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

[BrilloPad]

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

By British I assume you mean get as many ASBOs under your belt as possible?

[Causus Deli]

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.

This is households, Mine is 2 but our productivity was 5. So 7 of us live in 6 households - Just over 1 per household - get it?

[Rantor]

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.

Even if your figures were correct (and that looks dubious) what would you do about it? These are citizens of your country you are talking about.

Please feel free to be as specific as possible as I simply do not understand what you are alluding to.

[sasguru]

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

1. Why do you stubbornly hold on on to the >3 number in the face of all evidence?
2. What is the arranged marriage rate? You seem to suggest that most ethnic minorities "marry from home". My anecdotal evidence (ethnic minority people I know born in the Uk) suggests that they are highly resistant to "marrying from home".
3. I thought we were examining the numbers. Let's leave the racism issue for now.
4. Re: violent crime - you have added this issue without resolving the first. That is not the way to get at the facts.

[Causus Deli]

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.

As seen herein there are assumptions underlying anything and data are only as reliable as the collection method behind them. These are trends, supported by government stats and civitas lately. God knows what is going on in some of these communities and I do hope 3.anything is wrong because as we easily see it will be catastrophic and I don't think people know what such apparently small changes in numbers really means. Who is to say that if the situation gets worse the 1.7 will not become 1.6 then 1.5 and we will cease to exist at infinity or perhaps before.

It's easy for them to shout people down but trends in all things are not looking good.

[Old Greg]

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

O, this is truly pathetic, now. Apart from no attempt to justify or correct the poor arithmetic in the last post, let's look at this gem:

'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. '

This average of >3 is not for Asian families. It's for Bangladeshis. In the 2001 census, there were 283,063 Bangladeshis. How do you get to 3.5 or 3 as an average for the 2,800,000 figure for Asains that you based your last set of calculations on.

There is also an assumption that every single arranged marriage involves one of the partners immigrating. I.e. no arranged marriages occur between people already on the census. Can you back that up?

And back to my last post, we can toss over data - can we also toss over arithmetic all day?

As for the BBC, perhaps we should put you in charge of their stats. You seem to have quite an aptitude for it.

[DodgyAgent]

By British I assume you mean get as many ASBOs under your belt as possible?

Whaeva

[sasguru]

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.

1. I have challenged your "marry from homelands" idea earlier.
2. Why is the example of Canada meaningless when they have a much higher proportion of immigrants and of a similar composition to ours?
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/immig/imm942sf.pdf
3. Re: "these people are not educated" - that depends on ethnic group - true for the Bangladeshis, untrue for the Indians and Chinese, as a moment's googling will show.
4. "Huge benefits" - please provide evidence. I read this morning in the Metro that contrary to popular belief, a councillor in Dagenham had made the bald assertion that "not a single immigrant family" had been housed in the last few years.
in an article in the Guardian today, Jon Cruddas MP for Dagenham said: 'In the six years I have been an MP (…) we have never housed an immigrant or immigrant family in local authority accommodation.'

[Causus Deli]

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.

My pompous stylee amuses me, it came out of a character I adopted some reincarnations back. Tell me where I said 'all', tell me where I said 'send em back' and once you fail on this one your post has no substance whatsoever. Your problem appears to be you are not good at reading and prefer mind reading.

[sasguru]

This is households, Mine is 2 but our productivity was 5. So 7 of us live in 6 households - Just over 1 per household - get it?