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

[Old Greg]

Well I reckon Delhi Belly is the best troll we've had in ages...

I've doubled my number of posts.

[Causus Deli]

But the point (for me) was to demonstrate that your statistics are spurious, your assumptions ridiculous and your arithmetic faulty. My interest is to demolish the position of someone who I reckon is probably a BNP sympathiser, and who therefore has a hidden agenda. I don't need counter-statistics to do that. Just an ounce of sense and a calculator. Aren't numbers fab?

Shall we go over them one by one and see what is spurious? You can like the fatuous CO2 girls bleat long and hard but it doesn’t make your assertion of superiority have any weight whatsoever. Let’s ignore the other two issues, as people did and go on the Asian one.

Now do you dispute 2.8 was roughly the estimate in the 2001 census and things have increased since – there is no source for how much this has increased so let’s agree 3.4 should we, as you didn’t suggest one this one half way between my estimate and 2.8 seems reasonable don’t you agree? That leaves about 55 million Caucasians right?

Now migrationwatch quote figures for arranged marriages from the ISC. Here

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/Brie...l_marriage.asp

Point 5 and 6 of the introduction will show that somewhere between 40 and 50% of 15-17 year olds are admitted as spouse/fiancé(e). I don’t know what this might be in older groups. But Ann Cryer of Keighley has much to say on the extent of the problems around this little trend.

That means that before they even have children each person from these groups will expand into 1.4 people simply by marrying. Point 6 of the attached gives the birth rate in these groups 4.7 Pakistani and 3.9 Bangladeshi. Less Indian as I guessed earlier.

Let's be clear 40% marry overseas and these have 4.7 or 3.9 on average. 60% marry within the country. I have read these as more elsewhere but am happy to go along with this assumption.

So in 40% 1 is replaced by 4.7 or 3.9, net gain for these is 3.7 or 2.9. The 60% lets assume only reproduce their own numbers so net gain zero.

I’ll go for 4 kids per 1 in the 40% OK and I’ll use 1 kid per 1 for the 60%. That means on average each 1 will be replaced by 2.2 on average (weighted mean). Which of course is much greater than 3.7 per couple. Infact my magic calculator makes it 4.4. But I was always, as a fair and reasonable man, willing to accept 3 kids per couple or 1.5 per adult. Of course I didn’t factor in the Indians which will bring it down a little from 4.4 anyway.

I trust you will now agree that 3 is not a bad estimate (and can understand my best originally of 3.7), very likely a gross underestimate. I’m also willing to take a hit on using 3.4 million (now) and 55 million white.

With all these underestimates the population will be majority Asian in a little less than 5 generations and if I apply my 3.7 it is as stated earlier approximately 3.5 generations.

The only other factor is if things change, well perhaps I’m saying they bloody well should unless we want to live in an Islamic state. If by not wishing to I am deemed a racist then so be it.

[sasguru]

I've doubled my number of posts.

Yes it was fun ripping him apart - but not terribly challenging. Perhaps they'll send us someone a little more intelligent next time?

[Bagpuss]

Yes it was fun ripping him apart - but not terribly challenging. Perhaps they'll send us someone a little more intelligent next time?

To be fair he was more abused/tag team bullied than beaten intellectually

[Causus Deli]

Yes it was fun ripping him apart - but not terribly challenging. Perhaps they'll send us someone a little more intelligent next time?

This fake gloating stuff is sooo embarrassing. Take a look at my latest fool. Trolls annoy people deliberately, like you sniping. I give lengthy assessments which you snipe at, nowt more chuck. Who is the insecure (if I may say so) troll?

[Causus Deli]

To be fair he was more abused/tag team bullied than beaten intellectually

No I had work to do baggy, always seem they take these opportunities to big themselves up and call silly names. When I was a child .....

[sasguru]

Shall we go over them one by one and see what is spurious? You can like the fatuous CO2 girls bleat long and hard but it doesn’t make your assertion of superiority have any weight whatsoever. Let’s ignore the other two issues, as people did and go on the Asian one.

Now do you dispute 2.8 was roughly the estimate in the 2001 census and things have increased since – there is no source for how much this has increased so let’s agree 3.4 should we, as you didn’t suggest one this one half way between my estimate and 2.8 seems reasonable don’t you agree? That leaves about 55 million Caucasians right?

Now migrationwatch quote figures for arranged marriages from the ISC. Here

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/Brie...l_marriage.asp

Point 5 and 6 of the introduction will show that somewhere between 40 and 50% of 15-17 year olds are admitted as spouse/fiancé(e). I don’t know what this might be in older groups. But Ann Cryer of Keighley has much to say on the extent of the problems around this little trend.

That means that before they even have children each person from these groups will expand into 1.4 people simply by marrying. Point 6 of the attached gives the birth rate in these groups 4.7 Pakistani and 3.9 Bangladeshi. Less Indian as I guessed earlier.

Let's be clear 40% marry overseas and these have 4.7 or 3.9 on average. 60% marry within the country. I have read these as more elsewhere but am happy to go along with this assumption.

So in 40% 1 is replaced by 4.7 or 3.9, net gain for these is 3.7 or 2.9. The 60% lets assume only reproduce their own numbers so net gain zero.

I’ll go for 4 kids per 1 in the 40% OK and I’ll use 1 kid per 1 for the 60%. That means on average each 1 will be replaced by 2.2 on average (weighted mean). Which of course is much greater than 3.7 per couple. Infact my magic calculator makes it 4.4. But I was always, as a fair and reasonable man, willing to accept 3 kids per couple or 1.5 per adult. Of course I didn’t factor in the Indians which will bring it down a little from 4.4 anyway.

I trust you will now agree that 3 is not a bad estimate (and can understand my best originally of 3.7), very likely a gross underestimate. I’m also willing to take a hit on using 3.4 million (now) and 55 million white.

With all these underestimates the population will be majority Asian in a little less than 5 generations and if I apply my 3.7 it is as stated earlier approximately 3.5 generations.

The only other factor is if things change, well perhaps I’m saying they bloody well should unless we want to live in an Islamic state. If by not wishing to I am deemed a racist then so be it.

And as I mentioned umpteen times earlier, why do you assume this initial high rate is carried on for generations, when the available evidence (see earlier links) suggests otherwise?

[Causus Deli]

Where is the gloating ninny? I guess he will await the maven of all things sanctimonious before committing itself.

[sasguru]

To be fair he was more abused/tag team bullied than beaten intellectually

No he did not answer questions, made a lot of spurious assumptions and made gross errors in his arithmetic. Therefore with an argument like a sieve, it was easy to pick up on his numerous mistakes.

[Causus Deli]

And as I mentioned umpteen times earlier, why do you assume this initial high rate is carried on for generations, when the available evidence (see earlier links) suggests otherwise?

I have assumed a breeding rate of 2 per couple you goat. I have assumed a breeding rate a bit less than is the case in the country of origin of mother/father. Now try and read before you open your damn fool mouth.