vrdiver wrote:Ashfordian wrote:No I am quibbling over what was actually forecast.
The BBC's economics editor, in the analysis section of the article, rubbishes that the forecast was ever made, and says that is was an apocalyptic test where the Bank [of England] deliberately sets the parameters beyond what might reasonably be expected to occur
In the article, the BBC report on "worst case" etc. Nowhere does it state that this 1/3 (or 35%) was a forecast.
In your earlier post you stated(my bold)I see the FT and BBC have now resorted to Fake News regarding a forecast property crash made by Mark Carney
So you've stated they are making a forecast (despite there being no forecast to this effect in the artcle, as well as three references* in the article to the fact that this was NOT a forecast, then complained the BBC are making up fake news?
Were you referring to a different article, as your claim makes no sense to me (and I really would like to see both sides of this argument)?
( as before: I#m referring to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45516678 )
*Statements in the article referring to "forecast"
#1: It appears that the Governor wasn't providing the Cabinet with a forecast
#2: It was not a forecast
#3: a doomsday scenario that is not actually forecast to happen
It's quite simple. What does the headline of the article say?