The Good News Only - thread...

[BoldonLad]

Sorry to rain on your parade but the ''research'' is done by an organisation that ''The Sheila McKechnie Foundation unleashes civil society’s capacity to create profound, long-term change. We call this capacity social power, and believe it is just as important as political and economic power. '' so it research really says nothing at all. It's a bit the same as Ukip researching Uk, Farage researching farage, a butcher researching it's own meat. But don't ever claim it's the voice of the poeple, because it's lies more lies and statistics nothing more.

Indeed 118 respondents, very (not) a majority of the population.

 

[mudsticks]

Sorry to rain on your parade but the ''research'' is done by an organisation that ''The Sheila McKechnie Foundation unleashes civil society’s capacity to create profound, long-term change. We call this capacity social power, and believe it is just as important as political and economic power. '' so it research really says nothing at all. It's a bit the same as Ukip researching Uk, Farage researching farage, a butcher researching it's own meat. But don't ever claim it's the voice of the poeple, because it's lies more lies and statistics nothing more.

Sorry, but I don't believe you're in the least bit 'sorry'.

The research does say something about social attitudes, if you bother to read the article .

It doesn't 'say nothing at all'
Although I know you'd like to believe that.

Even the fact that RNLI donations went up, after Garage spouted his usual garbage, says something, all by itself.



But meanwhile, best look out behind you..

You're being 'shadowed'

 

[winjim]

It's not exactly hidden knowledge available only to those few who can correctly decipher the codex. It's right there in the headline. 'Campaigners say...'

 

[Rusty Nails]

Indeed 118 respondents, very (not) a majority of the population.

That is because it was not meant to be a sample of the population.
It was a survey of charities/campaigning organisations, not the public.
Those organisation said that, after having cases of breaching charity laws brought by Tory MPs rejected by the Charities Commission there has been increased support for the actions by those campaigners and increased support from the public.

 

[winjim]

Critical reading skills at the ready, people. Honestly...

 

[BoldonLad]

That is because it was not meant to be a sample of the population.
It was a survey of charities/campaigning organisations, not the public.
Those organisation said that, after having cases of breaching charity laws brought by Tory MPs rejected by the Charities Commission there has been increased support for the actions by those campaigners and increased support from the public.

I did read the article thank you. You may well be correct, but, why use the term “public opinion” if it is referring to Charities only? Even if it is only referring to Charities, it is a pretty small sample, there are thousands of registered Charities.

 

[newfhouse]

Even if it is only referring to Charities, it is a pretty small sample, there are thousands of registered Charities.

Do you know how big the sample should be for the survey to be useful, or are you just guessing?

 

[mudsticks]

Do you know how big the sample should be for the survey to be useful, or are you just guessing?

It's funny

Us 'lefties' often get accused of giving 'The Great British Public' a bad rep',..

Try and post something that puts a bit more of a positive slant on general attitudes.

Nope that's wrong too ...

Ah well, there's no winning right ??

 

[BoldonLad]

Do you know how big the sample should be for the survey to be useful, or are you just guessing?

No and yes.

How reliable is the typical survey?

I don’t personally have a problem if the results are accurate, but, they don’t match up with the views of my circle of acquaintances.

Which makes me doubt their accuracy, or, think, perhaps, I need more upmarket drinking venues.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Sorry, but I don't believe you're in the least bit 'sorry'.

I find this kind of abusive assuming that i'm out to get you..

The research does say something about social attitudes, if you bother to read the article .

It says nothing because it's not impartial, end off, they lied it should have been called ''press release/propaganda etc.''

It doesn't 'say nothing at all'
Although I know you'd like to believe that.

If you present something as a research but it actually isn't you say nothing at all worse you risk your credibility..

Even the fact that RNLI donations went up, after Garage spouted his usual garbage, says something, all by itself.

It is a good cause so good for them the donations went up but that on itself says not so much, i can(can but doesn't neccasery have to) say something if there is usually not such a peak of they come in the news for whatever other reason.

But meanwhile, best look out behind you..

You're being 'shadowed'

What is this supposed to mean?

Do you know how big the sample should be for the survey to be useful, or are you just guessing?

Don't pretend to be stupid, to translate it in your language, if the Tories do the same, release an research that say Boris is the best PM ever conducted by an organization that seeks to ''promote the tory mindset'' with only 118 respondents you would be all over here to blast them. (seperate from te fact how unrealistic it sounds)

 

[Rusty Nails]

I did read the article thank you. You may well be correct, but, why use the term “public opinion” if it is referring to Charities only? Even if it is only referring to Charities, it is a pretty small sample, there are thousands of registered Charities.

Yes, I may well be correct.

The newspaper report did not say it was a survey of public opinion. It referred to organisations reporting increased public support, and that they believed politicians were out of touch with public opinion.

You would have to dig further to see the criteria used for choosing the charities before deciding if it is a statistically significant sample, but I doubt they covered every type of registered charity as these range from very small one or two person charities e.g. raising funds for a specific purpose, through to major charitable organisations. Once you know the population they were sampling only then can you say whether it is an appropriately sized or "pretty small sample" in terms of statistical significance.

 

[Rusty Nails]

No and yes.

How reliable is the typical survey?

I don’t personally have a problem if the results are accurate, but, they don’t match up with the views of my circle of acquaintances.

Which makes me doubt their accuracy, or, think, perhaps, I need more upmarket drinking venues.

And of course your chats with acquaintances down the pub is a much more statistically reliable source for accurately representing the views of 70 million people.

I have found through bitter experience that when in a hole it is usually more sensible to stop digging.

 

[newfhouse]

Don't pretend to be stupid

Ask a dumb question, sometimes get a revealing answer.

end off

I can’t argue with that.

 

[newfhouse]

I don’t personally have a problem if the results are accurate, but, they don’t match up with the views of my circle of acquaintances.

Which makes me doubt their accuracy, or, think, perhaps, I need more upmarket drinking venues.

Have you considered upgrading your friends? They sound frightful.

 

[BoldonLad]

And of course your chats with acquaintances down the pub is a much more statistically reliable source for accurately representing the views of 70 million people.

I have found through bitter experience that when in a hole it is usually more sensible to stop digging.

All advice greatfully received, but, elsewhere in this forum, a sample size of two merits a view. Funny old life, isn’t it?