"Brimstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
JB said:
"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > JB wrote: >>> >>> They realise its wrong: >>> >>> 80% think it is not acceptable to speed >>> 90% think it is fairly or very dangerous to drive at 40mph in a >>> 30mph limit >>> (DfT survey) >>> >> >> >> These are the people who famously included in the "death by >> speeding" statistics someone who had a heart attack at the wheel >> whilst driving on a motorway, on the basis that if he'd been going >> more slowly he wouldn't have crashed post-mortem! >> >> Police, government and "safety partnership" statistics on speeding >> have been widely discredited. > > So whose statistics are credible for you?
I've no idea. It used to be that government information wasn't "spun" but it seems those days are long gone.
If you believe that you'll believe anything!!!
Never watched "Yes Minister"? Admittedly a bit OTT as it was being played for comedic effect, but the essence is correct as William Hague found when interviewing former and serving Ministers.
Good point but I always remember the way budget information used to be published versus the way it's published today.
That's merely a question of timing, it also provides an opportunity for concerned people to raise those concerns with the appropriate body. Unlike the previous system where it was simply presented as a fait accompli.
"Brimstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
JB wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> > I've no idea. It used to be that government information wasn't > "spun" but it seems those days are long gone.
If you believe that you'll believe anything!!!
Never watched "Yes Minister"? Admittedly a bit OTT as it was being played for comedic effect, but the essence is correct as William Hague found when interviewing former and serving Ministers.
Good point but I always remember the way budget information used to be published versus the way it's published today.
That's merely a question of timing, it also provides an opportunity for concerned people to raise those concerns with the appropriate body. Unlike the previous system where it was simply presented as a fait accompli.
Timing but more presentation. In the '70's the Chancellor would plainly say "child benefit will be increased by 30p", now-a-days he'll stand up there and say "We've eradicated child poverty in Britain".
"Brimstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
JB wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>> >> I've no idea. It used to be that government information wasn't >> "spun" but it seems those days are long gone. > > If you believe that you'll believe anything!!! > > Never watched "Yes Minister"? Admittedly a bit OTT as it was being > played for comedic effect, but the essence is correct as William > Hague found when interviewing former and serving Ministers. > >
Good point but I always remember the way budget information used to be published versus the way it's published today.
That's merely a question of timing, it also provides an opportunity for concerned people to raise those concerns with the appropriate body. Unlike the previous system where it was simply presented as a fait accompli.
Timing but more presentation. In the '70's the Chancellor would plainly say "child benefit will be increased by 30p", now-a-days he'll stand up there and say "We've eradicated child poverty in Britain".
Sure, but excesses of [censored] aren't confined to politicians. It's a malaise that afflicts most of modern society, look at any report, sales literature or any other compasratively ephemeral literature. Why use one word when twenty will do?
Sure, but excesses of [censored] aren't confined to politicians. It's a malaise that afflicts most of modern society, look at any report, sales literature or any other compasratively ephemeral literature. Why use one word when twenty will do?
I blame Dulux and Daz. Was a time when our walls and our wash was just white. Now it has to be new super duper extra brilliant whiter than white white now with added whiteness.
-- Tony ;-)
"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves" -W.S. Churchill
Timing but more presentation. In the '70's the Chancellor would plainly say "child benefit will be increased by 30p", now-a-days he'll stand up there and say "We've eradicated child poverty in Britain".
ISTM today's favourite spin-mantra is "Helping the poorest".
It doesn't matter if he's totally shafted all the hard working families and individuals, and pensioners, (not to mention students !) in the country just as long as he can say he's doing it because he's "Helping the poorest".
You seem to have been following a different election from the one that just happened here. All I heard from the two biggest parties was how keen they were to help honest hard-working families.
Sounded to me like honest hard-working single people were in for a hammering either way. Nothing new there, of course.
