Quote:
Originally Posted by Kursk
Your source of 'evidence' is old. Its content is the personal view of its 3 authors and whose personal view is no more relevant than mine.
It was indirectly funded by a Government seeking to reduce its wage bill but it is no doubt impartial if irrelevant to current figures.
Since its compilation circumstances have imho changed.
|
Your attempt to create equivalence between your opinion and that of the report's authors is faulty. There is no automatic equivalence between opinions. Everyone has a right to be heard, but they do not have the right to be equally correct. The views in the report linked by Hugh are backed by rigorous research and use of evidence. The contrary view, which you seem to hold, is backed by ... What?