Yes, like the benefits of mass uncontrolled immigration and the huge social costs it entails? That benefit? I agree entirely, Michel.https://twitter.com/dngbbc/status/882870994351869952 …
-
-
Oh, cos they're not biased at all are they?
-
I think you'll find their figures have never been wrong.
-
That's utter nonsense. Just ask
@jdportes, who I'm sure has proven them wrong countless times himself - e.g.:https://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/setting-record-straight-factchecking-uk-press … -
Indeed. Both the Mail and the Telegraph accepted that Migration Watch's figures were entirely fictitious, and corrected them.
-
Separately, Migration Watch figures on fiscal impacts assumes no migrants -even those here 20 years- own shares or have pensions. Laughable
-
As you can see here. Nobody could possibly take Migration Watch seriously on this.https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/732476865965752320 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@migrationwatch are omitting important details in their documents - example absolute number of British benefits claimants - laughableThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Research from a number of sources seems to back me up. https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu-immigrants-contribute-134-every-1-they-receive/ …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Never mind the migrant watch figures, the UCL report that the government used in 2013 was cherry picked and the REAL cost was not reported
-
Imagine your not a big fan of the OBR and the Independent either: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/immigration-uk-economy-what-are-the-benefits-stats-theresa-may-amber-rudd-tory-conference-speeches-a7346121.html%3Famp …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.