Reverse racism , no?

[Yukon]

1% Increase hmm are you sure. At a rate of 3.5 per family? Are you considering Muslims that come in from other European countrys. Think of England as just an extension of one big island made up out of sections- we are not an independent nation amymore. I am going off a put out figure. I would say the Muslim population will increase every year by at least 0.80% (an increase over twenty years of 16%)

 

Figures are really irrellevant- just open your eyes and see for yourself in any UK City.

 

Lets also consider the amount of converted muslims (not just the UK all around Europe)

 

A 20 year increase of 16% of 4.4% of the population is an increase of 0.88% total population

 

What a truly terrifying statistic, we'll be overrun by the year 17,000

 

Sensationalising is the weapon of choice for those with agendas, I guess it's over exposure to the Daily Mail. Like above where you tried to suggest I was being aggressive or when you try to twist my words to say I implied all unemployed people are lazy and I never said either. At least you're consistent in not letting the truth get in the way

[aspins-revenge]

Carl

 

I appreciate you think figures are irrelevant (and, like me, your grasp of numbers and percentages doesn't seem especially strong), but I wonder if you could point me towards figures for the numbers of Muslim's entering the country and the number of Muslim converts across Europe (which you refer to), and how this balances out with the numbers of non-Muslim's entering the country and the numbers of conversions to other religions across Europe.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Tiny threat?? JA- that must be the most ridiculous comment you have contrbuted to this thread. The 7/7 Bombings, The Lee Rigby murder, The Stockholm Bombing The pentagon, Twin Towers ect ect

 

All terrible events but when one looks at the number of Muislims involved..the threat is tiny in context

 

None of those warrant being fearful of all Mislims, demonising Mulsims, laws specific to Muslims and so on

 

you label the issue a 'tiny threat'? Are 2 Innocent americans being be-headed a tiny threat?? Thousands of Christians killed and kurdish refugees ect ect

 

I refer you to my previous answer

 

You clearly think we are immune and that it never will happen to us.

 

Quite the opposite..there is a small risk that some of us will be affected by Muslim terrorist activity and of course we have to have measures in palce to combat that and punish the guilty. But they have to be proportionate..so for example we don't 'punish' all Muslims cos of the activities of a relatively small number

 

I repeat the EDL was to motivate and bring to the govermen'ts attention what is happening

 

No need to repeat that

 

as like yourself you clearly have no idea and is happy to pretend evrything is rosy in the garden.

 

Proposterous as usual

 

And make you mind up..do I actually belive all is rosy or am i pretending that all is rosy? Can't be both

 

I think we will leave it there now- our interpretations of what is a tiny threat to a giant threat obviously differ. I don't think there is much else to say..except wow!! I'm speechless!!!

 

Indeed they do...your reaction to the threat it totally over the top in that you see all Muslims as some sort of threat cos of the actions of a tiny moniroty..including the perfectly inncocent Muslim woman walking down the street taking her kids to school wearing a Burka who is apparently a threat to national security..still no answer to that one

[JOHNNYAITCH]

So if you're so against forcing a women to wear a Burka why allow it to happen, only solution is to ban it.

 

Are you serious?

 

I'm against drunk driving so why not ban drinking, I am against smoking so why not ban it, I am against knife crime so why not ban them, I am against abortion so that should be banned..

 

and above all else what happens to the woman who WANTS to wear Burka as an expression of her faith..you wnat to ban that and I cannot agree with thst

 

I meant to type "I prefer all women to have the freedom to choose within the law 100% off the time". You are not bothered by the women and young children that are forced to wear it in the UK.

 

What utter nonsense

 

I have repeatedly stated that forcing any woman or girl to wear a burka is wrong and must not be allowed

 

An example..post 278

 

"No as I have clearly stated forcing a woman to wear a Burka is wrong and that in some circumstance the wearing of it is always wrong (cort, banks etc) and it shoud be removed"

 

You're entitled to your opinion.[/qhote]

 

As is everyone else

 

And don't forget politically correct, look through your posts.

 

You clearly do not understand what politically correct means if you think I am politically correct

 

Skinheads and was it tatoos when discussing Burka's, do you understand the definition of of the word dilute.[/.quote]

 

The issue was raised (by Carl as I recall) that one of the resons for banning the Burka was that some people found it intimidating. I asked him why he didn't have such an attitude to all aspects of appearance that people found intimidating and gave some examples. He brought appeanace into it and took the issue away from women being forced to wear a Burka not me

 

Pose that to the person who posted it, I have no idea why anyone would post that.[/.quote]

 

Me neither.still waiting for an answer form Carl

 

Again, pose that to the person who posted it.

 

My bad

[JOHNNYAITCH]

You refer to the "royal accent"

 

The Queen is very well spoken

 

Do you not think within another 30 - 40 years with the muslim rate of family growth 3-5 against the white christian (1-2) that this will lead to their faith outnumbering our faith and increasing to around at least 25 % of the population.

 

No

 

However if decisions in the country are made by democrativ methods then so be it

 

Thats in another 20 years give another 60 years i dread to think.

 

Indeed

 

The country will be overran it's as simple as that. Which means many laws or organisation will be born as a result of muslim MP's entering parliament- eventualy we could see the dissloved parliament as we know it and eventually sharia will be brought in due total population dominance.

 

Democracy at work

 

I have not come across any muslim yet who condemns Sharia law as it is part of their religion- so eventually it will be implemented unless we stop the immigration of muslims (which could mean leaving the EU) and better border control furthermore any muslims who go to middle east country's longer than at least two weeks need to have a period such as five years when they cannot return back.

 

Confused..you say it will happen cos of population growth then cos of inmigration.

 

 

Please enlighten us with how many Muslims have sst down with and had a serious discussion about Sharia Law and their attitude to it in the UK

 

This is called border control!

 

We have border controls

 

If muslims can have crucifixs banned in public schools and meats banned in our many takeaway outllets

 

Whenever I have read about such "bans" they have been deemed illegal and reversed.

 

And as i have stated before no one should be eating halal meat without kniwng it nor be compelled to eat halal meat,,that is just wrong

 

who knows what they can ban next-it is a long process but they are intent with taking over this country make no mistake.[/qyuote]

 

If it's achieved thru the democratic process then so be it

 

If, as like JA,you were not so ignorant against working class people

 

How condescending

 

As a working class person i find that so innacurate it actually made me chuckle.

 

you will research the edl and see many of its members have genuine fears and concerns.

 

I have done so...for example I asked you as someone who knows about it what they are all about

 

I got this from their site "We should not be afraid to speak our minds, to fly the flags of our nations, to say plainly what we believe to be right and what we believe to be wrong." Absolutekt agree with that 100%. But if you beliee in that (as I do) then everyone has the right to say plainly what they belive to be right and what they believe to be wrong

 

 

 

Please get this silly hooligan image out of your head. These people are in a minority.

 

I am sure that you are right

 

It's a little like UKIP when ignorant people beand them racists just cos a few are indeed racists. Most people I know who support UKIP are far from racist, they just have heartfelt fears and concerns about the direction this country is going in

 

 

The EDL'S principles are to stop the implementation of Muslim rule and the eradication of our cultures, values, indeed all ways of life.

 

I'll ask you again as I've still not had an answer..what are out cultures, values etc.

 

 

You also need to read the Sharia law it is an old medieval barbaric document that has no place in modern western society. Stop being so ignorant.

 

Indeed I belive we should be campaigning against it within our political and legal system andf hope that theu those systems we can stop it's progress. But as you belive that people "should not be afraid to speak our minds, to fly the flags of our nations, to say plainly what we believe to be right and what we believe to be wrong." then you have to accept that Mulims have the right to campaign for Sharia law.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Figures are really irrellevant- just open your eyes and see for yourself in any UK City.

 

I was in Exeter for several hours on Saturday..number of people i saw wearing a Burka (or similar) 0. Number of 'Muslim looking' men I saw - 0. Number of Mosques i saw - 0

 

Was in Torquayt yesterday and the results were..identical

 

Now I am not comapring these places to Birmingham or Bradford or London or even SoT but to claim that all UK cities are in the same position is clearly ridiculous

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Carl

 

You posted this

 

"Maybe if you pay more attention and listen more to other peoples veiws you will know the issues are a lot more deep rooted than 'the colour of someones skin"

 

But previoulsy you posted this (post 228)

 

"You may work in other areas but your ignorance is such that you do not even acknowledge the white population being eradicated in many parts of the country."

 

I'll leave others to make their own minds up on that

[JOHNNYAITCH]

You will find if you take this "attitude" to edl marches you are 50/50 to whether you get your head kicked in. Many have serious concerns and fears for this country..

 

And half of them apparently choose to express their serious concerns and fear thru extreme violence:doh:

 

I trust you condemn 100% those who would seek to express their disgreement with Yukon thru violence

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Farage has a clear point. Two and a half million unemployed and even many who are registered employed are only working part time. Again you are fooled by the governments brainwashing. Luckily enough a good majority has the intelligence to see through this.

 

The underclass you refer to as 'chronically lazy' are in a very small minority- dont paint every unemployed person with the same brush- quite a few are struggling genuinely to find employment or even proper training- blame the government not the poor working underclass.

 

 

It would of course be ridiculus to paint all of any group with the same brush based in the activities of a small number of that group whether that be the unemployed, football supporters, Muslims, the EDL and so on.

[Paul6754]

A 20 year increase of 16% of 4.4% of the population is an increase of 0.88% total population

 

What a truly terrifying statistic, we'll be overrun by the year 17,000

 

Sensationalising is the weapon of choice for those with agendas, I guess it's over exposure to the Daily Mail. Like above where you tried to suggest I was being aggressive or when you try to twist my words to say I implied all unemployed people are lazy and I never said either. At least you're consistent in not letting the truth get in the way

 

I'm no mathematician but 16% of 4.4% is 0.704%.

 

To give a little perspective in terms of net immigration to the UK, the latest government statistics show for each year for the last 10 years up to June 2013 the number of people who migrated to the UK totaled ca 500,000 and those who left ca 300,000 giving a net immigration of 200,000 per year. If the current population of the UK is ca 68,000,000 and a similar rate of immigration continues over the next 70 years then 35,000,000 will have entered the UK by 2084 whilst 21,000,000 will have left giving a total UK population in 2084 of some 82,000,000 people.

 

The make up of the 82,000,000 population in 2084 will be 47,000,000 (68m-21m=47m) who were present in the country in 2014 plus 35,000,000 who entered since 2014 resulting in approx half of the population by 2084 being born outside of the UK since 2000. The UK will be a very, very different place in 2084 population wise for our children and their children.

 

These numbers are very simplistic and there are many assumptions as the rates of people entering and leaving the UK will vary, people already resident in 2014 (and after) will come and go but they put immigration and the future make-up of the UK population into a little more perspective.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25135418

[Paul6754]

Are you serious?

 

I'm against drunk driving so why not ban drinking, I am against smoking so why not ban it, I am against knife crime so why not ban them, I am against abortion so that should be banned..

 

and above all else what happens to the woman who WANTS to wear Burka as an expression of her faith..you wnat to ban that and I cannot agree with thst

 

 

 

What utter nonsense

 

I have repeatedly stated that forcing any woman or girl to wear a burka is wrong and must not be allowed

 

An example..post 278

 

"No as I have clearly stated forcing a woman to wear a Burka is wrong and that in some circumstance the wearing of it is always wrong (cort, banks etc) and it shoud be removed"

 

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

As is everyone else

 

 

 

You clearly do not understand what politically correct means if you think I am politically correct

 

Skinheads and was it tatoos when discussing Burka's, do you understand the definition of of the word dilute.

 

The issue was raised (by Carl as I recall) that one of the resons for banning the Burka was that some people found it intimidating. I asked him why he didn't have such an attitude to all aspects of appearance that people found intimidating and gave some examples. He brought appeanace into it and took the issue away from women being forced to wear a Burka not me

 

Pose that to the person who posted it, I have no idea why anyone would post that.[/.quote]

 

Me neither.still waiting for an answer form Carl

 

 

 

My bad

 

Fundamental difference between us on this and other topics. My view is to give freedom of choice 100% of the time to 100% of women within the laws of the UK which is what I as a male enjoy. You're happy to take away an individual woman's freedom of choice and hand it to someone else depending on what the agenda or the belief of the someone else is.

 

You have to accept the facts/real occurrences that some women and some school girls in the UK have been forced to wear the Burka and have had no choice but to wear it. The only realistic way to stop this happening is to ban it by law.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I'm no mathematician but 16% of 4.4% is 0.704%.

 

To give a little perspective in terms of net immigration to the UK, the latest government statistics show for each year for the last 10 years up to June 2013 the number of people who migrated to the UK totaled ca 500,000 and those who left ca 300,000 giving a net immigration of 200,000 per year. If the current population of the UK is ca 68,000,000 and a similar rate of immigration continues over the next 70 years then 35,000,000 will have entered the UK by 2084 whilst 21,000,000 will have left giving a total UK population in 2084 of some 82,000,000 people.

 

In fact isn't it possibly going to be more as the birth rate amongst immigrants tends to be higher?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Fundamental difference between us on this and other topics. My view is to give freedom of choice 100% of the time to 100% of women within the laws of the UK which is what I as a male enjoy.

 

That is factually incorrect as you want to take away the option of wearing a burka form those women that want to..so it's incorrect that you want freedom of choice 100% of the time for 100% of women. I do, you defnitely as you have stated do not.

 

You're happy to take away an individual woman's freedom of choice and hand it to someone else depending on what the agenda or the belief of the someone else is.

 

Absolute claptrap..I want them to have freedom of choice whatever their choice..you don't. I am in no way happy that 'someone else' can make the choice for any woman and have stated so several times.

 

I'll repeat myself as it clearly hasn't sunk in

 

An example..post 278

 

"No as I have clearly stated forcing a woman to wear a Burka is wrong and that in some circumstance the wearing of it is always wrong (cort, banks etc) and it shoud be removed"

 

 

You have to accept the facts/real occurrences that some women and some school girls in the UK have been forced to wear the Burka and have had no choice but to wear it.

 

For the sake of every God..I have repeatedly stated that i accept that it happens and that it is always wrong to force a woman or girl to wear a burka. As you say "some women and some school girls" so you have to accept that not all who wear a burka are forced to.

 

The only realistic way to stop this happening is to ban it by law.

 

It will for example not stop it in private homes, it wil not stop it in mosques, it will not stop it at private events..you will just push it underground, push the affected Muslim women even more into the background and under the control of their husbands and make it even more difficult to deal with.

[Paul6754]

In fact isn't it possibly going to be more as the birth rate amongst immigrants tends to be higher?

 

it's not easy to factor in given the simplistic calculation.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

But it is easy to say that it's likely given that immigrant birth rates are higher, that the population will increase faster than the rate of net immigration..withiout being able to put a figure to it