Oh Dear: Is there any other country in Europe where this would cause outrage ?

[Causus Deli]

I am not a member of the BNP

Of course I can source them, they are in many of my published articles, which contain the original sources, HPA and other government always. Unfortunately it would be unwise with the searchlight thugs around to give that much away about me. You don’t have to be a brain surgeon, do the figs yourself. Let me help, approximately. There were 2.8 million Asians in the last census, given the alarming unprecedented immigration rates in the meantime and the estimated illegals at 0.5-1 million and probably more, the 2.8 must be a bit more like 4 million now. Breeding rates are 1.7 per couple in the white pop and declining, amongst Asians it is anyone’s guess, I am aware of one particular estimate that has banglas having 7 on average. But let’s not overestimate, let’s take a conservative 3.5 say (I assure you indications are higher). Now take out your magic calculator and press the power key and after several generations, I estimate 3.5 generations on these figures the numbers from 54 million and 4 million will be equal and about 30 million. Aren’t numbers fab?

[Troll]

More BNP-style propaganda laced with unsourced statistics and wild extrapolations. And the usual BNP-style nonsense about Marxist bogeymen. Let's pick out one in particular. 'Thirdly based on breeding rates in religious groups we will be a majority Asian origin state in 3-4 generations.' Is this from the unnamed 'official sources' or would you like to explain how you came to this figure?

Mohammed (or variations) is the most common boys name on birth statistics, so unless whites are given to naming their boys thus; it would be a given that the majority will be in 3-4 generations of non anglo-saxon origin

[Causus Deli]

Mohammed (or variations) is the most common boys name on birth statistics, so unless whites are given to naming their boys thus; it would be a given that the majority will be in 3-4 generations of non anglo-saxon origin

Do you know I don't think others understand exponentials?

[The Lone Gunman]

More BNP-style propaganda laced with unsourced statistics and wild extrapolations. And the usual BNP-style nonsense about Marxist bogeymen. Let's pick out one in particular. 'Thirdly based on breeding rates in religious groups we will be a majority Asian origin state in 3-4 generations.' Is this from the unnamed 'official sources' or would you like to explain how you came to this figure?

Why do you insist on making this a BNP issue? Never mind the legitimacy of said organisation.

Lets just stick to this subject.
A simple Google will get you to the last census data and will throw up interpretations by a number of well known organisations which support the OPs hypothesis.

May I use the same tool you used? If you believe the OPs stats to be wrong, could you point me to where the stats on which you base that belief are located, or are you just blindly accusing him of misrepresentation?

[dang65]

Mohammed (or variations) is the most common boys name on birth statistics, so unless whites are given to naming their boys thus; it would be a given that the majority will be in 3-4 generations of non anglo-saxon origin

In the Muslim naming convention, Mohammed (or variations) is a religious title and not usually the familiar name of the person. So someone named Mohammed Ikram will be known as Ikram and not Mohammed.

It's like if all Christian boys were named Jesus followed by Jack, John, Dave or whatever.

More than 90% of the population of the UK is white (more than 85% white British) and no other ethnic group makes up more than 2%, most of them less than 1%.

[Causus Deli]

In the Muslim naming convention, Mohammed (or variations) is a religious title and not usually the familiar name of the person. So someone named Mohammed Ikram will be known as Ikram and not Mohammed.

It's like if all Christian boys were named Jesus followed by Jack, John, Dave or whatever.

More than 90% of the population of the UK is white (more than 85% white British) and no other ethnic group makes up more than 2%, most of them less than 1%.

2001 is out of date by 1.5 million at least, these as reported last week are almost entirely from the third world. Illegals, who knows? An LSE report for London councils recently showed that in some areas of London the majority are foreign born, born abroad that is. London is gone.

[Old Greg]

Of course I can source them, they are in many of my published articles, which contain the original sources, HPA and other government always. Unfortunately it would be unwise with the searchlight thugs around to give that much away about me. You don’t have to be a brain surgeon, do the figs yourself. Let me help, approximately. There were 2.8 million Asians in the last census, given the alarming unprecedented immigration rates in the meantime and the estimated illegals at 0.5-1 million and probably more, the 2.8 must be a bit more like 4 million now. Breeding rates are 1.7 per couple in the white pop and declining, amongst Asians it is anyone’s guess, I am aware of one particular estimate that has banglas having 7 on average. But let’s not overestimate, let’s take a conservative 3.5 say (I assure you indications are higher). Now take out your magic calculator and press the power key and after several generations, I estimate 3.5 generations on these figures the numbers from 54 million and 4 million will be equal and about 30 million. Aren’t numbers fab?

O dear. Let's go through this bit by bit. I described your propaganda as BNP-style, not you as a BNP member - I have no way of knowing whether or not you belong to the BNP or one of the smaller fascist parties that hang around in the background or maybe you're just a fellow traveller. You say you can source you figures and extrapolations, but you're not going to - therefore until we can see them, we can have no confidence in their accuracy. You have many published articles but you don't say where they are published or their nature. Are they political polemics in some far-right Internet rag, or peer-reviewed academic papers published in reputable journals or somewhere in between? Your excuse for not revealing your mystery identity and giving us access to the research that sits behind your propaganda is that you wouldn't want to give away too much about yourself (I presume on this website) because of 'searchlight thugs', by which I expect you mean the anti-fascist Searchlight magazine. But, you have published articles! Don't you think that Searchlight magazine might pick up on those, rather than your posts here? If your articles are already published (hint in the word - made public), then you have nothing to lose by letting us see them. If you won't do that, then it appears you are being disingenuous.

Well I'm not a brain surgeon, so I'll give it a go.

1st: 2.8 million Asians at the last census. I'm guessing you have arrived at that by adding the following groups:

Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Asian (non-Chinese)
Chinese
Other

This comes to 2,809,421. Very naughty adding the 230,615 'Others' particularly when there is already an 'Asian (non-Chinese)' category - some of those may be Asian, but some may not be. I hope your published research doesn't contain these problems. So, let's be clear, you're talking about all Asians, not South Asians, which is what we sometimes mean by Asians (and you've included 'Others'.

Next, you give an unsourced estimate of 0.5 to 1 million illegal immigrants.

Then, you take the upper figure of 1 million and assume they are all Asians (where does that assumption come from?), and add it to the 2.8 million to get 'a bit more like 4 million now'. This neatly becomes 4 million when you put it into the calculator. Save yourself the trouble of putting 3.8 in, why not?

You do not source your 1.7 children per white couple - I'm prepared to believe it may be true, but at the moment it's just another number you pick out of thin air.

You give a 'conservative estimate' of 3.5 children per Asian couple (and this is across all the Asian groups listed above). You assure me indications are higher. Another number out of thin air - will you substantiate this claim? Also, in your original post you refer to 'based on breeding rates in religious groups'. As you now are talking about a broad selection of ethnic groups, not religious groups, you've redefined the population growth model, but are sticking to your figure of 3 - 4 generations.

You then, I assume calculate 4,000,000 (a spurious figure as shown above)multiplied by (1.75 to the power of 3.5) to get to 28,359,146 Asians, and 54,000,000 (you've rounded down from 54,153,898, but it's well under 1% so I won't quibble) multiplied by (0.85 to the power of 3.5) to get 30,574,544 whites. In this you presumably make the following assumptions:

'Breeding rates' will continue to be static from generation to generation, rather than assuming that 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation immigrant communities' family size will decrease. Do you have any research to back up this assumption.

Every Asian will have children with another Asian in every generation - you extrapolate from 4,000,000 Asians, 2,000,000 Asian couples. A percentage in each generation will have children with non-Asians, and that percentage may increase with each generation.

So to summarise:
You have published research that we can't see.
You don't reference your figures.
You don't reference your estimates.
You count 'Others' as Asians.
You take the top of the range of your estiamte of illegal immigrants, and then assume they are all Asian.
You round up to 4,000,000 Asians.
You include your assumptions about future demographic changes into your calculations.

This is why I use the propaganda word. Aren't numbers fab?

[Old Greg]

Why do you insist on making this a BNP issue? Never mind the legitimacy of said organisation.

Lets just stick to this subject.
A simple Google will get you to the last census data and will throw up interpretations by a number of well known organisations which support the OPs hypothesis.

May I use the same tool you used? If you believe the OPs stats to be wrong, could you point me to where the stats on which you base that belief are located, or are you just blindly accusing him of misrepresentation?

I've gone into this is more detail in my last post.
I described the post as BNP-style propaganda. That's what it is (I didn't say he was from the BNP) - it has all the tone of the BNP.

I think I've covered the stats - essentially, they're not stats, they're just unreferenced figures, and he should reference them.

[sasguru]

O dear. Let's go through this bit by bit. I described your propaganda as BNP-style, not you as a BNP member - I have no way of knowing whether or not you belong to the BNP or one of the smaller fascist parties that hang around in the background or maybe you're just a fellow traveller. You say you can source you figures and extrapolations, but you're not going to - therefore until we can see them, we can have no confidence in their accuracy. You have many published articles but you don't say where they are published or their nature. Are they political polemics in some far-right Internet rag, or peer-reviewed academic papers published in reputable journals or somewhere in between? Your excuse for not revealing your mystery identity and giving us access to the research that sits behind your propaganda is that you wouldn't want to give away too much about yourself (I presume on this website) because of 'searchlight thugs', by which I expect you mean the anti-fascist Searchlight magazine. But, you have published articles! Don't you think that Searchlight magazine might pick up on those, rather than your posts here? If your articles are already published (hint in the word - made public), then you have nothing to lose by letting us see them. If you won't do that, then it appears you are being disingenuous.

Well I'm not a brain surgeon, so I'll give it a go.

1st: 2.8 million Asians at the last census. I'm guessing you have arrived at that by adding the following groups:

Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Asian (non-Chinese)
Chinese
Other

This comes to 2,809,421. Very naughty adding the 230,615 'Others' particularly when there is already an 'Asian (non-Chinese)' category - some of those may be Asian, but some may not be. I hope your published research doesn't contain these problems. So, let's be clear, you're talking about all Asians, not South Asians, which is what we sometimes mean by Asians (and you've included 'Others'.

Next, you give an unsourced estimate of 0.5 to 1 million illegal immigrants.

Then, you take the upper figure of 1 million and assume they are all Asians (where does that assumption come from?), and add it to the 2.8 million to get 'a bit more like 4 million now'. This neatly becomes 4 million when you put it into the calculator. Save yourself the trouble of putting 3.8 in, why not?

You do not source your 1.7 children per white couple - I'm prepared to believe it may be true, but at the moment it's just another number you pick out of thin air.

You give a 'conservative estimate' of 3.5 children per Asian couple (and this is across all the Asian groups listed above). You assure me indications are higher. Another number out of thin air - will you substantiate this claim? Also, in your original post you refer to 'based on breeding rates in religious groups'. As you now are talking about a broad selection of ethnic groups, not religious groups, you've redefined the population growth model, but are sticking to your figure of 3 - 4 generations.

You then, I assume calculate 4,000,000 (a spurious figure as shown above)multiplied by (1.75 to the power of 3.5) to get to 28,359,146 Asians, and 54,000,000 (you've rounded down from 54,153,898, but it's well under 1% so I won't quibble) multiplied by (0.85 to the power of 3.5) to get 30,574,544 whites. In this you presumably make the following assumptions:

'Breeding rates' will continue to be static from generation to generation, rather than assuming that 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation immigrant communities' family size will decrease. Do you have any research to back up this assumption.

Every Asian will have children with another Asian in every generation - you extrapolate from 4,000,000 Asians, 2,000,000 Asian couples. A percentage in each generation will have children with non-Asians, and that percentage may increase with each generation.

So to summarise:
You have published research that we can't see.
You don't reference your figures.
You don't reference your estimates.
You count 'Others' as Asians.
You take the top of the range of your estiamte of illegal immigrants, and then assume they are all Asian.
You round up to 4,000,000 Asians.
You include your assumptions about future demographic changes into your calculations.

This is why I use the propaganda word. Aren't numbers fab?

I was going to respond but that is a masterly ripping apart. And this guy claims to be a professor of Pure Mathematics?
One point I looked up - the ethnic group with the largest number of children is the Bangladeshi, only 40% of whom have more than 3 children. The younger British-born Indian and Chinese generations have numbers of children that are roughly in line with the white population, which suggests that rates will fall with the generations
source: National Stats Office.

I respectfully submit that this idiot is insulting our intelligence.

[Old Greg]

I was going to respond but that is a masterly ripping apart. And this guy claims to be a professor of Pure Mathematics?
One point I looked up - the ethnic group with the largest number of children is the Bangladeshi, only 40% of whom have more than 3 children. The younger British-born Indian and Chinese generations have numbers of children that are roughly in line with the white population, which suggests that rates will fall with the generations
source: National Stats Office.

Well done, I couldn't be @rsed to look up those figures myself, I was just challenging his. Hopefully my Grade 'A' at O Level Mathematics from many moons ago will stand expert scrutiny.

I would respectfully suggest that it's dangerous to assume these people are idiots. They are skilled manipulators - but sometimes they get caught out.