Discussion in 'Just Talk' started by WillyEckerslike, Aug 18, 2018.
Some are drawn to the teaching profession for nefarious reasons, as is, chip's to theatrics.
Typo by me. Actual figures are 4 in 100 households in 2017 and 20 in 100 in 1993.
Which is a drop of 80%
This is the actual report from the Office of National Statistics.
In the survey year ending March 2017, around 4 in 100 vehicle-owning households had been victims of vehicle-related theft. This compares with around 20 in 100 vehicle-owning households in the year ending December 1993, meaning that the likelihood of vehicle-owning households being a victim of vehicle-related theft fell by around 80% compared with 1993.
Well, we've all done it.
'Likelihood' can be rather miss leading though.
It's certainly true in what it implies, as in likelihood, but it's a rather poor indication of actual crime rates.
Imagine your a fish, now if you swim alone there's a good chance that you'll be eaten by a predator on day one.
There's a limited number of predators, but..
The predator will strike once a day, every day.
You join a shoal of fish consisting of a hundred members and the likelihood of being dinner drops to 1/100 in any given day.
Join a shoal of a thousand members and that gives you an even better success rate that you won't be the victim.
I'm not saying the figures are wrong in what they specifically describe, but you really should understand the massaging techniques and the use of language they use whilst compiling them.
It's all a bit smoke and mirrors, as is explained in the footnotes, that very few bother to read.
Do you want to elaborate sweetie?
Bordering on libel that.
HA called me a bumchum and filly insists I can't be British. It's their problem not mine.
On a good note longs is showing signs of humanity.
Thank gawd for that, had it been libellous, he could have been prosecuted, maybe even banned like DA and Chips are on a regular basis, bordering on, nowt wrong with that.
I can't believe screwfix peter hasn't looked deeper into some of your nasty insults. I'm not going to report you, but you will be joining DA soon, you can't help yourself.
I pushed through town in the Vivaro the other day at 28mph in a 30 mph area, bordering on speeding that was.
"A bunch of angry old men railing about how bad life is nowadays and how they get no respect, you don't deserve any respect you whinging little orifices.
With apologies to Willy, your thread has been hijacked by the proffesionally disgruntled, small minded bigots that infest this forum spreading their gloom like smog on a sunny day. "
I'll leave it to Peter to look up your description of 'circle jerking' and your application of the term. Not nice mate, and deffo not within the spirit of the terms and conditions of the forum. That was always DA's problem, didn't know where to stop and then had the audacity to blame everyone who had a political view opposed to him for his banning, no doubt you'll soon be joining him, you just cant help yourself.
Thats very different to a direct accusation of "nefarious reasons" for being involved in theatrics.
Everyone knows what is being insinuated and its an appalling thing to say.
Sadly there is a deeply unpleasant group on here intent pretty much only on causing trouble and creating a poisonous atmosphere.
Some of the behaviour from some falls squarely into the stalker category. Following people around on the forum intent on injecting their poison into every conversation.
That wasn't an insult, it was an accurate description.
Circle jerking is a group of posters all congratulating each other on how great they all are, again an accurate description.
I agree 100%, fortunately I suspect one may already be on another ban, one more to follow shortly.
Are you referring to HA?
Garbage, only people who should be getting banned are those making a direct personal accusation of a deeply unpleasant nature. Or those justifying that baseless allegation.
Nah, he is as always attempting to deflect the fact that he chooses to be be mates with someone who thinks it a bit of fun to accuse people of pretty much the most unpleasant offence possible.
I don't find been accused of being gay as offensive, I wish I was as cultured and tasteful as some of my gay mates.
So, who's banned? and who's not banned? lets put it another way, who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?
Separate names with a comma.