Migrants putting 'billions on council tax'
By STEVE DOUGHTY

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/liv ... ge_id=1770

the reason for those confusing figures is that the Mail use patented calculators which have a special 'immigrant key' which instantly multiplies any number by 10.

Family life worse than ever believe 70% of Britons

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

What is actually says is



the facts are

This is another of those situations where everyone believes they're alright but everyone else is fucked, isn't it?

The Mail's good at them.

hm ...

Prince Harry will NOT face charges over shooting of rare birds at Royal estate
ok so he was the one suspected but he was let off cause hes a toff...
expected the usual comments..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

There's a surprise for us all then!

- Flembo, London

Well what a surprise then.

- Keith, Shropshire

Isn't it just typical? I thought all men were created equal but as I feared some are far more equal than others. You can bet if it was me or any other member of the public out shooting on land to which no others had access I would have been charged in the blink of an eye. If not Harry and his mate, who else was being allowed to shoot in the same vicinity - yes, you've got it; NO-ONE!

- Steve, Manchester, UK

oh hang on if you actually have a brain and read the article guess what...

The CPS said today: "Norfolk Crown Prosecution Service has advised Norfolk Police there is insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone over the shooting of two hen harrier birds, a protected species, at Sandringham on October 24 2007.

"The bodies of the hen harriers have not been found and there is no forensic or ballistic evidence.

Following the incident, a Clarence House spokesman said: "Because Prince Harry and a friend were both in the area at the time, the police have been in contact with them and asked them if they have any information that could help.

"Unfortunately, they had no knowledge of the alleged incident."

however hes a royal so he did it...and he was qustion as part of the routine..

so no evidence and he was one of many in the area..lets face it its probaly the game keeper shooting the birds anyhow..

In fact no evidence at all that a crime has been committed except for the word of one person. This would get thrown out of court within minutes. It would be a waste of everyone's time and money to do anything else but forget about it.
Pity, because I'd love to see a prince go down for a ten stretch*, but that's the price of civilisation and the rule of law.

*Unlikely. Probably a fifty quid fine paid off at two quid a month.

But i thought the Mail & its readers loved the royals Oh, i forgot, Harry is young, popular with young people and a bit of a lad so is suddenly public enemy #1

'UK will become Nazi Germany' if it's not careful when tackling terrorism, says Muslim leader (Wanted to use: Oh God we hope so. The good old days)




The interview in the telegraph



According to the Mail that's the same as "will become".

Technically they could mean the same, but as usual with the Mail it's a case of twisting phrasing. I don't think Muhammed meant it as a definitive prediction as the Mail is suggesting.

Think your clutching at straws there Bairy. If anything, its the Extremists who are trying to turn Britain into a facist state and Mr Abdul Bari & the MCB should 'digitum extractum' and sort this out themselves instead of moaning to the govenment.

Mr. Mordon, the two issues are not mutually exclusive.

One can argue that about the Mail and still agree with the overall premise; that the Islamic community needs to sort itself out as well.

I'm not commenting on what Muhammed said, I'm commenting on the Mail's interpretation of it, as is the point of this thread.

I know it's slight but I think running "UK will become Nazi Germany"* as a headline is deliberatly misleading, especially since some readers won't read the article.

* as oppose to "Britain should beware that it may become like Nazi Germany", which is what I think Muhammed actually meant. And even if I'm wrong they should have contacted him for clarification.

Man 'torched £350,000 home to stop his wife getting it in divorce'

Hooley refers to Gary Hooley, the husband, or "man" in the title.


That sounds rather "he definitely did". And not at all contradictory to the "may be" of:

"may be". And even if he "wanted" to destroy his house doesn't necessarily mean did so.


If he was as drunk as suggested I'm sure he can't.


The power of the '' eh. And even then no one specifically said those words. The wife implies it and the rest is circumstantial.

The court case continues.


The Daily Mail: We don't need no stinkin court cases, we'll just guess what happened.

where would the Mail be without these: ''

they can turn any rumour into fact, any comment into a statement and any polite discription of racial types into 'PC gone mad'

There are times when you want to write to the Mail and say "oh give it a rest"

Immmigration and rising birthrate to push UK population to 90 million by 2050 - yup, triple m
Notice the factual presence there. It WILL push the pop to 90 mill.


Oh, no it won't, because it might be 90 mill in 2056 - 6 years later.


Wait? What. Which flippin figure is it?
Title: 90m for 2050
One paragraph: 90m for 2056
Another paragraph: 78.6m for 2056
Realty: Not got a f'kin clue because these are (very wide ranged) projections.

Keep in mind yesterday's title, "Immmigration and rising birthrate to push UK population to 90 million by 2050" (which hasn't been changed despite it being inaccurate according to their own evidence)

Rising immigration could double population of Britain by 2081
Says the headline


Says the article.

Dear Daily Mail,
I understand you're not particularly good at maths, or perspective. So allow me to give you a hand.

The current population of Britain varies depending who you ask. It's somewhere between 58.8m as of mid-2006 (wiki -> national stats), and a lot higher if we believe that 3 trillion immigrants enter a day as you insist.
Let's go with 58.8m even though it's a year out of date.

Now, double 58.8 and you get 117.6

109m is 92.6% of 117.6m, that's a 7.4% difference. On the figure of 117.6m, 7.4% is not "just under", it's 8,600,000 people.

Since the population is higher than 58.8m, it's actually even more then 7.4% / 8.6m

And that's assuming that the latest set of "pluck it out of our arses" projections are correct.



I do admire the Mail though, they cleverly use the word "could".
Imagine the headlines they could concoct by combining "could" and a pair of ''

Immigration 'could increase population to 1 billion by 2200'

And by 1 billion they would of course mean about 926 million.