Rafale M?

Sharp, great contrast, colour balance etc. Very good.

I had to look the camera and lens up, being about 5 years out of date with camera equipment.
Gulp.

Although this assumption was not borne out, when a mock election was held at a Norfolk school recently.
UKIP came out on top.

Actually it was in Suffolk if it was this one:
http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/story/2014-12-31/election-2015-school-debate/

Clearly in this one case, all those EU colouring in books didn’t sway the electorate, although the result was pretty close between parties generally positive towards the EU (55%) and those against (45%)

Bazzer v, You are entirely right, poor proofreading on my part. Apologies, must try harder

I can’t vote for Milliband or Ed Balls as they are not likely to be prospective candidates in my constituency. Gordon Brown is leaving the commons to live in Fife and concentrate on his educational charity projects.

Who I will be voting for? I genuinely don’t know yet.

I think the last paragraph above just proves the very first sentence in this thread.
‘Why are people so sodding gullible?’

Because everyone pays tax, including those who don’t pay income tax, the whole of the premise of the annecdote is, in my opinion of course, false. If quite amusing.

I suppose it was inevitable that this would become another “political” thread….! Pace, John Green!!:)

In my defence, the original post had a political statement re:Cameron
The main thust of the question posed is why are people gullable, I put my reasons forward.

I went to a ‘proper’ university under your definition, I also have teaching experience at both secondary and further education level and so I am well versed in the ability of young adults to think for themselves. I am also what I would hope to be regarded as well read, yet we come to very different conclusions. If this is political, sorry.

I agree that people are not critical enough of media sources. How else can you account for the comments sections in papers such as the Telegraph and the Mail in particular but also the Independent and Guardian where people always seem to assume that as most people who comment agree with them then their point of view is valid without any other credible sources backing them up. The recent comments in the Mail after an article where the 12% support for UKIP in a recent poll was greeted with incredulity as ‘Everyone I know is going to vote UkIP therefore the poll is wrong’ is a case I would use as an example to support my position on this.

A newspaper by itself is not in my opinion an entirely credible source as they have a position to maintain and so will conveniently ignore any evidence that doesn’t support their particular position. The Peter Oborne affair at the Telegraph is a case in point. As most of the media is acknowledged to be right of centre this can skew the available sources.

Edit: whilst from Wikipedia, I would suggest that this article is credible in its apportion of political position
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom

I won’t vote for Dave or Nigel not ‘just because they are toffs’ but because I have researched their policies (or lack thereof) and disagree with them as I don’t accept their interpretation of the facts as I have encountered them.

I disagree with John regarding the literacy and numeracy element of his comment, but agree not enough time is allocated in the rigid exam system that starts at 5 (for god’s sake!) to encourage independent thinking.
However, things can’t be going all that badly wrong as so few young people seem willing to support UKIP. Not that they are very likely to vote, which in istelf is a poor reflection of how the young engage with politics.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/survey-shows-support-ukip-lacking-among-young-people-1481121
This lack of support amongst the young may be why I have just heard a UKIP spokesman on the radio saying that the age of voting in any referendum on EU should not include 16-18 year olds.

It seems that on the first day of electioneering, the tories have been a bit fast and loose with their claims, at least according to the IFS
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-claim-that-labour-would-raise-taxes-by-3000-is-not-sensible-says-the-ifs-10144367.html

But then, when has telling the truth ever been a priority for Mr. Shapps. Apparently when challenged on the figure of £3000 he admitted it was a guess “because Labour hadn’t been specific about their plans'”!

This latter point was also picked up by the IFS report which said they, and to a lesser extent the Tories, are not clear in explaining how they would achieve their stated aims.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7678