to be glad that the Guardian is making enormous losses

[longfingernails]

www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-losses-reported-to-have-escalated-by-a-further-10m-to-68-7m-for-the-last-financial-year/

Great stuff. Their chatterati condescension, Islington moral vacuum and politically correct echo chamber has been a malignant blot upon our society for decades.

Let it wither upon the Viner.

I think some people are so used to reading so-called news articles which blatantly blame someone for something that they no longer recognise objective reporting of nuanced events when they see it.

This.

I read it at the time. I commented on the articles
I stand by what I said. The guardian may proclaim it's feminist credentials loudly but they would still rather throw women under the bus than appear in any way critical of religion or culture.

Ahh there we go, what you wanted was the Guardian to criticise the religion and culture of these men and lay the blame for it at their door. In no way did they ever "throw women under a bus" lots of the comment was about how these girls were not believed, or were dismissed by the services and how this was a massive dereliction of duty ( which is confirmed by both reports)

There was certainly no throwing under a bus, there was also no blaming the entire situation on the culutre of the men involved, although their was stringent criticism about how the services had felt that offending a community was a higher priority than protecting the young women involved.

You're seeking confirmation for your bias.

The right wing media steps in? The right wing media? The DM and its side bar of fucking shame? The Times? The Telegraph?
Why do you think the Swedish democrats had 30% of the vote at one point? Why do you think the brexit remain campaign failed? Because if the moderate centre and left responds to issues like this with 'nothing to see here you thick racist working class oik' then people become alienated.
In Sweden as soon as the centrist parties started to switch from that to actually talking to people, addressing their fears (and putting passport checks on the Öresund bridge) the SD vote began to fall.
If the left/centre can't discuss these issues in a calm and rational way, without resorting to insulting their readers/voters, tgen the right will step in
And believe me, some of the right wing parties in mainland Europe make ukip look like fluffy internationalists.

To pull this back to the point of this thread, this is a reason why the guardian is failing. Rightly or wrongly people are worried about immigration. You can't batter people with the 'they bring in more than they take' line when their lived experience Is different. The guardian refuses to accept that immigration is fabulous in London but maybe dumping hundreds of people in work-rare areas like Doncaster or Maryhill isn't a good idea.

The rate of sexual assault in the town my in laws live in has gone up 800% since a migrant centre was set up there. It's gone from the kind of place you can wander round at midsummer slightly pissed and in shorts to somewhere women walk in pairs
The vast majority of people in that centre will be decent. But you can't respond to an increase in sexual assaults like that with 'you're racist' - the response has to be 'we will track down the perpetrators, subject them to the law and look at how we can prevent this happening again'

"Why do you think the brexit remain campaign failed?"

Because of the untruths told by the right wing media over many years. I've said it before, people in my native North East were voting out because immigrants come and take their jobs and mean that they can't get a GP appointment, except when they were questioned closer this actually doesn't happen to them, they've just read about it in the media

At no point in the coverage you are criticising did the Guardian ever say anyone was stupid or racist.

Your point about fear? Well people might be scared of zombies, and will be more so if the media tells them about zombies every day, it doesn't mean we shouldn't look at the facts of a situation in order to assess the dangers clearly.

"But you can't respond to an increase in sexual assaults like that with 'you're racist' - the response has to be 'we will track down the perpetrators, subject them to the law and look at how we can prevent this happening again'"

I've seen much more of the second point in the Guardian than they first, however I have seen many pieces saying that we shouldn't tar all people with the same brush. The Guardian's measured response to Cologne, unlike other papers, actually proved to be correct. Other papers jumped on the bandwagon and said it was because of the recent influx of refugees to Germany when the vast majority of the men had been resident in the country for over a year!

I think a year is recent but don't let common sense or your own highly polished rhetoric get in the way of facts will you

Ah but when they were discussing it in Germany they meant the people that had come in from Syria, and you know it, lets not get semantics get in the way of this, you know what I meant.

Your point about fear? Well people might be scared of zombies, and will be more so if the media tells them about zombies every day, it doesn't mean we shouldn't look at the facts of a situation in order to assess the dangers clearly.

So people who are concerned about immigration are as irrational as people who worry about the zombie apocalypse? Seriously?

Labour fucked up over immigration by telling straightforward untruths about the number of A8 immigrations into the country, and then when caught out over it said "oh, we may have underestimated it by more than a factor of 10, but it's all great anyway". It is ludicrous to claim that you have have substantial inbound immigration, consisting disproportionately of people of child-bearing age, and have no effect on schools so that you don't have to build schools or employ teachers. It is also ludicrous to believe that schools having large numbers of ESL pupils has no effect on learning: we know this, because Labour front benchers and Guardian writers wouldn't be seen dead near a state secondary, all preferring highly selective and exclusive schools for their own children (comps for the proles, grammars/private for us: Corbyn, Thornberry, Abbott, Toynbee, Kelly, Milne, etc, etc, etc, etc).

The reason Labour have no idea about the impact of immigration is that they live in what amounts to a gated community.

No, but when you dig down and look at the data, you find that people wildy over estimate how many immigrants there are in the country. Immigration also takes the blame, because it has been politically expedient, for impacts on services caused by austerity.

I could go round and round with the truth vs the perceptions of people, but its pointless.

Cuboid...

Making the exact point I said, the impact of immigration on services has been a politically expedient excuse, and is in the majority untrue.

Your argument would have more merit, Fomalhaut, if places like Sunderland and parts of Wales, with very low immigration, hadn't been big Leave voters.

I see it even more extremely with one of my family in a town so white that he feels moved to comment when a black person crosses the road. Not only is he retired but his children are beginning to retire too, so it's not anxiety about competition for jobs. Almost the only "immigrants" or "foreigners" of any description he comes across will be those providing services for him at the hospital in the big city. But he and his friends of the same age and location are terrified of immigration, and talk of being "swamped".

This is not coming from his lived experience.

His fear is genuine. But it cannot be assuaged by setting up passport checks - because it isn't coming from lack of them.

I agree that it feels like it should be true that people's fears come from their lived experience. And that therefore the answer should be to address those particular practical issues.

But that's not what I see happen. Hence the concern when there is any offering up of scapegoats - to be the recipients of people's fear while not being the cause thereof.

when you dig down and look at the data, you find that people wildy over estimate how many immigrants there are in the country.

There's about 1.6m A8 immigrants in the UK.

www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migration-flows-a8-and-other-eu-migrants-and-uk Figure 1.

Labour's estimate was 5000 to 13000 per year. That wasn't true, was it? It was based on an assumption (France and Germany also dropping transitional controls) which wasn't true, was it?

And it doesn't matter how many there are in the country, what matters is people's lived experience in their own areas, including in schools. In some areas, schools are 50% and more ESOL. But not in the grammar schools Jeremy, Polly and Seamus had their children at the time, of course. It's odd how people who are opposed to selective education overcome their qualms when it's their own kids, isn't it?

"But you can't respond to an increase in sexual assaults like that with 'you're racist' - the response has to be 'we will track down the perpetrators, subject them to the law and look at how we can prevent this happening again'"

Agree strongly with this.

"what matters is people's lived experience in their own areas,"

I refer you to Pausing's points above, the overwhelming majority of areas with large amounts of immigration voted to remain.

Yep, smallfox.

Which is not to say we as humans don't form opinions based on our lived experiences as well. But those aren't the only ingredients - and it's surprising how powerful some of the other ingredients can be.

Cognitive dissonance, where would we be without you?

I refer you to Pausing's points above, the overwhelming majority of areas with large amounts of immigration voted to remain.

I cite as an example the second largest city in the UK which is now minority white. Birmingham voted to leave, and the areas with the highest levels of immigration voted leave while the areas with lower levels of immigration voted remain. It's not as simple as "thick white people don't know what's good them", no matter how popular that view is.

Areas which are both economically prosperous and have high levels of immigration voted remain. Can you point to an area which is prosperous, low immigration and voted leave?

That's one example and one decided on 0.5% of the vote.

Newcastle has relatively low levels of immigration and voted to remain :)

Newcastle has relatively low levels of immigration and voted to remain

Indeed: several universities, concern about relationships with Scotland, etc.

Corbyn said to the NEC last week that the result appeared to stem from giving a "free hit" to people to bash "the establishment". That's as good an analysis as any although of course as Corbyn voted against Maastricht and Lisbon, it's hard to see why he's pretending to be unhappy about the result.

So you now add caveats to your question? I answered it fairly. There are plenty of places that are prosperous and voted to leave, even though they have low immigration, because they fear immigration.

I agree with Corbyn on the establishment thing, it was a very clever ploy to steal the Trump anti elite narrative on behalf of the Leave campaign, sadly anyone thinking they've voted against the establishment was utterly deluded.

I can't easily pick out exactly the point you're trying to make, CuboidalSlipshoddy, amid all the discursions into your favourite politicians' school choices and your energetic generation of straw men.

But you ask which areas are prosperous, have low immigration and voted Leave.

Here's a map of the results: www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

You can pick your way among Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells, Cherwell, Wiltshire, South Bucks, Bromsgrove, Stratford-on-Avon and so on, and chase up the exact levels of immigration and prosperity in each. They're all Leave areas, as are many more. So I'm sure you'll find examples of the type you're looking for.

Yeah, I forgot about places outside cities...

what you wanted was the Guardian to criticise the religion and culture of these men and lay the blame for it at their door

Umm, are you saying that criticizing a religion and culture is off limits then?

Have you looked at some other cultures in the world today small at all?

Because of the untruths told by the right wing media over many years. I've said it before, people in my native North East were voting out because immigrants come and take their jobs and mean that they can't get a GP appointment, except when they were questioned closer this actually doesn't happen to them, they've just read about it in the media

Have a wonderful image of this poster conducting his/her own surveys door to door on this subject, with leading questions and dubious data collection conditions I bet the first question would be " do you read the DM"