TwoPints

No you haven't. I know what I meant, you know what I meant but because it wasn't written exactly how you would like it you just like to pick holes in it. I see you were picked up on this very same thing in the EU referendum thread too. And for someone that's keen on picking up people on their posts, in your last one you claimed you'd given up but clearly you haven't. Maybe we all say things on posts that could have holes picked in them?

Yes. It is rather dull. You clearly seem to have read my quote that I would have preferred them to quote neither as somehow wanting them to quote false information. Pointless trying to get you to understand so I won't bother anymore as it's rally not that important.

It doesn't really matter what your point was, as you clearly don't understand mine. The basic concept is that if they think quoting the number for Muslims and not the general population is reasonable then I disagree. Whatever the reason why they shouldn't have quoted either, whether it be statistically insignificant or unjustified and sensationalist it was just wrong. That's all I'm saying, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe you could point out the post where I have said that Channel 4 shared false information. I haven't suggested any of their information was wrong but the way they chose to present it was unhelpful in my opinion. Apologies for getting the % round the wrong way. Genuine error.

No, my point has always been that if they're quoting 1% of the Muslim population as a number then they should do the same with the 4% quoted for the general population otherwise it suggests a certain level of bias by just doing so with one and not the other. I would have argued the same if they quoted the number of the general population and not the Muslim population as that would have suggested bias the other way and if you're after a reasonable and rational analysis of the figures, you want an even playing field. Nice try though.

Let me quote my post again: "if you want a fair reflection of the survey, you either quote both or neither. I would have preferred neither" Seems like a reasonable approach to me. The point being if C4 are happy to quote the number in respect of Muslims, then they should be happy to quote the number for the general population. Both numbers are completely misleading and unfounded, as you say, and they would have been better served quoting neither. However, by only quoting the number for Muslims that have some sympathy with suicide numbers it suggests a certain amount of bias. Agree or not?

I thought I'd explained my thoughts on this in my earlier post but clearly it hasn't registered with you and whilst I'm glad you're happy, to be honest it wasn't very helpful.

Blimey. You really do have issues don't you. Of course I got your ridiculous analogy. It was just that it was pathetic and purile. Rather like you throwing insults around when people happen to disagree with you.

And you have the nerve to pull me up on my post after your pathetic paedophiles on the park post? Unbelievable.

I really don't know what you're talking about here.

Ummm.. I'm neither animated nor upset. Not sure why you think I am. You appear to have agreed with my view that quoting 100k of Muslims wasn't very helpful. My point was, if you want a fair reflection of the survey, you either quote both or neither. I would have preferred neither so what's your problem, with that?

Did you watch the programme Whelk? One of the stats quoted was that their survey showed that 4% had some sympathy with suicide bombers and they were at great pains to point out, they did it twice in fact, that 4% equates to about 100,000 British Muslims. Whilst they also pointed out that the figure was only 1% of the general population, they failed to mention that 1% of, say, 60 million people, is 600,000. That's half a million more non Muslims that have some sympathy with suicide bombers than Muslims. So, who are you going to avoid in the park now?

One would be wrong.

OK, just googled it and found it within about 15 seconds. Not all that exciting really, don't know what all the fuss is about. If they hadn't bothered with the super injunction, no one would give a ****.

I thought you might

Ooh, I'll have to do some googling. Could it be John Terry, Wayne Bridge and Frankie Bridge?

Blimey, I hope so!

Judas

Did you find out who they are?... The threesome I mean.

I suspect this programme will open a whole new line of argument. I've watched the first ten minutes and so far they've shown Luton and explained it's where the London suicide bombers got on their train. Immediately linking British Muslims to the suicide bombers is not, in my opinion, a great start to a programme that's supposed to give an unbiased view on the views of Muslims in general. They've then gone on to say that 4% of Muslims have some sympathy with the suicide bombers as does 1% of the general population. They've then quoted the number of people that that 4% equates to but didn't give the same information for the general population, which presumably would be more but they've chosen not to share that. I'll watch the rest and see if it improves.

Beach

I thought the ref was decent today, not that he had too much to do though. Seemed to let the game flow more than most and didn't want to get his cards out at every opportunity which makes a nice change.

Not all profit from a fund is distributed as income. Most is retained in the fund which increases the value of it. With clever use of the CGT rules, particularly if the investments were in joint names as these were, you can benefit from tax fee growth on the investment whilst remaining below the CGT limit on which you pay tax.

Bellowhead

I'm no expert but I think the issue is that by setting up the investment trust in an offshore jurisdiction then the fund itself pays no UK tax on its income or profit. The value of the investment there grows faster as it's not subject to the usual company taxes. Whilst it's not illegal to do this, for a PM who's apparently trying to close loopholes around tax avoidance schemes, by him holding this investment it's certainly hypocritical.

Top