tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30704611.post7449959468184946415..comments2023-05-28T10:59:57.169+01:00Comments on Jon's labour movement blog: Dense about densityJon Rogershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10779486527359048519noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30704611.post-84728886925610222572010-02-14T21:40:18.767+00:002010-02-14T21:40:18.767+00:00Jon (same anon here)You said "I think that th...Jon (same anon here)<br><br>You said "I think that the point that Darren was making was that the article on UNISON Active came up with some invented figures to make its arguments."<br><br>I think you (plymdaz) missed the point of what Mark Rayner was doing. The figures he quoted were to illustrate the point that the figures should not be viewed in isolation. The figures he quoted were to provide examples of what he was saying - I did not read them as being real fugures.<br><br>It's no different to a scientist saying "the rate of infant mortality of 4 in every 1,000 births looks impressive but it used to be 2 in every 1,000 then it has got worse"<br><br>The scientist here would be "inventing figures" as you would put it, but it would only be to illustrate a point.<br><br>Seems to me that is exactly what Mark Rayner did.<br><br>As for the comment that Paul Holmes leads a strong branch, that may be correct - I don't know. But Mark Rayner makes another good point that many of our Police branches are very strong too but they have a distinctly different political style of leadership to that of Holmes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30704611.post-25691902434270134562010-02-14T21:03:01.649+00:002010-02-14T21:03:01.649+00:00See,the positivelyprentis blog! Oh dear...See,the positivelyprentis blog! Oh dear...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30704611.post-47676215840523172732010-02-14T19:42:52.886+00:002010-02-14T19:42:52.886+00:00PlymdazI agree it is annoying that comments can...Plymdaz<br><br>I agree it is annoying that comments can't be made on the Unison active site. But I disagree with you over the article. It makes a serious point.<br><br>You say you've had training in stats and that you are historian. I've had training in science (chemistry) and applied mathematics and I have to say Mark Rayner got it right on many counts.<br><br>The density figures claimed by Paul Holmes are just that - a claim. They have not been verified.<br><br>And even if they are correct the article makes the point that looking at them in isolation does not give the full picture - any scientist will tell you that data has to be looked at in context.<br><br>The point is that quoting an unverified, isolated figure to support an election campaign is flawed at best. Gaw'd knows there are enough politicians who misuse stats we don;t want our union leaders to be doing the same do we?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com