Canny lass

I haven't fineshed yet.

Something odd has happened to the numbers. All appear as £16 million. Here is the above text with the correct figures: Where did I leave off ? Ah yes, statement 3 Statement 4: You say: “you need to dig a little bit deeper to find out where Liverpool Law School gets much of it’s funding.” “If you don’t boldly present a project as EU funded (even though they only stump up 50% most of the time)” You also say: “There’s an interesting document titled “Russell Group universities and the European Union” which boasts about £3.5 billions of EU money it is responsible for disbursing” UK universities receive 16% of the total EU funding for research. In the last academic year, the UK’s universities received £836 million in research grants from the EU, an increase of £149 million since 2014. Of these £836 million, the Russell Group (Britains 24 elite, research universities) receive £384 million a year in research funds. This constitutes 11% of their research income. (http://www.conferenceboard.ca/topics/education/commentaries/16-06-21/brexit_what_it_means_for _uk_highereducation) Liverpool University is one of those 24 elite universities in the UK and can receive, on average, £16 million. Within Liverpool University there are 8 departments, one of which is the Law School. It can receive on average, £2 million. This is does not support your statement that Liverpool Law School gets “much” of its funding from EU and therefore I must, again, say that your statements are fallacious. (As a matter of interest, apart from its EU funding, the Russell Group, received almost 66% of the total university research grant in the UK, so clearly the UK thinks they are worth investing in). You also say that there is a document titled “Russell Group universities and the European Union” which “boasts about the £3.5 billions of EU money it is responsible for disbursing”. Perhaps it was a slip of the finger? Did you mean to write millions? (Giving you a get out there).That would be nearer the mark. However, I have searched the Internet and I find no trace of this document. Please supply name of author and publication date so that I can read it for myself. Until I have seen this I have no choice but to regard even this statement as fallacious.

Where did I leave off ? Ah yes, statement 3 Statement 4: You say: “you need to dig a little bit deeper to find out where Liverpool Law School gets much of it’s funding.” “If you don’t boldly present a project as EU funded (even though they only stump up 50% most of the time)” You also say: “There’s an interesting document titled “Russell Group universities and the European Union” which boasts about £3.5 billions of EU money it is responsible for disbursing” UK universities receive 16% of the total EU funding for research. In the last academic year, the UK’s universities received £836 million in research grants from the EU, an increase of £149 million since 2014. Of these £836 million, the Russell Group (Britains 24 elite, research universities) receive £16 million a year in research funds. This constitutes 11% of their research income. (http://www.conferenceboard.ca/topics/education/commentaries/16-06-21/brexit_what_it_means_for _uk_highereducation) Liverpool University is one of those 24 elite universities in the UK and can receive, on average, £16 million. Within Liverpool University there are 8 departments, one of which is the Law School. It can receive on average, £16 million. This is does not support your statement that Liverpool Law School gets “much” of its funding from EU and therefore I must, again, say that your statements are fallacious. (As a matter of interest, apart from its EU funding, the Russell Group, received almost 66% of the total university research grant in the UK, so clearly the UK thinks they are worth investing in). You also say that there is a document titled “Russell Group universities and the European Union” which “boasts about the £3.5 billions of EU money it is responsible for disbursing”. Perhaps it was a slip of the finger? Did you mean to write millions? (Giving you a get out there).That would be nearer the mark. However, I have searched the Internet and I find no trace of this document. Please supply name of author and publication date so that I can read it for myself. Until I have seen this I have no choice but to regard even this statement as fallacious.

... and that made my evening!

Put your claws away. I am not afraid of them and neither am I impressed by them. Tony made a simple statement in perfect Swedish. You said the translation was wrong. I disagreed with you and pointed out that your translation was incorrect. You go off the rails and rabble on about some Tony (?Tony p, ?Tony Blair) and his friends, which I don't understand. Would you care to explain the quoted sentence? Which first and last words have I reversed? And where is there a 't'? I really do not know what you are talking about.

I don't even know who Tony's Hate-no-Hope friends are. I've never heard the expression before so I don't know if I've met up with them or not. Why do you read something non-existent into everything that's said? I made a simple statement that the translation was correct. Unlike yours which used the English word clique. The Swedish word is klick, same pronunciation - different spelling. Never mind, at least you Google translate got the genus right!

That's probably one of the funniest things I've seen the past few weeks - and heaven knows there have been some corkers floating about in the press! You made my day, Malcolm, and taken all the pain of shoe shopping away! thank you!

No error, I assure you. Perfect translation.

Sounds a bit like here, Vic!

It can be amended, Moe, and it then gets a new name f.ex, The Bedlington Clothes Prop Length Regulation Act (1921) may become The Bedlington Clothes Prop Length Regulation Amendment Act (1999). It becomes a new law. If this didn't happen we would still be living in the middle-ages. Look again at the download. It does not say that UK gov site is down. It says that the petition site is down: petition.parliament .uk The Telegraph appear to make the same mistake as yourself. The headline stating that a new referendum is being demanded. Given that they've got that wrong, I can make an educated guess that they've got the "1.5 million signatures in 24 hours" bit wrong as well. The download can't be wrong. You get exactly what's on the screen at the time of downloading. I don't know just when it was downloaded, but it can't have been later than 18 June - one week ago today..

When in Rome ..., as the saying goes. There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing. Like the residents of my host country I am prepared for all eventualities. The weather can throw at me what it likes. It's so predictable I'm very rarely caught out anyway. Three degrees is a mere nothing! As for the maypole, the men sometimes have difficulties getting it up.

Could this threaten my Christmas dinner?

Haha. I'm all for people having power.

I'm dreading the first Midsummer Eve celebration without EU! With 30 people to feed I hire in a couple of Polish people to dig up new potatoes, pick strawberries, and cut chives. You can't get your hands on a single Swede that day. They are all out celebrating. Maybe this fine Scandinavian tradition will have to come to an end?

It must depend on what sort of stuff you buy. The sort of stuff I buy from Lidl's comes from Germany and France.

I've never understood the popularity of the 'R-word'. There are plenty of perfectly good 'I-words' in the English language.

Look again Moe. The demand is not for another referendum. The demand is for a rule that, in certain circumstances, there should be a second referendum. Also, the mass influx of signatures must have come BEFORE the referendum. Firstly, its clearly stated that the petition has a "Deadline 25 November 2016" and that "All petitions run for 6 months" (written directly under the deadline). That means the petition was started 24-25 May, not in June. Secondly, looking at the download from the petition site we can clearly read that the site has been "Down for: more than one week". The referendum was only two days ago. Therefore, there can't have been any signatures added to the petition since the referendum. I don't know what all the fuss is about. We live in a democracy. The referendum produced a democratic vote. A slight majority is still a majority and should be accepted. Both the UK and the EU have a tough time ahead of them but there are worse things in life. I, for example, had to go shopping for new shoes this morning. On a Saturday!

Be thankful for that, Eggy! They may come in useful. Sweden is now seriously worried about where it is going to export all its wood and paper, the UK being its fourth largest export market.

Statement 3: You say: “Our government will resume the right to deport miscreants on its own terms”. “The future though is that either the RoI will at some point leave the EU as it economically disintegrates” We cannot see into the future. We do not know what “will” happen. With any eventual Brexit we must wait to see what is negotiated. Maybe, just maybe, it might be a condition of Brexit that we cannot deport anyone. We do not know what will be resumed of the old system or the old rights? We can only ‘speculate’ on what ‘may’ happen. Therefore your statement is totally fallacious. As Previously said, what will happen in the “future” is not known to anyone. We can only speculate on what might happen in the future. A statement such as the above, beginning “The future though is” has no credibility as opposed to a more accurate ‘The future though may be’. We cannot with certainty know what will happen in the future, therefore your statement is totally fallacious. The same argument is valid for economic disintegration of the EU. It hasn’t occurred yet and may never occur. We do not know. To be continued after the Midsummer holiday. Till then may I wish you all EN RIKTIGT TREVLIG MIDSOMMARAFTON! May all your EU dreams come true.

Statement 2: In relation to the figure of 2 million UK citizens in the EU you say: “his figure on the latter is in fact a whopping 700,000 too high” “The chief lie here is that UK citizens in the EU work there; the vast majority are retired and do no such thing” Also of interest is your statement: “I prefer to believe the properly audited UN figure rather than the UK government one” First, let’s look at the question of the figures related to UK citizens in the EU. According to the UN Population Division (I believe the same source used by yourself) there are indeed 1.2 million British people living in the EU and they do say that this figure contrasts with the government’s preference for using the larger figure of two million, the figure used by Dougan. They also say that the discrepancy “may result from different approaches being used to count those who spend only part of their time in the EU”. This you forgot to mention. What about the worker/pensioner ratio? According to the same source, data on the total number of British working in EU countries is unavailable since many countries do not collect this. However, using DWP pensions as a measuring stick, and knowing that “there are around 400,000 pensioners in receipt of DWP pension living in Ireland, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Cyprus, the Netherlands and Germany”, the UN has, by deducting those 400,000 pensioners from the said 1.2 million been able to calculate that around 800,000 are workers and their dependents. http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/354). So much for the figures. Are we comparing the same two groups of people here? The UN is counting workers and pensioners. What is Dougan counting? Let’s have a look at what he says: “What do we do with the 2 million or so UK nationals currently living, working, studying in the rest of the EU?” Professor Dougan, unlike the UN, includes students in his group. So, effectively we are comparing two different groups. Of course, even I do not believe there are 800,000 students from Britain studying in the EU but never the less given that the number and compositions of the groups differ, I must ask why they are being compared at all. And then there is the question of the “lie”. Do UK citizens work in the EU? Has Dougan said that the majority work? Is it correct that “the vast majority are retired? The answers are simple. Yes, UK citizens work in the EU. Both UN and Dougan have said so. The UN has even given a “properly audited” figure of 800,000 workers and their dependents, so clearly it must be true. Is it correct as you claim, that the “vast majority are retired”? Not according to the “properly audited” figures released by the UN and cited above.. Therefore, your statement that “his figure on the latter is in fact a whopping 700,000 too high” is totally fallacious. Even the UN do not agree with you. Equally, your statement “The chief lie here is that UK citizens in the EU work there; the vast majority are retired and do no such thing”is also totally fallacious.

Well, you did ask! First let me say that we do not know where this lecture takes place. I know nothing of your academic background but from my own I can see that the lecture follows the accepted academic protocol of: · Brief presentation of oneself related to field of academic studies · Outline the framework of the lecture · Give the lecture · Summarize the salient points of the lecture · Thanks to participants · Invitation to question · Questions Should the speaker be a guest in another institution the preceding protocol is amended slightly to include: · An introduction of the speaker by the chair (before the speaker presents himself) · Thanks from the chair (to guest speakers, after the speakers thanks to participants) · Invitation to question - from the chair · Questions I can, therefore, make an educated guess that the speaker is not in his own university and that he is a guest speaker in some other institution. This I can do because there has clearly been an introduction. We hear Dougan thank the chair in his opening remarks: “Thanks very much Dana for the introduction”. (00.07) We at no point hear this introduction but it appears to have occurred. This information will have some bearing on the following discussion. Having said that, I now propose to go, as requested, through those statements which I find to be fallacious. Statement 1: You say: “He’s […] lecturing to an obviously receptive audience where no questioning is permitted” Let us first discuss the receptivity of the audience. From the visual and auditory evidence available in this video, we cannot even determine the presence of an audience. Therefore we cannot possibly judge the receptivity of the audience. We do not see an audience. We hear applause at the end of the lecture (24.33) but we cannot with certainty claim that it is real applause or where it comes from. We do not know where this video recording was made. It may, for all we know have been made in a studio with a few props and the addition of handclapping as an audio-effect. We simply do not know anything about the audience. Therefore your statement as to its receptivity is totally fallacious. Moving on to “no questioning is permitted. Again, we do not see any questioning and we do not hear any questioning. The lack of visual and auditory evidence does not, however, demonstrate that questioning was not permitted. There is strong evidence to suggest that questions were permitted, assuming of course that there was a live audience. Referring to his not going into the details of, for example, immigration and the impact of leaving on the higher education sector, Dougan clearly states “they might well come up in questions, but if they don’t do feel free to contact me by e-mail, or just arrange to meet up”. (24.16) That we do not see or hear questions, is not evidence that questions were not permitted. ‘Questions’ is an integral part of any formal academic lecture. An academic lecture is usually one hour minus the usual ‘academic quarter’ which tradition most often demands. This leaves 45 minutes to give the lecture – including questions. I can, therefore deduce, allowing a generous 5 minutes for thanks from the chair and invitation to question, that approximately 15 minutes was available for just questions. Whether or not there were any questions asked, we do not know. The video recording did not continue past the end of the professor’s talk. All we can say with certainty is that questions were permitted. Therefore your statement is totally fallacious.

It looks interesting but it'll have to wait until Saturday. Fully occupied here at the minute and on Friday it's Midsummer Eve - Biggest holiday in the Swedish calender. But I promise I'll get round to it.

That's not a bad idea, but even no-votes are counted and they do say something about what you, the voter, feels.

I always thought that funding went into the university not the pocket of the professor, I have no idea whether or not you are an academic.I know that you appear to be well educated when it comes to computers but everything is relative. As I know nothing about them I would probably be impressed by the knowledge of a 10 year-old with a basic interest in the subject. Does your education really have a place in this discussion? "Just because they present as they do doesn't mean that what they say is any less valid". No it does not. Equally it does not say that it is valid at all. What it does say is that if two newspapers report the same story giving contradictory 'facts', then one of them must be lying or at very least angling the facts. I don't believe that 'fertilizing' their offerings is restricted to any one political persuasion, unfortunately. The "popular conception of a mirrored dichotomy between left and right is well clear of reality". That's not what research is saying.

Where to begin! It's a big job but I'll tackle it this evening and get back to you tomorrow. What argument?