First source says hate crime has gone up and links to another article that says hate crime reports have gone up... which isn't the same thing... Of course I'm loving the not-so independent, independent.
First source says hate crime has gone up and links to another article that says hate crime reports have gone up... which isn't the same thing... Of course I'm loving the not-so independent, independent.
Please suggest a different quantitative, independent, verifiable source for the number of hate crimes. Exactly - there is none. Given identical measurement methodology (which is to be assumed), hate crime reports are the only and best source.
However, this is totally irrelevant and not the subject of the article. These independent studies conclude that psychological predictors of xenophobia were strongly linked with voting Leave, regardless of age, gender or education (which is of course lower with Leave voters, as has been proven as well).
Congrats, it's official now! You stand with xenophobes - if you aren't one, which is apparently highly likely!
Oh dear! Are you too half-arsed to search up better ones yourself?
Yup, then again i'm of the opinion the sources listed are rather good and balanced. You on the other hand make the thoroughly lazy accusation that the OP has used below par sources yet cant be ****ed to say whats wrong with them nor suggest any 'better' ones. Bless you, I think you just don't like that his arguement beats your opinion
Yup, then again i'm of the opinion the sources listed are rather good and balanced. You on the other hand make the thoroughly lazy accusation that the OP has used below par sources yet cant be ****ed to say whats wrong with them nor suggest any 'better' ones. Bless you, I think you just don't like that his arguement beats your opinion
Sources that are usually one-sided and like to display the negatives of an event (e.g. Brexit) are usually not "balanced".
In fact I did display a problem with the first source. Perhaps comprehension is not your strong point. I suggest you read things and think about your response before hitting submit making comments like this- it saves embarrassment.
And also don't call me lazy when you've just admitted to being half-arsed yourself. Carry your ridiculous, hypocritical comments elsewhere.
Sources that are usually one-sided and like to display the negatives of an event (e.g. Brexit) are usually not "balanced".
In fact I did display a problem with the first source. Perhaps comprehension is not your strong point. I suggest you read things and think about your response before hitting submit making comments like this- it saves embarrassment.
And also don't call me lazy when you've just admitted to being half-arsed yourself. Carry your ridiculous, hypocritical comments elsewhere.
Or there's the simple fact there are few tangible benefits from Brexit, ever thought of that? Yes totally You do note several Telegraph and DM ones in there don't you or are you having trouble reading?
No, no you did not. You displayed your distaste for it but gave no reason why aside from a spurious accusation.
Indeed, why are you beginning to feel embarrassed?
I take it sarcasm isn't your strong suit is it? I can't say i'm surprised, what are you a GCSE kid? There's a good reason you aren't allowed near a polling booth. You aren't trusted to be informed enough on the matter, a fact you have just demonstrated quite admirably. Go back to school and come back when you know something about it.
Or there's the simple fact there are few tangible benefits from Brexit, ever thought of that? Yes totally You do note several Telegraph and DM ones in there don't you or are you having trouble reading?
I'm sorry what's your point? Do you think pointing out right-wing newspapers is somehow going to make me concede and think that this is all reliable, trustworthy, unbiased information. Hilarious.
No, no you did not. You displayed your distaste for it but gave no reason why aside from a spurious accusation.
Let's have a look again, line by line what I said since you seem to be going through some sort of difficulty.
"First source says hate crime has gone up and links to another article that says hate crime reports have gone up... which isn't the same thing... Of course I'm loving the not-so independent, independent."
Referred to the source I have a problem with. Highlighted what's wrong with it which is used a reason for my distaste in the latter part of the post. I'll highlight the where the reasoning is if you're still scratching your head.
I take it sarcasm isn't your strong suit is it? I can't say i'm surprised, what are you a GCSE kid? There's a good reason you aren't allowed near a polling booth. You aren't trusted to be informed enough on the matter, a fact you have just demonstrated quite admirably. Go back to school and come back when you know something about it.
How am I supposed to know you're being sarcastic through some text on the Internet?...
No I'm not a GCSE "kid". I'm personally against reducing the voting age so your point is somewhat redundant if you're trying to suggest I believe in that sort of policy. Last time I checked they don't usually teach these sort of things at GCSE - so it's no surprise "kids" aren't informed about it. Who I am shouldn't matter, what my argument is should. This is a perfect example of when people have no argument left so they resort to being patronising and condescending in debates online. I don't see how you have any right to comment whether I should be able to vote based on me being informed when you've displayed a serious lack of it.