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

[sasguru]

Greg is guessing as to where the figures came from. Without direct reference to the original source the only method he can use is to show evidence to the contrary which he has failed to do.

While we are at it, who questioned the birth rates thing? Try here.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=458

Also this graph shows household sizes and flatly contradicts CDs assertion of >3 kids per household. The average Banladeshi household is 4.5 (- 2 parents) = 2.5 kids.

[The Lone Gunman]

Also this graph shows household sizes and flatly contradicts CDs assertion of >3 kids per household. The average Banladeshi household is 4.5 (- 2 parents) = 2.5 kids.

I think you will find both my links show some error in his assertions. Rather telling that you didnt check that before your first reply to me don't you think? I do agree with much of his stuff, but I do not subscribe to everything he says and I will question him about stuff if I feel like it. Do not assume that I am blindly following any doctrine.

I am also intrigued to know where he gets his figures. I do know from newspaper reports that we have had a massive influx into the UK year on year so the 2001 census is likely to be out of date. There are a number of indicators (such as most popular first name) but I do not see any hard evidence.

[sasguru]

Rather telling that you didnt check that before your first reply to me don't you think? .

Not really. I know a rant when I see one. As Greg has pointed out, the flaws in logic and analysis are so glaring that it doesn't matter what figures you start from.

[The Lone Gunman]

Not really. I know a rant when I see one.

You should, you write enough of them.

[sasguru]

You should, you write enough of them.

Usually TIC.

[Rantor]

Also this graph shows household sizes and flatly contradicts CDs assertion of >3 kids per household. The average Banladeshi household is 4.5 (- 2 parents) = 2.5 kids.

Just tried to catch up on this and now I'm very confused. Last week it was the Poles that were the problem now we're onto the Asians and doing complicated sums as well!

Out of interest, there seemed to be a tacit admission somewhere earlier in this thread about UK Citizens being exempt from whatever 'solution' CD et al come up with. Surely the vast majority of these Asians will be British citizens so wtf are they arguiing about anyway?

Discalimer - this may be covered in an earlier post and that I ain't read yet!

[sasguru]

Just tried to catch up on this and now I'm very confused. Last week it was the Poles that were the problem now we're onto the Asians and doing complicated sums as well!

Out of interest, there seemed to be a tacit admission somewhere earlier in this thread about UK Citizens being exempt from whatever 'solution' CD et al come up with. Surely the vast majority of these Asians will be British citizens so wtf are they arguiing about anyway?

Discalimer - this may be covered in an earlier post and that I ain't read yet!

Perhaps we could use the Britsh born ethnic minorities to administer the "Final Solution"?

[Causus Deli]

Fair enough. Lets deal with the numbers. Please respond to Greg's criticism of your numbers and methodology.

I have, that's how it works one person puts forward an idea and the others agree or disagree giving counter arguments. He did and you quoted 40% of banglas had 4+ kids without source (office of stats not good enough). I will research that this evening. But even on that the average will likely be >3 (remember 40% have 4 or more). Now added to that is the arranged marriage rate, so for every arranged marriage the effective children are +1. We can argue the toss over data, and hopefully not call anyone an idiot - dangerous that, all day.

I chose to accept the 2.8 million, but if I do then illegal immigrants don't count and we should start the disaster clock back at 2001.

People chose to ignore the HIV and overpopulation points and if I may add another?

One further thing as there appears to be some happy to dispel important issues because when someone raises uncomfortable matters it is easy to hide behind banal racism chanting. I believe most of the population are racist to some degree which is usually harmless, not liking someone different type thing. When it comes to serious cases where violence against another is perpetrated that is another matter. As I have said before why should we not discriminate in favour of our own, this is a natural thing and has got this country where it is.

Back to the violent thingy. The good old Observer published (see link) some months ago some race hate crime statistics, which of course were from an official government source. The BBC in the news at the time suggested that because more non-whites were killed than whites that this implied whites were more violently racist. No prizes for guessing that this is more propaganda and not the real picture. Let’s examine these figures.

24 killings perpetrated by someone from a pop of 5 million cf 34 from 55 million say, my magic calculator tells me that that means a randomly selected non-white is 7.76 times more likely than a white to kill because of race hate.

So the country are misled by the BBC once again. When one looks at just serious violent race crime (not killings) the numbers are equally damning. We are being conned into submission that we are nasty evil people when the data simply do not support this.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...928600,00.html

[DodgyAgent]

Well, well, all the things I was saying are now echoed by official sources and we can now deal with the ongoing farce that is uncontrolled immigration to the detriment of the indigenous population. Well they’ll pay lip service for a while and hope it goes away, it for sure will not.

3 major issues, firstly we are over full meaning our own people cannot get the services that they deserve as subjects of this once great island. Second we are getting disease in huge quantities, mainly HIV which costs 15K a year pp to treat. We have, as reported by the government last week the ‘vast majority’ as of Gay or African origin. Based on current rates of infection (seen over the last 10 years in the indigenous population), and the expanded numbers we have now (recall only 4K in the straight white population), we will have well over 1 million cases (costing 15 billion a year) in just 20 years reducing us in effect to a third world country; as a result of the third world. Thirdly based on breeding rates in religious groups we will be a majority Asian origin state in 3-4 generations. Look at the problems we are having now with about 2 million of one religion, imagine that 6-7 fold larger.

We will long be gone and as fairly well to do people we can, in the meantime, head for the hills and all this will not likely affect us directly in our lifetimes. But it will affect your children and grandchildren. People say that we are an island of immigrants anyway, with all the invasions we have had over the last tens of centuries. What they fail to say is that only small numbers of invaders actually stayed, nothing like the 12% and rising figure we have imported to date. So what anyway that was then and this is right now, affecting our lives right now, maybe not so much yours and mine yet but the poor unfortunates that socialists pretend to care about but in reality Marxists only care about using.

I shall not be around; the level of discourse is embarrassingly poor. A large salary does not imbibe one with the knowledge some crassly bestow upon themselves.

I think your problem Cd is that you are a poor communicator. A great deal of what you say I do agree with. I also agree with Margaret Hodges point in principle. Unfortunately you are a pompous fool who sees the immigration problem as black (all muslims are terrorists/all Africans are HIV positive) and white. What I do not like is that you brand ALL muslims, ALL Africans into your stereotypical vision.

The truth is that most immigrants to the UK have integrated and have adopted our ways of life and culture. The challenge should not be creating an "Us and them" Hitleresque view of people of different races, but to integrate evreyone into our society whilst enabling everyone to enjoy our own cultural backgounds/religion and history. Multiculturalism is not the answer, nor is sending them home in boats.

So control immigration yes, but ensure that those who that come here become British.

[Causus Deli]

Well the point is whether these higher fertility rates are maintained over the generations as CD claims, which would indeed change the ethnic composition of the country. However the evidence suggests otherwise. It is more likely that the immigrant population percentage will stabilise, probably at a slightly higher level than now. Also current immigration is mainly from Eastern Europe. What you will get in the next generation is plenty of British looking and sounding people with names like Kyslowski.

Given that many marry from their homelands the effective number of children in these couple increased greatly. Now some question the numbers but the order of it cannot. We have declined to 1.7 but we are not a religious group of peoples, the examples of canada are meaningless, no other country has the crazy situation we have, these people are not educated. 20% of the work force do not work and the rest pay little tax and get huge benefits. That ladies and gentlemen is not economic sense.