Guest RJBsec Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Shock reporting, no facts, no evidence. Now where have we seen that before?? ah, yes. The BBC. If they'd linked to the actual data then yes, it may have weight. Without the data, it has none. You'll have to take that up with the BBC Andrew, Age Concern and others obviously also reviewed the data - is the Home Office report shocking? Yes I think so, that the actions of a thief can lead to premature death is shocking in anybody's view I would have thought. For anyone interested: The Report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted June 11, 2010 Author Share Posted June 11, 2010 Arf UKAS inspect the inspectorates ie ssaib / nsi etc. If you have a complaint about them you would go to UKAS If you have a complaint about an installer etc then you need to complain to the relevant inspectorate. However you will need evidence, for obvious reasons. securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 load of tosh "One point to bear in mind is that the sample were already living in sheltered accommodation, they may be frailer and more vulnerable than older people living in their own homes. It was always recognised, given the scale of this study, that the results would be suggestive rather than conclusive." "Key points l The study was on a small scale" Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cubit Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 You'll have to take that up with the BBC Andrew, Age Concern and others obviously also reviewed the data - is the Home Office report shocking? Yes I think so, that the actions of a thief can lead to premature death is shocking in anybody's view I would have thought. For anyone interested: The Report Don't have a problem with the report Rodger, it's headline grabbing statements that are disengenuous. A search on google based on the headline brought up several 'shock' reports and publications. Only when you read carefully do you see all -may, could, might possiblilty of - within these publications. In effect, all assumptions with no actual evidence to support the viewpoint. That said, 80+ yrs old is a fair innings, how many were already becoming frail and were selected by the feral scumbags because of this? A difficult one to provee either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RJBsec Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 What do you expect from stastistics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAS Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 You'll have to take that up with the BBC Andrew, Age Concern and others obviously also reviewed the data - is the Home Office report shocking? Yes I think so, that the actions of a thief can lead to premature death is shocking in anybody's view I would have thought. For anyone interested: The Report so - hows this any different to the actions your condeming? (sic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RJBsec Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Don't have a problem with the report Rodger, it's headline grabbing statements that are disengenuous. A search on google based on the headline brought up several 'shock' reports and publications. Only when you read carefully do you see all -may, could, might possiblilty of - within these publications. In effect, all assumptions with no actual evidence to support the viewpoint. That said, 80+ yrs old is a fair innings, how many were already becoming frail and were selected by the feral scumbags because of this? A difficult one to provee either way. Perhaps I should remind everyone that the report wasn't mine, it was from the Home Office! My own view is that if the report had shown that only one 'pensioner' had died that would have been one too many. As it is there were sufficient to be a 'statistic', whereas they were someone's mother/father, nan/grandad etc and no one deserves to die of 'fear' whatever their age might be. I hasten to suggest Andrew that you might well want to live to be 81 when you have your 80th birthday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAS Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 Perhaps I should remind everyone that the report wasn't mine, it was from the Home Office! the report is linked (except its dead) from your website - how is this different to the behaviour your condemming? (sic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrHappy Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 That said, 80+ yrs old is a fair innings, my nan is 84, whilst I' am not bringing it to the attention of the forum to fix rodger up with a younger women, I spoke to my aunt the other day & she's concerned about her repeating her self & putting things down & loosing them, she 84! I' am worse than that now, Mr Veritas God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted June 11, 2010 Share Posted June 11, 2010 my nan is 84, whilst I' am not bringing it to the attention of the forum to fix rodger up with a younger women, I spoke to my aunt the other day & she's concerned about her repeating her self & putting things down & loosing them, she 84! I' am worse than that now, my short term memory is atrocious, been looking at ways to try to improve it. Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.