Charl91

Enlighten me then, what are you saying? Because I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. You jumped in defense of Thracians post where he says Leicester is "not as safe is it used to be"; unless he's referring to last year, and last year only (and granted, that's open to interpretation), then it's a patently incorrect assertion. You also then keep saying that you're aware that correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but then proceed regardless with your line about immigrants potentially causing the increase in comment. You're right that it is "feasible" that immigrants could possibly have caused this increase in crime this year (after having dropped for many previous years..), but no more feasible than hundreds of other possibilities. So why focus on that one possibility? When speculating on such things, it's usually good to have some form of evidence, rather than saying "well, it could be the case, because it fits with my own view on immigration...".

Because Leicester have barely taken any refugees, so the likelihood that they're causing the reported crimes on a "daily basis" is relatively slim? Because it's normally nice to have evidence before making baseless assertions that demonise immigrants? The Brexit vote didn't happen 'til 2016. I guess that must be what caused the rise in violent crime! Or maybe it correlates with a rise in Labour supporters? Or an increase in the number of Leicester City fans? The dropped value of the pound? The decrease in the number of people buying custard creams? You can make whatever connections you like, if you try hard enough. It's always interesting to see the mental gymnastics that people undertake to come up with theories that fit with their own world view.

Why, are Syrian/Calais immigrants causing violent crime that appears on a daily basis in the Leicester Mercury?

Taken from the ONS Even if we take it at face value, and accept that there has been a rise in violent crime this year, I'm sure Thracian's reminiscence of the much safer bygone days was not in reference to 2015.

Ahh right. So it all comes down to a dash of 'rose-tinted-nostalgia-glasses', with an added measure of 'confirmation bias'. Fair enough then, I suppose conjecture and anecdotal evidence trumps real facts and statistics. (Also, I presume that the police still 'record' the crime, even if they don't necessarily have the resources to deal with it. I don't think lack of resources prevents them from doing that).

What leads you to suggest that? Crime rates tend to fall on a yearly basis.

Employment statistics depends on how they measure "employment". One of the two main ways it is measured is through job seekers allowance. As it has been made much more difficult to claim JSA, this makes it appear as though there are more people "in work", and pads out the employment statistics. There is a lot of data to suggest this is the case. Another point is people being "in work" doesn't give you an idea of how many hours they are in work. The fall in the average weekly salary suggest that there are many more people unable to get full time work. Lastly, we were in the midst of a financial crisis during that point. So yes, employment would've been worse off any way. The fact that it puts the NHS in (2017) terms, but not many of the others should also give a big clue to the biased nature of the statistics. There are also many flaws in presenting the NHS data (as well as the other statistics) in the way that they have, but I have a ton of work that needs doing, so I may save that, and some of the other points, for later

Pot, meet Kettle.

Do you actually need to ask? I can give you some hints if you need though. Have all these statistics accounted for inflation, the rise in population, or the fall in the average wage? It's a nice handful of cherry picked statistics, framed in dubious ways (to make many appear better than suggested) also posted without context in order to suggest that the Tories have done a better job than they actually have done. I'm sure I could also take many terribly biased pro-labour posts (which also often hand pick nice-looking statistics) to show how terrible the Tories have done, at which point you'd shoot them down immediately. It's amazing how your cognitive skills seem to fall by the wayside when it comes to analysing pro-conservative statistics. Funny that. Really?? You do realise that I actually acknowledge that I was posting misleading statistics, right? That was rather the point, which I think has slightly wooshed over your head. Subtlety really is lost on some on this forum.

Yes. The statistics are misleading without context. That's rather the point.

Great, if we're going to play the misleading statistics game... Debt Labour (2010): £ 1,000 bn Conservative £1,700 bn Debt to GDP Ratio Labour (2010): 76% Conservatives: About 90%

Now I know you're just unrealistically optimistic.

But not equally. They'll be a little worse off. We'll be fvcked. And it may actually benefit them to set an example, to ensure the future of the rest of the EU.

What's with the Jimmy Saville singing?

Exactly. It's the worst.

In a primary school. It's bloody awful when it's like this.

I think I'm in love.

Would've*

Yeah, he's actually fairly good. At worst, he's good enough for a back up CB, and possibly good enough to be a starter in the long run (would need to see him play some more still). Pros Seems a lot more calm and composed on the ball than our other CB's. Passing is 'generally' better than our other CB's, and willing to be a bit more ambitious with it. His tackling is generally spot on Faster than Huth (and probably Morgan) He seems a pretty cool guy Not afraid to get "aggressive" Goes on crazy runs. Cons He gets bullied in the air by big guys more than the other two Less likely to score at corners Occasionally get pulled waaay out of position chasing the ball. Ambitious passing doesn't always come off... Not afraid to get "aggressive" Goes on crazy, entertaining runs. Overall though, I'm convinced that he's at least Premier League standard, which is reassuring. He seems a much better choice if we're trying to play a higher line, though I'd probably still have a Huth/Morgan combo if we're sitting back.

Gray isn't Schlupp. Gray can dribble past people, for a start.

Have to agree with this. Seems to be great at nipping in and winning the ball of people, but also seems to get bullied a little in the air. Think we just have to be smart about which CB's we play against which opponents. God knows some of them could do with a rest on occasions anyway.

Pretty sure that was it!!

I always go the wrong way when that happens, but I can understand why people do it. I remember being in the wrong lane, trying to come back from Birminham. It added 15 miles to my journey. I finally got back to my original point, and ended up doing the same bloody thing again!

He seems to win the ball back with ease. Also much more assured on the ball than our regular CB's, which helps massively. Still has the odd error in him, but he's done pretty well so far.