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

[sasguru]

Unfortunately for some I am a Mathematician and can see through these attempts easily.

And I am the Wizard of Oz

[ZARDOZ]

And I am the Wizard of Oz

YOU AREN'T BUT I AM

[Old Greg]

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.

OK this has taken some time what with work to so ('Arbeit macht frei' as CD would no doubt cheerfully remind me) - so for the 3rd time, let's demonstrate where the lies and/or errors are (and remember folks, CD's original assertion was '... based on breeding rates in religious groups we will be a majority Asian origin state in 3-4 generations.' - let's see how he does).

Step 1 - Understanding the fascist's arithmetic:
3,400,000 (number of Asians) x (1.5 (3 children per couple, so 3/2=1.5) to the power of 5) = 25,818,750. (CD is a Professor of pure mathematics so he may have a fancier way of doing this than my schoolboy maths - so apologies to all if I get a sum wrong, but my analysis of his sums should stand up.)

55,000,000 (number of Whites) x (0.85 (1.7 children per couple, so 3.7/2=1.85) to the power of 5) = 24,403,792

OR

3,400,000 (number of Asians) x (1.85(3.7 children per couple, so 3.7/2=1.85) to the power of 3.6) = 31,138,461

55,000,000 (number of Whites) x (0.85 (1.7 children per couple, so 3.7/2=1.85) to the power of 3.6) = 31,140,740.

So far, so good: number of Asians approximately equal to number of Whites.

Step 2 - Understanding where the fascist's numbers come from:

3,400,000 Asians:

UK 2001 Census
Indian 1,053,411
Pakistani 747,285
Bangladeshi 283,063
Asian (non-Chinese) 247,644
Chinese 247,403
Other 230,615

= 2,809,421 (if you don't count 'Others' - and there's already 'Asian non-Chinese - it comes to 2,578,806.)

Plus 600,000 estimate for increase in Asian poulation since 2001 (in the absence of official figures, but is it plucked out of thin air?) = 3,400,000

55,000,000 Whites:

UK 2001 Census
White British 50,366,497
White (other) 3,096,169
White Irish 691,232

= 54,153,898

I'm guessing 55,000,000 is an estimate based off that - there's been some white immigration from the EU, and the % difference is not big.

Here's the critical one: 3 children per Asian couple, let's see how we get there:

'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.'

Where does the 40% come from: http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/Brie...l_marriage.asp
Let's assume MigrationWatch is a neutral source and take as accurate its unreferenced 'Approx. percentage marrying spouse from ISC [Indian Sub-continent]'

Pakistani - men 48%
Pakistani - women 40%
Bangladeshi - men 60%
Bangladeshi - women 40%
Indian - men 38%
Indian- women 15%

CD's summary: 'So in 40% 1 is replaced by 4.7 or 3.9 [to be fair, he has already stated and does go on to include in calculations the largest Asian group, Indians - 2.3], net gain for these is 3.7 or 2.9. The 60% lets assume only reproduce their own numbers so net gain zero.'

That is the lie and here is why:

1. According to the statistics he quotes, 40% of Asians do not marry overseas. 40% of British people with an origin in the Indian Sub-Continent (ISC) marry overseas - in fact, do a weighted mean, and it's 36% of British Asians from ISC. This means Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis. It excludes from his count of 2.8 million in the 2001 Census Asian (non-Chinese), Chinese, Other. British Asians from the ISC make up only 74% of the 2.8 million. Very naughty - it's actually only 27% (36% of 74%) of British Asians (assumption that other - non ISC - Asians marry from their homeland at negligible rates, which may be incorrect, in which case 27% will be a little higher).

2. According to the statistics he quotes, the birth rates of 4.7 (Pakistani), 3.9 (Bangladeshi), 2.3 (Indian) do not apply to all couples where one parent is a spouse married from overseas, it applies to couples where the mother is from overseas. He has applied the figures to fathers who are from overseas as well. Very naughty again. So to get to a more realistic figure: let's assume that these figures should apply to the entire population of each ethnic category (my assumption: 50/50 split between males and females as I don't have anything more accurate to go on):

48% of Pakistani men will marry from overseas =179,348
60% of Bangladeshi men will marry from overseas = 84,918
38% of Indian men will marry from overseas = 200,148

Total: 464,414 (according to his stats and 'methodology', this is the number of British Asian men who will marry overseas and whose marriage will produce children at the birthrates of of 4.7 (Pakistani), 3.9 (Bangladeshi), 2.3 (Indian)). They represent 17% of the 2.8 million Asians from the 2001 Census, not 40%.

Now we do a weighted mean on the figures above combined with birthrates:

Pakistani men marrying from overseas =179,348 (39%), Birthrate =4.7
Bangladeshi men marrying from overseas = 84,918 (18%), Birthrate = 3.9
Indian men marrying from overseas = 200,148 (43%), Birthrate = 2.3

Weighted mean = 3.5 children per couple (one of whom is a new immigrant).

So, to use his assumptions, this is how the Asian population will grow in each generation:
17% of the British Asian population will be replaced by 3.5 children
10% of the British Asian population (those women who marry men from ISC) will be replaced by 2 children
73% of the British Asian population will be replaced by 1 child (2 per couple)

So the 3 groups are:

17% - increase by 2.5 (1 in this generation, 3.5 in next)
10% - increase by 1 (1 in this generation, 2 in next)
73% - no increase (1 in this generation, 1 in next)

Weighted mean: Increase 0.5 per generation

(Break this down and 36% of the increase is due to immigration of spouses and 64% of this increase is due to higher birthrate in mothers born in ISC).

Part 2 to follow

[Old Greg]

Part 2

So there we are: 0.5 increase per generation = 3.0 per couple, the figure he concedes for one of his calculations. Now, can I understand how he got to 3.7? Yes - either lies or rubbish sums. His magic calculator came to 4.4. Well, Old Greg's shown how that happened - he misused the stats.

So we've got to 3.0. As others have sensibly put forward on this forum, he then assumes that this will apply to each generation for 5 generations. Well, 125 - 150 years is a long time and behaviour changes quickly - some of the factors that we need to look at are:

Will British Asians continue to marry spouses from ISC at current rate?
Will mothers from ISC continue to have current no. of children (see below)?
Will white and/or British Asian mothers' no. of children increase / decrease /stay the same?
Will British Asians intermarry with non-British Asians (CD's figures assume no intermarriage).

Here's an example of how quickly things change. I'm not using this to project - but look how foolish it would have been to assume in 1981 that nothing would change over even 10 years. Still think you can rely on current figures for 5 generations?

This is tricky to reproduce as it's a table. The 1st figure for each country is 1981, then 1982 etc. You can see the whole table and lots of other interesting well referenced stuff on projecting ethnic populations at:

www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/SMPS_67_v2.pdf

Total Period Fertility Rates (TPFRs) by country of birth of mother, 1981–91, England and Wales (page 87 of linked document)

Mother’s Country of Birth
Year
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Bangladesh: 8.0 8.0 8.3 7.7
Pakistan and Bangladesh: 6.5 6.3 6.1 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.2 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.6
Pakistan: 6.1 5.9 5.5 5.3
Rest of Africa: 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.2 4.1 4.2
India: 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.1
Far East: 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7
East Africa: 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8
Caribbean: 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5
UK: 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

Step 3 - Don't forget the fascist rhetoric:

'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.'

Where does Islamic state come from? If you combine the 2001 Census figures for Pakistani and Bangladeshis, add a small proportion of the Indians and Other Asians and you might scrape 50%. But somehow an issue about Asians has become an issue about Muslims. And ladies and gentlemen, that's what it's all about. Let me indulge myself and quote Nick Griffin (apologies to those who saw it when I quoted in before:

'We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it's the thing they can understand. It's the thing the newspaper editors sell newspapers with. If we were to attack some other ethnic group — some people say we should attack the Jews ... But ... we've got to get to power. And if that was an issue we chose to bang on about when the press don't talk about it ... the public would just think we were barking mad. They'd just think oh, you're attacking Jews just because you want to attack Jews. You're attacking this group of powerful Zionists just because you want to take poor Manny Cohen the tailor and shove him in a gas chamber. That's what the public would think. It wouldn't get us anywhere other than stepping backwards. It would lock us in a little box; the public would think "extremist crank lunatics, nothing to do with me." And we wouldn't get power.'

[Old Greg]

And now I'm off to do some work.

[sasguru]

Part 2

So there we are: 0.5 increase per generation = 3.0 per couple, the figure he concedes for one of his calculations. Now, can I understand how he got to 3.7? Yes - either lies or rubbish sums. His magic calculator came to 4.4. Well, Old Greg's shown how that happened - he misused the stats.

So we've got to 3.0. As others have sensibly put forward on this forum, he then assumes that this will apply to each generation for 5 generations. Well, 125 - 150 years is a long time and behaviour changes quickly - some of the factors that we need to look at are:

Will British Asians continue to marry spouses from ISC at current rate?
Will mothers from ISC continue to have current no. of children (see below)?
Will white and/or British Asian mothers' no. of children increase / decrease /stay the same?
Will British Asians intermarry with non-British Asians (CD's figures assume no intermarriage).

Here's an example of how quickly things change. I'm not using this to project - but look how foolish it would have been to assume in 1981 that nothing would change over even 10 years. Still think you can rely on current figures for 5 generations?

This is tricky to reproduce as it's a table. The 1st figure for each country is 1981, then 1982 etc. You can see the whole table and lots of other interesting well referenced stuff on projecting ethnic populations at:

www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/SMPS_67_v2.pdf

Total Period Fertility Rates (TPFRs) by country of birth of mother, 1981–91, England and Wales (page 87 of linked document)

Mother’s Country of Birth
Year
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Bangladesh: 8.0 8.0 8.3 7.7
Pakistan and Bangladesh: 6.5 6.3 6.1 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.2 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.6
Pakistan: 6.1 5.9 5.5 5.3
Rest of Africa: 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.2 4.1 4.2
India: 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.1
Far East: 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7
East Africa: 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8
Caribbean: 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5
UK: 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

Step 3 - Don't forget the fascist rhetoric:

'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.'

Where does Islamic state come from? If you combine the 2001 Census figures for Pakistani and Bangladeshis, add a small proportion of the Indians and Other Asians and you might scrape 50%. But somehow an issue about Asians has become an issue about Muslims. And ladies and gentlemen, that's what it's all about. Let me indulge myself and quote Nick Griffin (apologies to those who saw it when I quoted in before:

'We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it's the thing they can understand. It's the thing the newspaper editors sell newspapers with. If we were to attack some other ethnic group — some people say we should attack the Jews ... But ... we've got to get to power. And if that was an issue we chose to bang on about when the press don't talk about it ... the public would just think we were barking mad. They'd just think oh, you're attacking Jews just because you want to attack Jews. You're attacking this group of powerful Zionists just because you want to take poor Manny Cohen the tailor and shove him in a gas chamber. That's what the public would think. It wouldn't get us anywhere other than stepping backwards. It would lock us in a little box; the public would think "extremist crank lunatics, nothing to do with me." And we wouldn't get power.'

You're wasting your time. He'll just bang on with the same lies and not answer the simple questions, primary of which is:

Given that your initial figures are correct (which is highly doubtful), why do you assume the same fertility rate for 5 generations?

[Causus Deli]

Keep out of it poodle puppy. His figures are not correct, I shall work on this when I can.

[Old Greg]

You're wasting your time. He'll just bang on with the same lies and not answer the simple questions, primary of which is:

Given that your initial figures are correct (which is highly doubtful), why do you assume the same fertility rate for 5 generations?

I'm not wasting my time (well, maybe a bit) cos I'm not trying to change his mind. And your point about changing fertility rates is, I hope addressed, in the 'table' that shows rates changing from '81 to '91 - and now I'm really off to do some work.

[sasguru]

Keep out of it poodle puppy. His figures are not correct, I shall work on this when I can.

Your are making a fool of yourself by not answering the question. Please do so or we have to conclude your model is an example of

GIGO

[The Lone Gunman]

Forgive me for being thick and lazy Greg, do your calculations mean we will or wont be over run by raving rag heads eventualy? and if so how long will it take?