On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:00:45 GMT, Mike_B
wrote:
>In message , Alex Heney
> writes
>>>
>>
>>NO THEY DON'T.
>>
>>How many time do you need it pointing out?hat information was from
>>FIVE years ago.
>>
>
>Not many times it seems, as I posted earlier a rough arithmetic
>calculation indicating how it might be brought up to date, but don't let
>the facts worry you.
>
the "fact" is that you claimed above that the reports do say that 1 in
12 households don't have an account.
>>The latest figures available are still from 2 years ago, and show it
>>down to 2/3 of that.
>>
>
>Oh really? So 2.8 million is now reduced to around 2.1 million is it?
>Gosh... how could I have possibly failed to recognise that. Worse still,
>how could I have failed to recognise it having posted the following;
>
>"I haven't seen an up to date figure however I suspect we can probably
>do a little arithmetic to come up with one that's in the ball park. Our
>start point was 2.8 million adults, the target set was to half the
>number of adults without bank accounts so the target was a reduction of
>1.4 million. The last taskforce report I saw a few months ago claimed
>that the target had been 60% achieved.
>
>So, 60% of 1.4 million is 840,000. 2.8 million - 840,000 would leave us
>with around 1.96M remaining."
>
>
>So, tell me again... do I need to have it pointed out a lot or you just
>pointing it out having disregarded all my posts regarding the progress
>that has been made?
>
It would seem that in spite of having already known it, you *do* still
need it pointing out, given the above.
>
>>By now it is probably down to 1/2 of that figure or less.
>
>Odd how you are quick to disbelieve survey results but happy to believe
>your own idle speculation.
Is that *supposed* to be pure idiocy, or was it actually intended to
have some rational meaning?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
What do batteries run on?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |