• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Muhammad is No 2 in boy's names"

Collapse

  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by The Lone Gunman
    Oh sorry, I hadn't realised the Canadian evidence was over a sustained period of generations not years.
    OK, I said I wasn't going down this path again, but...

    I think you'll find that I showed his argument was flawed on many levels.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Lone Gunman
    replied
    Originally posted by sasguru
    20 years is a generation. Try reading the arguments again.
    Oh sorry, I hadn't realised the Canadian evidence was over a sustained period of generations not years.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChimpMaster
    replied
    More ham, Ed.

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by The Lone Gunman
    I think the fat cat is pointing out that those projections are based on sustained eveidence. Evidence you debunked with some Canadian figures showing a rapid drop off in birth rates there.
    20 years is a generation. Try reading the arguments again.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Lone Gunman
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg
    ludicrous projections
    I think the fat cat is pointing out that those projections are based on sustained eveidence. Evidence you debunked with some Canadian figures showing a rapid drop off in birth rates there.

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    According to this, Italy is 1.22...

    http://journals.cambridge.org/downlo...01ec5fab104dcd
    Yes in Italy they're adept at taking it up the gary.

    HTH

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by Bagpuss
    Overall, Muslims account for 3 per cent of the British population, about 1.5 million people. However, the Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than the non Muslim one.

    This what CD based his predictions on and he was roundly pilloried. Seems the rate hasn't changed in the last 20 years. So much for that theory of birth rates dropping to the norm.

    Time for an apology Greg, SASguru et al?
    CD was talking about the Asian birthrate not the Muslim one, and making ludicrous projections and I am not going down this path again this week. Hard to believe though it might be, I have a living to earn.

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by lilelvis2000
    define "norm". Culturally immigrants from Africa, South Asia have larger families so that is their "norm".

    Check this out though
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6689101.stm

    but have no fear
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6202707.stm
    All them fourinerrs will soon die out.
    How about "norm" for the indigenous population?

    Leave a comment:


  • lilelvis2000
    replied
    Originally posted by Bagpuss
    Overall, Muslims account for 3 per cent of the British population, about 1.5 million people. However, the Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than the non Muslim one.

    This what CD based his predictions on and he was roundly pilloried. Seems the rate hasn't changed in the last 20 years. So much for that theory of birth rates dropping to the norm.

    Time for an apology Greg, SASguru et al?
    define "norm". Culturally immigrants from Africa, South Asia have larger families so that is their "norm".

    Check this out though
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6689101.stm

    but have no fear
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6202707.stm
    All them fourinerrs will soon die out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bagpuss
    replied
    Overall, Muslims account for 3 per cent of the British population, about 1.5 million people. However, the Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than the non Muslim one.

    This what CD based his predictions on and he was roundly pilloried. Seems the rate hasn't changed in the last 20 years. So much for that theory of birth rates dropping to the norm.

    Time for an apology Greg, SASguru et al?

    Leave a comment:


  • Buffoon
    replied
    “12 variations on the name some we don’t notice the real numbers.”

    “You know why they all have the same name? It’s so they can get one driving licence and share it around.”

    “They’ve all got the same name so they can claim mistaken identity when the police come arrest them.”

    FFS ! Hasn’t this been done to death!

    Leave a comment:


  • SallyAnne
    replied
    Originally posted by maximus
    Muhammad is No 2 in boy's names

    Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

    Although the official names register places the spelling Mohammed at No 23, an analysis of the top 3,000 names provided by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) puts Muhammad at No 2 once the 14 spellings are taken into account. If its popularity continues – it rose by 12 per cent last year – the name will take the top spot by the end of this year. It first entered the Top 30 in 2000.

    Overall, Muslims account for 3 per cent of the British population, about 1.5 million people. However, the Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than the non Muslim one.

    Statistics from the ONS show that Muslim households are larger than those headed by someone of another religion. In 2001, the average size of a Muslim household was 3.8 people while a third contained more than five people.

    Oh come on Max - I expected more from you

    Leave a comment:


  • dang65
    replied
    Originally posted by maximus
    In 2001, the average size of a Muslim household was 3.8 people while a third contained more than five people.
    But what is this supposed to mean? Doesn't it just mean that Muslim families, by culture rather than religion, tend to keep several generations living together in one house whereas the rest of us leave home at 17 and never go back, and dump anyone old into a residential home/prison camp.

    Also, what is the figure for non-Muslims? 3.8 doesn't sound that high really. There's six in my household and most people I know have 3 or 4 people in theirs.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Lone Gunman
    replied
    That is a scare tactic with no real significance.

    As all (with few exceptions) male muslim children are named after the prophet it is a little disengenious to measure that name against any other single name.
    We can assume that all other names are non muslim so we should measure the Mohameds against ALL other names. Then we would see a relevance.

    What is significant here is the "3.8" and "3 times the birth rate" figures which I believe give evidence supporting arguments in another thread .

    Leave a comment:


  • The Farmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Gonzo
    We have been through this subject before.

    FFS. Does it matter what anyone's name is? Get them working, and paying taxes and they are integrated into the same world as everyone else.

    I live in London. London has always needed immigrants to keep it going. Not just recently, not just 100 years ago, but it was the same 2000 years ago.

    London has done pretty well out of it I feel, so to take your backwoods attitude back to the sticks.

    Thanks.

    Mohammed Gonzo has spoken.

    praise be.

    Salem Allahkum

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X