
This is not an announcement of £4bn funding at all, but in fact the reannouncement of two previous funding announcements where the figures have been added together. We have an announcement of £1.1bn funding over three years which was made on July 25th (of which £100 million was a reannouncement). This has then been added to an already announced allocation of £3bn per year, creating the fluffy annoucement of a "cash injection" of £4bn.
So what is the actual figure? Well, if they've already announced the £1.1bn over three years, and the £3bn was already announced and allocated as well, it means that far from being a "cash injection" of £4bn what's they've actually done is announce nothing at all - apart from the fact that their like to use obsfucation to make themselves look good.
6 comments:
Nice one Dizzy, Good piece of research.
So this "obsfucation" sic or obfuscation is something which is set out in the notes for editors? That is really dark! Set to bewilder and stupefy said editors who don't bother reading the notes for editors because they are dim.
Talk about hiding things in plain view. Damned good piece of in depth research DT.
I see you deliberately ignored the part of the definition about making things obscure. You're response is weak Crhis (no surprise there) because it completely ignores the fact that there is no £4bn cash injection at all. The entire press release is bollocks.
Oh yes, you ignored the reannouncement tendency as well. You're not just a tit you're a prat too.
Lol, it's all about money isn't it with these socialist fools. More money on this, more money on that, and meanwhile society gently slides down the crapper.
You should have a competition to see which pound has been reannounced the most. I'm sure it's not restricted to two reannouncements (as the £100m was in your post), there could be money that was first announced years ago.
This obsfuckation is just typical
Post a Comment