UK employment falls to 32 million

[Drago]

Alas, the criteria used by the ONS to count these figures rarely stays stable, so i won't be reading much into it.

 

[Markymark]

It should go to the new forum and all 3 of them over there can debate it.

 

[Spinney]

BBC often use unfortunate phrasing. Maybe it is something to do with being on the internet, so changes can easily be made, rather than printing loads of newspapers with typos in.

The BBC headline in the OP was a screengrab, though, not a link ??

 

[srw]

I was just reporting the typo. They have now massaged the article and the 32 MILLION OUT OF WORK is gone.

According to what you posted it was never there.

(And people out of work is mostly pensioners, children, carers and people undertaking unpaid home-maker work, so this:

Yep 32 Millions in work around 28-30 Million scroungers, what would we do without you

...is monstrously unfair.

 

[TheDoctor]

Yep 32 Millions in work around 28-30 Million scroungers, what would we do without you

32 million in work, and about 10 million retired, around 12 million children...
Google. I commend it unto you.

 

[Markymark]

Threads can't be moved over. One of the three has to start a new one, if they can find the time in between slagging other people off for being too clever.

I only read one thread which appeared to be arguing about teddybears so I left. Someone less serious about everything than me could probably do a joke about the childishness.

 

[Deleted member 35268]

According to what you posted it was never there.

(And people out of work is mostly pensioners, children, carers and people undertaking unpaid home-maker work, so this:

...is monstrously unfair.

The article was corrected, I posted grabs of the site on this forum above.

 

[Deleted member 35268]

 

[Deleted member 35268]

here is the article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41996505
But it has been amended

 

[srw]

The article was corrected, I posted grabs of the site on this forum above.

None of which report anything incorrect. The number employed has fallen. The number unemployed (and claiming benefit) has also fallen. Which means that more people are neither in work nor claiming benefit.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Google. I commend it unto you.

Sorry this is Cafe, am I supposed to put a or a after it? it was meant as a light hearted quip to the poster, which if you cared to look he has taken it that way, although why I am explaining myself to you is beyond me

 

[srw]

Sorry this is Cafe, am I supposed to put a or a after it? it was meant as a light hearted quip to the poster, which if you cared to look he has taken it that way, although why I am explaining myself to you is beyond me

If you want to be light-hearted it helps to be funny. And you might want to stop and think that in the middle of the day there will be quite a lot of people reading what you post who are neither in work nor on benefit, and who may not take too kindly to being called scroungers.

 

[mjr]

My post about obvious ways people might alter such statistics without actually changing the underlying population's behaviour was deleted for being political. I am a former FE/HE maths/statistics teacher, not a politician!

 

[Deleted member 26715]

If you want to be light-hearted it helps to be funny. And you might want to stop and think that in the middle of the day there will be quite a lot of people reading what you post who are neither in work nor on benefit, and who may not take too kindly to being called scroungers.

Oh dear time for a sabbatical me thinks

 

[Moderators]

My post about obvious ways people might alter such statistics without actually changing the underlying population's behaviour was deleted for being political. I am a former FE/HE maths/statistics teacher, not a politician!

Yes, but ways introduced by political decisions. It's a grey area, admittedly.
In future, please address such concerns via the report button, as usual.