@metrouk's pathetic defense was that it buried in the article a qualification making it factually accurate. @IpsoNews dismissed this
"The headline was not supported by the text of the article, providing a significantly misleading impression on a matter ofgreat significance"
Some high profile commentators here - @JuliaHB1 & @paulembery come to mind - take great pleasure in cherry-picking stats, quoting them misleadingly/out of context to support an agenda, & then say "oh, it's just facts."
New analysis from @ONS suggests fall in non-UK nationals in employment is much smaller than suggested by Labour Force Survey data (although still a large fall in EU nationals in London)
Key table here. Latest LFS data shows a 480K fall in EU nationals in employment; RTI data shows fall of 184K (concentrated in London)
Does this mean the analysis of the LFS data @StrongerInNos & published here is wrong? escoe.ac.uk/estimating-the… It certainly suggests our "upper bound" of 1.3 million is overstated..
1. Leaving Single Market/Customs Union means major new trade barriers - customs and border checks, regulatory barriers, end of rules allowing services to be sold across borders.
2. A deal doesn't change that. It means no tariffs and quotas and *some* provisions that will stop trade breaking down. But the main impacts -on our and the government's own analysis, about two-thirds - happen either way
*Why* did the Home Office ignore the law in order to implement racist policies? As the EHRC report found, because that's what Theresa May and David Cameron wanted.
As a direct consequence, Home Office Ministers and officials deliberately and illegally ignored the impact of the "hostile environment" on ethnic minorities:
Home Office Ministers - in particular but not only Theresa May - and senior officials *chose* to ignore the racist impacts of their policies, despite repeated and direct warnings at the time.
This from @BBradley_Mans is false. Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 *requires* public authorities to consider socio-economic disadvantage & to exercise powers with due regard to reducing inequality.
*This* government has *chosen* not to bring these provisions into force.(1/3)
Here is Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010. Why is @BBradley_Mans making this false claim, and will he correct it?
I also note that AFAIC @BBradley_Mans never signed the Early Day Motion calling for Section 1 to be brought into effect. So this tweet is not only false, but pure virtue-signalling. If he was serious about this issue, why not actually do something?
Virus won't significantly affect physical, human or intellectual capital. As a consequence, most conventional models would predict little/no effect on potential output. That is, sharp bounce-back to “trend” should be both possible & likely (2/8)
David right to describe channels leading to permanent damage. First, firm-specific capital – some firms will indeed go under. But most are likely to be relatively small and in sectors (retail/tourism/hospitality) where turnover already high (& partly random in normal times) (3/8)