sky news/The Sun as Murdoch biased, Telegraph/Torygraph biased, Daily Express biased, Daily Mail/Daily Fail biased nonsense, lefties and remainers usually trust the Guardian but this thread shows even the Guardian is not a good enough link to prove a point now.
You ask for evidence, when George Galloway went up before congress in a court of law in America for having links to Saddam Hussain he used stories published in the Telegraph as EVIDENCE to clear his name. If it's good enough in a court of law then why not here?
I can provide a link to the footage of the court room proceedings where George Galloway uses newspapers as EVIDENCE if you like the footage is very easy to find on YouTube.
You see thats what you don’t understand about Remainers, we don’t just believe something because its printed in the guardian. We check it.
Now I will ask you one more time. Please can you provide the PRIMARY source of the data that you are claiming. Not a secondary source like a newspaper report about the primary data, but the actual data itself.
As Matt has provided, the IoD themselves state the following:
Over the past 4 months have you noticed any impact on your business as a result of the referendum?
Yes, the vote had a positive impact - 8%
Yes, the vote had a negative impact - 34%
No - 58%
This is the primary data. Can you provide primary data to support your assertion?
"Maybe you need to check the fab forum rules on posting links. The only links allowed as stated by fab are links to well known newspapers, and other well known media outlets such as BBC and sky news, etc. Links to Wikipedia and YouTube are also allowed. Posting links to anything else makes that person liable to getting a forum ban, I'm not about to post a link to the Institute of Directors website, only for you and other petty minded Remainers to report me and get me a forum ban. Nice try but I won't be falling for that one. So the institute of directors poll said 15% of businesses expect to be worse off next year while 60% expect a windfall with higher revenues and increased profitability. It was printed in the Guardian and many other newspapers that the source of the poll was the Institute of Directors. That's the evidence if it's good enough for George Galloway in a court of law then it's good enough for me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Either way its 66% no impact or positive. Result. You think its good that 92% of businesses questioned found it had either no impact or a negative impact on their business? This is the great economic miracle of Brexit it?
Again, I don’t know how you can celebrate these figures unless you hate the UK and its economy."why would it have an impact, we haven't left yet | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread really sums up the difference between the two sides of the debate. Remainers are interested in the facts, and making sure the source of those facts are cited, verifiable and credible. The Leavers on the other hand either dismiss the facts (see the "whatever" response to my post showing a 28% decrease in FDI) or when they try to use facts, they are unable to provide the sources so their facts can't be verified. The most astounding fact is though that the OP introduced some un-cited statistic in the opening post, and then attacked other posters for using them. If you can't stand behind your data, don't introduce it. Please can be have evidence based debate with cited sources? Obviously this is not always possible depending on the topic, but in cases like this thread, it is entirely achievable. The facts about the institute of directors poll is there for all to see. The evidence is the Guardian newspaper, and many other newspapers who published the story. The Guardian and many other newspapers cite the source of the poll as the institute of directors. It's all laid out for you, but some on this thread just plain refuse to believe what's in front of them. Now I'm used to lefties and Remainers rubbishing links to sky news/The Sun as Murdoch biased, Telegraph/Torygraph biased, Daily Express biased, Daily Mail/Daily Fail biased nonsense, lefties and remainers usually trust the Guardian but this thread shows even the Guardian is not a good enough link to prove a point now.
You ask for evidence, when George Galloway went up before congress in a court of law in America for having links to Saddam Hussain he used stories published in the Telegraph as EVIDENCE to clear his name. If it's good enough in a court of law then why not here?
I can provide a link to the footage of the court room proceedings where George Galloway uses newspapers as EVIDENCE if you like the footage is very easy to find on YouTube.
You see thats what you don’t understand about Remainers, we don’t just believe something because its printed in the guardian. We check it.
Now I will ask you one more time. Please can you provide the PRIMARY source of the data that you are claiming. Not a secondary source like a newspaper report about the primary data, but the actual data itself.
As Matt has provided, the IoD themselves state the following:
Over the past 4 months have you noticed any impact on your business as a result of the referendum?
Yes, the vote had a positive impact - 8%
Yes, the vote had a negative impact - 34%
No - 58%
This is the primary data. Can you provide primary data to support your assertion?
Maybe you need to check the fab forum rules on posting links. The only links allowed as stated by fab are links to well known newspapers, and other well known media outlets such as BBC and sky news, etc. Links to Wikipedia and YouTube are also allowed.
Posting links to anything else makes that person liable to getting a forum ban, I'm not about to post a link to the Institute of Directors website, only for you and other petty minded Remainers to report me and get me a forum ban. Nice try but I won't be falling for that one. So the institute of directors poll said 15% of businesses expect to be worse off next year while 60% expect a windfall with higher revenues and increased profitability. It was printed in the Guardian and many other newspapers that the source of the poll was the Institute of Directors. That's the evidence if it's good enough for George Galloway in a court of law then it's good enough for me. "But you couldn't actually find the primary data could you? No one is asking you to break forum rules. Matt and I have been able to provide primary data, why cant you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread really sums up the difference between the two sides of the debate. Remainers are interested in the facts, and making sure the source of those facts are cited, verifiable and credible. The Leavers on the other hand either dismiss the facts (see the "whatever" response to my post showing a 28% decrease in FDI) or when they try to use facts, they are unable to provide the sources so their facts can't be verified. The most astounding fact is though that the OP introduced some un-cited statistic in the opening post, and then attacked other posters for using them. If you can't stand behind your data, don't introduce it. Please can be have evidence based debate with cited sources? Obviously this is not always possible depending on the topic, but in cases like this thread, it is entirely achievable. The facts about the institute of directors poll is there for all to see. The evidence is the Guardian newspaper, and many other newspapers who published the story. The Guardian and many other newspapers cite the source of the poll as the institute of directors. It's all laid out for you, but some on this thread just plain refuse to believe what's in front of them. Now I'm used to lefties and Remainers rubbishing links to sky news/The Sun as Murdoch biased, Telegraph/Torygraph biased, Daily Express biased, Daily Mail/Daily Fail biased nonsense, lefties and remainers usually trust the Guardian but this thread shows even the Guardian is not a good enough link to prove a point now.
You ask for evidence, when George Galloway went up before congress in a court of law in America for having links to Saddam Hussain he used stories published in the Telegraph as EVIDENCE to clear his name. If it's good enough in a court of law then why not here?
I can provide a link to the footage of the court room proceedings where George Galloway uses newspapers as EVIDENCE if you like the footage is very easy to find on YouTube.
You see thats what you don’t understand about Remainers, we don’t just believe something because its printed in the guardian. We check it.
Now I will ask you one more time. Please can you provide the PRIMARY source of the data that you are claiming. Not a secondary source like a newspaper report about the primary data, but the actual data itself.
As Matt has provided, the IoD themselves state the following:
Over the past 4 months have you noticed any impact on your business as a result of the referendum?
Yes, the vote had a positive impact - 8%
Yes, the vote had a negative impact - 34%
No - 58%
This is the primary data. Can you provide primary data to support your assertion?
Maybe you need to check the fab forum rules on posting links. The only links allowed as stated by fab are links to well known newspapers, and other well known media outlets such as BBC and sky news, etc. Links to Wikipedia and YouTube are also allowed.
Posting links to anything else makes that person liable to getting a forum ban, I'm not about to post a link to the Institute of Directors website, only for you and other petty minded Remainers to report me and get me a forum ban. Nice try but I won't be falling for that one. So the institute of directors poll said 15% of businesses expect to be worse off next year while 60% expect a windfall with higher revenues and increased profitability. It was printed in the Guardian and many other newspapers that the source of the poll was the Institute of Directors. That's the evidence if it's good enough for George Galloway in a court of law then it's good enough for me.
But you couldn't actually find the primary data could you?
No one is asking you to break forum rules. Matt and I have been able to provide primary data, why cant you? "The guardian and many other newspapers say the primary data came from the institute of directors. If it's good enough in a court of law to use what newspapers report as evidence then it's good enough for me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread really sums up the difference between the two sides of the debate. Remainers are interested in the facts, and making sure the source of those facts are cited, verifiable and credible. The Leavers on the other hand either dismiss the facts (see the "whatever" response to my post showing a 28% decrease in FDI) or when they try to use facts, they are unable to provide the sources so their facts can't be verified. The most astounding fact is though that the OP introduced some un-cited statistic in the opening post, and then attacked other posters for using them. If you can't stand behind your data, don't introduce it. Please can be have evidence based debate with cited sources? Obviously this is not always possible depending on the topic, but in cases like this thread, it is entirely achievable. The facts about the institute of directors poll is there for all to see. The evidence is the Guardian newspaper, and many other newspapers who published the story. The Guardian and many other newspapers cite the source of the poll as the institute of directors. It's all laid out for you, but some on this thread just plain refuse to believe what's in front of them. Now I'm used to lefties and Remainers rubbishing links to sky news/The Sun as Murdoch biased, Telegraph/Torygraph biased, Daily Express biased, Daily Mail/Daily Fail biased nonsense, lefties and remainers usually trust the Guardian but this thread shows even the Guardian is not a good enough link to prove a point now.
You ask for evidence, when George Galloway went up before congress in a court of law in America for having links to Saddam Hussain he used stories published in the Telegraph as EVIDENCE to clear his name. If it's good enough in a court of law then why not here?
I can provide a link to the footage of the court room proceedings where George Galloway uses newspapers as EVIDENCE if you like the footage is very easy to find on YouTube.
You see thats what you don’t understand about Remainers, we don’t just believe something because its printed in the guardian. We check it.
Now I will ask you one more time. Please can you provide the PRIMARY source of the data that you are claiming. Not a secondary source like a newspaper report about the primary data, but the actual data itself.
As Matt has provided, the IoD themselves state the following:
Over the past 4 months have you noticed any impact on your business as a result of the referendum?
Yes, the vote had a positive impact - 8%
Yes, the vote had a negative impact - 34%
No - 58%
This is the primary data. Can you provide primary data to support your assertion?
Maybe you need to check the fab forum rules on posting links. The only links allowed as stated by fab are links to well known newspapers, and other well known media outlets such as BBC and sky news, etc. Links to Wikipedia and YouTube are also allowed.
Posting links to anything else makes that person liable to getting a forum ban, I'm not about to post a link to the Institute of Directors website, only for you and other petty minded Remainers to report me and get me a forum ban. Nice try but I won't be falling for that one. So the institute of directors poll said 15% of businesses expect to be worse off next year while 60% expect a windfall with higher revenues and increased profitability. It was printed in the Guardian and many other newspapers that the source of the poll was the Institute of Directors. That's the evidence if it's good enough for George Galloway in a court of law then it's good enough for me.
But you couldn't actually find the primary data could you?
No one is asking you to break forum rules. Matt and I have been able to provide primary data, why cant you?
The guardian and many other newspapers say the primary data came from the institute of directors. If it's good enough in a court of law to use what newspapers report as evidence then it's good enough for me. "A court of law? It wouldn't even be accepted in a first year essay for a degree! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The guardian and many other newspapers say the primary data came from the institute of directors. If it's good enough in a court of law to use what newspapers report as evidence then it's good enough for me. " You don't really think that any court sits there when presented with evidence from a newspaper and says "ok, that's fine, we accept it as written" do you? Yes, some newspapers, for example The Times, are papers of record when it comes to reporting court cases. Most aren't. Even then, when reporting other things the court, well, to be accurate, the oposing side, would drill down to find out where the data came from. If you were a lawyer for one side in a case that didn't do that you'd be negligent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread really sums up the difference between the two sides of the debate. Remainers are interested in the facts, and making sure the source of those facts are cited, verifiable and credible. The Leavers on the other hand either dismiss the facts (see the "whatever" response to my post showing a 28% decrease in FDI) or when they try to use facts, they are unable to provide the sources so their facts can't be verified. The most astounding fact is though that the OP introduced some un-cited statistic in the opening post, and then attacked other posters for using them. If you can't stand behind your data, don't introduce it. Please can be have evidence based debate with cited sources? Obviously this is not always possible depending on the topic, but in cases like this thread, it is entirely achievable. The facts about the institute of directors poll is there for all to see. The evidence is the Guardian newspaper, and many other newspapers who published the story. The Guardian and many other newspapers cite the source of the poll as the institute of directors. It's all laid out for you, but some on this thread just plain refuse to believe what's in front of them. Now I'm used to lefties and Remainers rubbishing links to sky news/The Sun as Murdoch biased, Telegraph/Torygraph biased, Daily Express biased, Daily Mail/Daily Fail biased nonsense, lefties and remainers usually trust the Guardian but this thread shows even the Guardian is not a good enough link to prove a point now.
You ask for evidence, when George Galloway went up before congress in a court of law in America for having links to Saddam Hussain he used stories published in the Telegraph as EVIDENCE to clear his name. If it's good enough in a court of law then why not here?
I can provide a link to the footage of the court room proceedings where George Galloway uses newspapers as EVIDENCE if you like the footage is very easy to find on YouTube.
You see thats what you don’t understand about Remainers, we don’t just believe something because its printed in the guardian. We check it.
Now I will ask you one more time. Please can you provide the PRIMARY source of the data that you are claiming. Not a secondary source like a newspaper report about the primary data, but the actual data itself.
As Matt has provided, the IoD themselves state the following:
Over the past 4 months have you noticed any impact on your business as a result of the referendum?
Yes, the vote had a positive impact - 8%
Yes, the vote had a negative impact - 34%
No - 58%
This is the primary data. Can you provide primary data to support your assertion?
Maybe you need to check the fab forum rules on posting links. The only links allowed as stated by fab are links to well known newspapers, and other well known media outlets such as BBC and sky news, etc. Links to Wikipedia and YouTube are also allowed.
Posting links to anything else makes that person liable to getting a forum ban, I'm not about to post a link to the Institute of Directors website, only for you and other petty minded Remainers to report me and get me a forum ban. Nice try but I won't be falling for that one. So the institute of directors poll said 15% of businesses expect to be worse off next year while 60% expect a windfall with higher revenues and increased profitability. It was printed in the Guardian and many other newspapers that the source of the poll was the Institute of Directors. That's the evidence if it's good enough for George Galloway in a court of law then it's good enough for me.
But you couldn't actually find the primary data could you?
No one is asking you to break forum rules. Matt and I have been able to provide primary data, why cant you?
The guardian and many other newspapers say the primary data came from the institute of directors. If it's good enough in a court of law to use what newspapers report as evidence then it's good enough for me.
A court of law? It wouldn't even be accepted in a first year essay for a degree!"Funny then that George Galloway used reports printed in the Telegraph newspaper as evidence in a court of law, and it was George Galloway against the American congress! George Galloway won the case and cleared his name. As I said footage of the court room proceedings are available on YouTube. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posting links to anything else makes that person liable to getting a forum ban, I'm not about to post a link to the Institute of Directors website, only for you and other petty minded Remainers to report me and get me a forum ban. Nice try but I won't be falling for that one." No one's asking you to post a link to anything. We're asking you to cite sources. There are various ways to do this, a common method is Harvard Referencing which may, I do concede, be a little over the top in this forum! But the essence of it is simple, give enough information so that others can check your source and, if they desire, evaluate it. That doesn't need a link. Are you really worried that one of us would report you just to get you banned? Blimey! I, for one, wouldn't, these arguments are far too much fun! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posting links to anything else makes that person liable to getting a forum ban, I'm not about to post a link to the Institute of Directors website, only for you and other petty minded Remainers to report me and get me a forum ban. Nice try but I won't be falling for that one. No one's asking you to post a link to anything. We're asking you to cite sources. There are various ways to do this, a common method is Harvard Referencing which may, I do concede, be a little over the top in this forum! But the essence of it is simple, give enough information so that others can check your source and, if they desire, evaluate it. That doesn't need a link. Are you really worried that one of us would report you just to get you banned? Blimey! I, for one, wouldn't, these arguments are far too much fun! "Already happened in the past when I've had a forum ban for posting links not stated in the forum rules. Won't be happening again. I've already told you the source numerous times. It's THE INSITUTE OF DIRECTORS. The Guardian, The Sun, The Daily express, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph and many other newspapers all printed the exact same thing to back up what I said on this thread. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posting links to anything else makes that person liable to getting a forum ban, I'm not about to post a link to the Institute of Directors website, only for you and other petty minded Remainers to report me and get me a forum ban. Nice try but I won't be falling for that one. No one's asking you to post a link to anything. We're asking you to cite sources. There are various ways to do this, a common method is Harvard Referencing which may, I do concede, be a little over the top in this forum! But the essence of it is simple, give enough information so that others can check your source and, if they desire, evaluate it. That doesn't need a link. Are you really worried that one of us would report you just to get you banned? Blimey! I, for one, wouldn't, these arguments are far too much fun! "Its happened before. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posting links to anything else makes that person liable to getting a forum ban, I'm not about to post a link to the Institute of Directors website, only for you and other petty minded Remainers to report me and get me a forum ban. Nice try but I won't be falling for that one. No one's asking you to post a link to anything. We're asking you to cite sources. There are various ways to do this, a common method is Harvard Referencing which may, I do concede, be a little over the top in this forum! But the essence of it is simple, give enough information so that others can check your source and, if they desire, evaluate it. That doesn't need a link. Are you really worried that one of us would report you just to get you banned? Blimey! I, for one, wouldn't, these arguments are far too much fun!
Already happened in the past when I've had a forum ban for posting links not stated in the forum rules. Won't be happening again. I've already told you the source numerous times. It's THE INSITUTE OF DIRECTORS. The Guardian, The Sun, The Daily express, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph and many other newspapers all printed the exact same thing to back up what I said on this thread. "You don't get it! Primary source (IoD), secondary source (newspapers), tertiary source (you saying you read it in the paper) Primary is best, secondary is less reliable, tertiary even less reliable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Funny then that George Galloway used reports printed in the Telegraph newspaper as evidence in a court of law, and it was George Galloway against the American congress! George Galloway won the case and cleared his name. As I said footage of the court room proceedings are available on YouTube. " Citing The Guardian, 17/5/2005, web version: Firstly, this isn't a court of law. It is a US Senate subcommittee. Do we know what the rules of evidence are in these? I don't. Secondly, Galloway is quoting The Telegraph to show that certain false documents were being circulated in certain right wing newspapers. So quoting The Telegraph as evidence of this is entirely appropriate. He is, you will note, not quoting The Telegraph as a source of accurate information, he is quoting it as a source of false information that he successfully sued about. I am sure that you will agree that this is all very different from quoting a newspaper as evidence for something else in a court. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Posting links to anything else makes that person liable to getting a forum ban, I'm not about to post a link to the Institute of Directors website, only for you and other petty minded Remainers to report me and get me a forum ban. Nice try but I won't be falling for that one. No one's asking you to post a link to anything. We're asking you to cite sources. There are various ways to do this, a common method is Harvard Referencing which may, I do concede, be a little over the top in this forum! But the essence of it is simple, give enough information so that others can check your source and, if they desire, evaluate it. That doesn't need a link. Are you really worried that one of us would report you just to get you banned? Blimey! I, for one, wouldn't, these arguments are far too much fun!
Already happened in the past when I've had a forum ban for posting links not stated in the forum rules. Won't be happening again. I've already told you the source numerous times. It's THE INSITUTE OF DIRECTORS. The Guardian, The Sun, The Daily express, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph and many other newspapers all printed the exact same thing to back up what I said on this thread.
You don't get it! Primary source (IoD), secondary source (newspapers), tertiary source (you saying you read it in the paper)
Primary is best, secondary is less reliable, tertiary even less reliable."FFS the primary source is The institite of directors. The secondary source is the newspapers who reported the poll. The third source is me telling you about the primary source and the secondary source. Newsflash that is how communication works. How the fuck else do you expect information to be relayed and communicated to other people if not by that method???? This thread is an example of post truth where you refuse to accept the facts based on the evidence put before you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"FFS the primary source is The institite of directors. The secondary source is the newspapers who reported the poll. The third source is me telling you about the primary source and the secondary source. Newsflash that is how communication works. How the fuck else do you expect information to be relayed and communicated to other people if not by that method???? This thread is an example of post truth where you refuse to accept the facts based on the evidence put before you. " No, it's not. As I am sure your aware (see above), Matt has looked for the information on the IoD website as a primary source and can't find it. This is, however, about evaluation of sources. You clearly, along with others on here, choose to accept what is written in newspapers as true. For myself, and others, we understand that much of what is written in newspapers may not have such a level of veracity. If this was not the case Prince Philip would be serving a life sentence for organising the killing of Princess Diana (see Daily Express ad infinitum) for example. So, what do we do, we evaluate the source of information. We don't get wild and upset about it, we go looking for the data so that we can see if it is true. Tell me, seriously, can you find fault in that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"looking at the Galloway v Telegraph group case in the UK (25 Jan 2006), the case seems to revolve around documents found after the fall of Baghdad about the sale of oil between Iraq and Galloway. The telegraph published an article, and the primary source material (the documents). Galloway argued that what the paper wrote, was not supported by the primary source material, and won. So referencing Galloway v Telegraph actually shows the importance of looking at primary source material! The complete opposite of what you are arguing Centaur! "Well i've just watched the full 49 minutes of preceedings of George Galloway vs the US senate on Youtube (hence the long delay in reply). I had watched it many, many years ago, and thought is was the US congress from memory, but it was in fact against the US Senate subcomittee. It was not a court of law but George Gallowy did have to swear an oath that he would tell the truth before preceedings began. Now, what you say is correct George Galloway did fight a case against the Telegraph for liable which Mr Galloway won, and this was brought up in the proceedings during the Galloway vs US Senate footage. However you conveniently forgot to add the following.....during the proceedings Galloway uses the Daily Telegraph as evidence in proving that US senate accusations against Galloway deal with the point in time during 1992-93 were false, and that the point in time the US Senate accusations relate to was from 2001 (as reported in the Telegrpah). So as i said George Galloway uses the Daily Telegraph as evidence to support his case in that regard. Going back to the Galloway vs Telegraph case for liable Galloway states that the Telegraph and other "right wing" publications printed false stories against him. The Guardian newspaper who printed the Institute of Directors poll i cited cannot be considered a "right wing" publication by any stretch of the imagination. Later during the proceedings of Galloway vs the US senate, George Galloway again uses the Telegraph as evidence to back up his story with regard to one Mr Zureicat, who it is claimed was having corrupt dealings with Saddam Hussain and then Mr Zureicat was paying donations from those dealings to George Galloway's Miriam appeal charity. Mr Galloway used the Telegraph as evidence in that he did not know of any corrupt dealings between Saddam Hussain and Mr Zureicat until he read about it in the Daily Telegraph. So again like i said the Telegraph was used as evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"FFS the primary source is The institite of directors. The secondary source is the newspapers who reported the poll. The third source is me telling you about the primary source and the secondary source. Newsflash that is how communication works. How the fuck else do you expect information to be relayed and communicated to other people if not by that method???? This thread is an example of post truth where you refuse to accept the facts based on the evidence put before you. No, it's not. As I am sure your aware (see above), Matt has looked for the information on the IoD website as a primary source and can't find it. This is, however, about evaluation of sources. You clearly, along with others on here, choose to accept what is written in newspapers as true. For myself, and others, we understand that much of what is written in newspapers may not have such a level of veracity. If this was not the case Prince Philip would be serving a life sentence for organising the killing of Princess Diana (see Daily Express ad infinitum) for example. So, what do we do, we evaluate the source of information. We don't get wild and upset about it, we go looking for the data so that we can see if it is true. Tell me, seriously, can you find fault in that? " Nobody is getting wild and upset about anything, unless you are saying you are? Just because Matt can't find it on the Institute of Directors website doesn't mean its not there or it came from a different form of communication via the Institute of Directors. The Guardian and many other newspapers obviously sourced it from somewhere or someone at the Institute Of Directors and that's why they reported and printed the story. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nobody is getting wild and upset about anything, unless you are saying you are?" It's looking pretty bonkers on the Putin thread! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Could the weak pound and not the prospect of leaving be responsible?
It has helped I'm sure. And the problem with that is?"The problem with that is we import more than we export | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Could the weak pound and not the prospect of leaving be responsible?
It has helped I'm sure. And the problem with that is?
The problem with that is we import more than we export "well now we can redress the balance a bit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Could the weak pound and not the prospect of leaving be responsible?
It has helped I'm sure. And the problem with that is?
The problem with that is we import more than we export
well now we can redress the balance a bit"Not without access to the single market as a full partner. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Could the weak pound and not the prospect of leaving be responsible?
It has helped I'm sure. And the problem with that is?
The problem with that is we import more than we export
well now we can redress the balance a bit
Not without access to the single market as a full partner. "What does that have to do with it? We're leaving the single market anyway, which is a good thing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Could the weak pound and not the prospect of leaving be responsible?
It has helped I'm sure. And the problem with that is?
The problem with that is we import more than we export
well now we can redress the balance a bit
Not without access to the single market as a full partner.
What does that have to do with it? We're leaving the single market anyway, which is a good thing"Oh dear. Another post truth addict. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Could the weak pound and not the prospect of leaving be responsible?
It has helped I'm sure. And the problem with that is?
The problem with that is we import more than we export
well now we can redress the balance a bit"We will NEVER change that..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Could the weak pound and not the prospect of leaving be responsible?
It has helped I'm sure. And the problem with that is?
The problem with that is we import more than we export
well now we can redress the balance a bit
Not without access to the single market as a full partner. "And with no idea of what we're about to export that we don't already. Or are we going to reduce imports? Bugger, I'm very partial to coffee! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Could the weak pound and not the prospect of leaving be responsible?
It has helped I'm sure. And the problem with that is?
The problem with that is we import more than we export
well now we can redress the balance a bit
Not without access to the single market as a full partner.
And with no idea of what we're about to export that we don't already. Or are we going to reduce imports? Bugger, I'm very partial to coffee!"You traitorous git. Why don't you drink something a bit more patriotic like a nice cup of Bovril. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Could the weak pound and not the prospect of leaving be responsible?
It has helped I'm sure. And the problem with that is?
The problem with that is we import more than we export
well now we can redress the balance a bit
Not without access to the single market as a full partner.
And with no idea of what we're about to export that we don't already. Or are we going to reduce imports? Bugger, I'm very partial to coffee!
You traitorous git. Why don't you drink something a bit more patriotic like a nice cup of Bovril. "Sorry Sir! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The prospect of Brexit has encouraged £16.3 billion worth of foreign investment into UK businesses new figures reveal. The good news just keeps coming
and we aint even left yet
Could the weak pound and not the prospect of leaving be responsible?
It has helped I'm sure. And the problem with that is?
The problem with that is we import more than we export
well now we can redress the balance a bit
Not without access to the single market as a full partner.
And with no idea of what we're about to export that we don't already. Or are we going to reduce imports? Bugger, I'm very partial to coffee!
You traitorous git. Why don't you drink something a bit more patriotic like a nice cup of Bovril. "Although that's probably made with Argentinian or Brazillian beef! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Imports are booming, a record amount of Californian Wine and dried fruit was imported into the UK in 2016, same goes for coffee. " But hasn't the value of the pound made everything so expensive to the point that we can't afford to buy anything from abroad? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Imports are booming, a record amount of Californian Wine and dried fruit was imported into the UK in 2016, same goes for coffee. But hasn't the value of the pound made everything so expensive to the point that we can't afford to buy anything from abroad?" Being a tad inflammatory this evening?
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Imports are booming, a record amount of Californian Wine and dried fruit was imported into the UK in 2016, same goes for coffee. But hasn't the value of the pound made everything so expensive to the point that we can't afford to buy anything from abroad?" Wholesale prices are slowly rising, and will rise significantly during 2017 if the dollar remains this strong ahgaonst the pound......most wholesalers kept prices down before Christmas but that can't carry on for much longer, it all depends when orders were placed and paid for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
