Because they can't handle being asked a tricky question. Their only response to challenge is to say "you work for the fake news media" and to refuse to answer.
The orange one refused to answer a question from an NBC reporter the other day because “you are so discredited”.
The more data that comes out, the more horrifying things look: £7.5 Billion Migrant Universal Credit £3.5 Billion Migrant Public Services £6.6 Billion Asylum Hotels The cut in winter fuel allowance for pensioners supposedly saved £1.5 Billion. Why do the government hate the taxpaying public so much?
Could you provide a link for your data? Otherwise I'll do the same: £7.50 Migrant Universal Credit £3.50 Migrant Public Services £6.60 Asylum Hotels EDIT: Now I've written it on 'modern media' it must be true
All you have to do is look on the gov website and you’ll see them all. They are harrowing More examples: A 1% tax on billionaires would barely cover these costs. The solutions often touted on here are just completely unrealistic. We have to slash spending
Also, if those are the figures, what are the alternatives? Slag Labour off all you like but they have got the ball rolling and are processing applications. The Tories had stopped. 47% of claimants are being rejected - but then appealing. What are we supposed to do? Go down the American route of ignoring due process and the rule of law? The same people saying “Save the Syrian Christians” are also saying “**** the Syrian Muslims”. What a world!
This is very misleading data. Would be good to see totals rather than per capita. Is the UK data the whole population? Children? OAPs? I said before, you cannot slap down data and not analyse it.
This bombshell report from the treasury also reveals just how much is being spent Also, not only is the supply of new housing nowhere near enough, a large unspecified proportion of new builds will be used to house these illegals. Suicidal empathy.
I agree. This once again is sensational BS. I will go to the government website later and extract meaningful balanced data.
*Asylum seekers are not illegals. They are documented and we know they are here. Just thought I’d point that out.
It isn’t suicidal empathy. If is the rule of law we signed up to. And we made this mess ourselves. These people didn’t choose to have their homelands destroyed by an ISIS we allowed to exist.
Also you said it is on the government website. This ‘Centre for Migration Control’ isn’t the government but a private company! Os please fact check and don’t claim your stats are from other sources to try to legitimise them! Edit: the founder of this ‘think tank’ was actually a reform candidate
From grok (it’s so easy these days): The Centre for Migration Control (CMC) is a UK-based think tank focused on advocating for stricter immigration policies. It describes itself as an organization “committed to controlling and dramatically reducing migration to Britain.” The CMC aims to influence public policy by highlighting what it perceives as the negative consequences of mass migration, such as economic costs, pressure on public services, and social impacts. It conducts research, publishes reports, and provides data to support its stance, often emphasizing the need for tighter border controls and reduced immigration levels. The organization operates as the trading name of Athelney Campaigns Ltd, a private limited company incorporated in March 2024. Its research director, Robert Bates, is the primary figure associated with the group, authoring its reports and representing it in media appearances. The CMC’s work has been cited by outlets like The Telegraph, The Daily Express, and GB News, though its findings and motives have faced scrutiny for potential bias and selective use of data. Critics, including some posts on X and articles from sources like Byline Times, have suggested it may be linked to broader anti-immigration networks, though concrete evidence of its funding or affiliations remains limited. Based in London, with a correspondence address at 55 B Rosenau Road, SW11 4QX, the CMC does not publicly disclose detailed information about its staff, funding, or operational structure beyond Bates. Its activities include polling, Freedom of Information requests, and commentary on migration trends, such as the economic inactivity of non-UK nationals or the impact of foreign students on universities. While it presents itself as a research-driven entity, its explicit goal of reducing migration distinguishes it from neutral academic or governmental bodies like the Office for National Statistics or the Migration Observatory.
So what? It's perfectly possible the source of the raw data is the government while the analysis has been done by a third party. That's absolutely normal.
Well why not provide the original data? But the important point is the way data is presented needs to transparent. This data may well compare apples with oranges. What is the comparable data by age and class? Are Iraqis more likely to claim benefits than other men aged 19-25? You can take any data set and present it to prove a point. Knowing the data comes from a group with an agenda influences how we respond to it, so saying this is government data makes it misleading.
As Loading said, why not actually use the raw figures from the real source? Os is posting to as he sees it 'a radical left wing, communist' board (lol that in itself is ridiculous) and knows his claims will get scrutinised. So why give us commies the chance to debunk it? Also his new source is pretty dubious but I am not going to go on as I can see what has happened. You will always have what he said subconsciously in your mind even when more reliable facts come out - a true Twitter trait. Put **** out there, and mud sticks even is if is twisted. EDIT: if it was from the source he originally implied/cited, I would be more likely also to take note, even if I thought it was a subset of data. I would at least investigate further. Seeing the source and the history of the source, I just ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and move on with my day and take it as more Os sensational BS).
I've had to interpret or analyse government data myself in the past so I can tell you it's probably not practical to publish the raw data. There's a good chance the original data is contained in multiple spreadsheets and/or pages and pages of tables and numbers which someone has had to take time to interpret and present. In the "benefit claims per 1000 population" case I highly doubt the government has published this specific information. I think it's likely the government has published data on the breakdown of the UK population by nationality, including a breakdown by region. Presumably there's also separate data (perhaps only provided as a result of an FOI request) on the total number of benefit claims by nationality. Someone will then have used those separate data sets to do some calculations.
It isn't though. If the UK Gov is the source, you are most likely to be a benefit claimant if you are white british. Source: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures...y-and-benefits/benefits/state-support/latest/
