Self selecting statistics?
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
as many silly self-selecting stats as you can conjure
Ok why are they self selecting statistics? Didn’t I include all 18 individual donors who donated more than a
100,000 to the Labour Party regardless of their race, creed or ethnic origin? It’s in spite of that (correction: out of 18 donors (earlier I said
16) 8 these have titles
). And 7 of these are foreigners, 6 of them are Jews.
But these are not self selecting statistics. In fact that’s precisely your accusations problem because I didn’t just show the 8 titled people, and
I didn’t just show the foreign ones. I did the whole thing so all people can draw their own conclusions about why a 3rd of them are Jewish
The fact that at most
the U.K’s ratio between Jew and non Jew is 1 to every 171 is certainly an additional detail; maybe its not relevant?
But you judge for yourself.
Maybe it’s self selecting of me to only focus on big donations? On the other hand is someone who donates 50 quid to the Labour party really up for
suspicions of lobbying our government? If not then aren’t I fully justified
in focusing on the big donations only?
I ask isn’t the “smear by implication” (you talk about) solely through implications that arise from the raw facts only? And to be quite honest I
did not know for sure whether the donor information from the Electoral Commission I found would support my case; it’s only (perhaps because I'm
right?) that it did.
”Why would Jewish people be inclined to support the Labour party in particular?”
As they are so heavily backed by unions there is hardly much competition from other private individuals; this and Labour is the party of
. Apart from that I don’t why lobbyers would seek to lobby them in particular.
And isn’t there a small “bias” in your question? Who said pro Israelites would be supporting the Labour Party in particular?
I wouldn’t be surprised if pro Israelites are supporting the Tory party just as disproportionably (in line with U.K Jewish population) as they
support the Labour party. All that is needed is a few more hours of research which would wrap up this argument wouldn’t it?
In fact I might
be inclined to do just some such research myself (if I can be bothered). Before then anyone is welcome to try (P.S I will happily correct anyone’s
missing out of the identities of Jewish individuals).
However before we expand the argument I think its fair to say we already have some strong evidence (from both
legal or illegally unregistered
donors) to declare Labour is funded-supported by rich foreigners in a way which defies the demographics of the United Kingdom in the extreme (after
all: the difference between an ethnically representative 0.58% of Jewish Labour Part individual funding; and the reality of 33.6% is quite extreme
don’t you think?)
So, some wealthy Jewish people have donated or lent money to the Labour party; no-one disputed that.
The dispute arises over the next bit............and so what?
Sminkeypinkey. To put it mildly they don’t quite fit in with the demographics of the U.K. Are you really clinging onto the hope it’s all a
coincidence? (If so some maths can put that into perspective).
1. There’s Friends of Israel in America
2. There’s obviously Friends of Israel here
3. This extremely high number of private wealthy Jews funding Labour. If you ignore race for a second) there’s perhaps even more Zionists
(according my Google info many of the English donors seemed quite pro Israel).
Where is the slightest shred of evidence or fact that this has amounted to anything tangible?
Good question. Admittedly it’s almost entirely confined to the fact that many of these Jews back pro Israeli charities as well as the Labour party,
plus the fact such a disproportionate number are Jewish (as well as foreign).
But this only points to foreign lobbying.
I have no other direct evidence; so you would be right to say that to prosecute (in a court of law)
you would need more evidence than I alone have presented so far. In fact I too would like to know more about what exactly they have been up to. And in
absence of a hidden microphone (or at least a news outbreak providing specific cases I have none. Perhaps someone can help me with that?
But big wow man; because as I’ve already said I posted a question on ATS (not a complete answer). Had it been this thread would surely be moved to
the news section? What I find curious though sminkeypinkey is the fact you need some extra evidence just to even believe-accept something fishy
might be going on
Your right that we certainly don’t have the whole storey (and in any case statistical analysis will give you statistics first, and stories later)
but I mean wow; guess there must be something really dodgy about those statistics if you’re still certain nothing doggy is going on?
If so rather than just saying “silly self selective stats” do you care to spell out
whatever the alleged problem is to us? Maybe there
isn’t really one?
You didn't define anything in 'Zionist' terms you went straight for 'Jewish' and haven't really let go since.
I know it’s terrible. But you obviously didn’t read my reply earlier when I explained why. Sometimes it's ok not to use the authoritarian
language of political correctness. I think it’s funny to use the word Jew over Zionism because this small difference (and here it was zero to
communicated meaning) sets so many people of. Could it be that authoritarian minds look for selected words over meanings? Well they should think about
the messages meaning first.
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]