09 May 06
I read today (Telegraph) that life expectancy in East Glasgow is less than in Baghdad, but apparently there are more bods living on 'benefits' there than in any other part of the UK.
So does this support the conclusion that a benefits lifestyle is bad for the health?
09 May 06
Originally posted by AmauroteYou answer my question then I'll anwer yours.
I read today that there is less water in the south of England than Scotland, and yet there are more Conservative voters there. Does this support the conclusion that voting Conservative vapourizes tapwater?
09 May 06
Originally posted by NargagunaIt supports the conclusion that poverty is bad for the health.
I read today (Telegraph) that life expectancy in East Glasgow is less than in Baghdad, but apparently there are more bods living on 'benefits' there than in any other part of the UK.
So does this support the conclusion that a benefits lifestyle is bad for the health?
09 May 06
Originally posted by RedmikeBut why especially bad health there, after so many years of local socialist rule and the fact that the UK government allocates over £1000 per head p.a. more to the Scotch than to the English constituencies.
It supports the conclusion that poverty is bad for the health.
09 May 06
Originally posted by NargagunaFirstly, you've made this sort of ridiculous claim about money from London before, and you couldn't back it up then. Can you back it up now, having had a few months to research it?
But why especially bad health there, after so many years of local socialist rule and the fact that the UK government allocates over £1000 per head p.a. more to the Scotch than to the English constituencies.
I have to say that I'm unaware we've had socialist rule in any part of Glasgow for many years - again, can you give me a link to the headlines on the series of bye-elections I must have missed. For all I know I might be a councillor without knowing it.
09 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NargagunaOh really?
I read today (Telegraph) that life expectancy in East Glasgow is less than in Baghdad....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3746162.stm puts the East Glasgow expectancy at 69.1/76.4 (male/female).
In Iraq (figures for Baghdad aren't available online) we have 67.76/70.31.
http://odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
Can you provide any figures to back up your (The Telegraph's [although I'm a little doubtful of your close reading skills]) claim?
09 May 06
Originally posted by General PutzerI really do doubt his close reading skills considering I can find no news report that has the claim he posted.
jebus xanthos ya just can't help yourself, can ya? do you ever respond without putting in some catty little comment making a snide insinuation about someones IQ?
09 May 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZThe BBC news report refers to Glasgow city, not the singled out area of Calton (as mentioned in the Guardian link).
Oh really?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3746162.stm puts the East Glasgow expectancy at 69.1/76.4 (male/female).
In Iraq (figures for Baghdad aren't available online) we have 67.76/70.31.
http://odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
Can you provide any figures to back up your (The Telegraph's [although I'm a little doubtful of your close reading skills]) claim?
This is a moot point anyway, because it is singling out a small deprived area as opposed to an entire country. I am sure if you were to check the life expectancy of the most dangerous area of Baghdad, you would find very low figures. Therefore, that comparison in those news reports is ridiculous.