For_England

Firstly, a culture is far more than a language. America speaks English, but it does not have an English culture. You seem to be conceding my part, and then dismissing it as 'oh well, even if England is no longer English, people around the world will still speak English'. How wonderful. Secondly, you really do illustrate the mental disease of liberalism when you state that only half a percent to one percent want sharia law. the figure is around 60 percent, if I am not mistaken (it might be slightly higher, it is not lower). Don't you realise that your burying of your head in the sand is not a private matter, but people like you are leading us all along the path of destruction?

rjt

Well i certainly agree that culture is more than a language.

It will be intresting if we are able to get a accurate reading has regarding how many muslim voters do support partys who want Shiria Law I no doubt given your claim you can prove this.

On the subject of Liberalism being a mental illness I disagree, Liberalism if taken to its extreme as it has been over social policy on a few occasions in this country is deeply damaging to the fabric of our society. However those who dream of an imigrant free utopia might be consided to be suffering from some form of delusion.

__________________
Mr Delors said that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the community, The Commission to be The Executive and The Council Of Ministers The Senate. NO! NO! NO!
(Margaret Thatcher 30 Oct 1990)

Ignore List: The Prophets of ST Al the Unelectable.

For_England

Guardian | British Muslims want Islamic law and prayers at work

I disagree - liberalism exalts supposedly universal principles above human nature. It is an ungodly enlightenment way of thinking that needs a comparable 'romanticism' to balance it. It's a mental illness because, if left unchecked, it will result in the destruction of civlisation as we know it. It is as much a mental illness as someone who wants to cause harm to themselves. No-one here is saying that being immigrant-free automatically will bring a utopia. What we are saying is that human beings are designed to live in community - the family, the community, the ethnic tribal group, and that when you mess with this, you will cause problems. God, you will remember, created this wonderful diversity of human existence at the Tower of Babel, and when whites are not concerned (because we have been taught to pretend they don't exist), we generally agree that people groups should be able to live unmolested among themselves and in accordance with their own way of life - whether we think of the Kurds, Jews, Palestinians, Tibetans and other indigenous groups who are being dispossessed of their lands and unique way of life. This is why Wilson created his fourteen points and 'national self-determination'. We should never have abandoned that. Just because colonisation and ethnocide is taking place against whites, doesn't mean that it isn't ethnocide. But anyway, I am not saying that the absense of this means there are no problems, only that by introducing mass immigration you create more problems than there would otherwise be.

rjt

Any idelogy left unchecked is lethal I agree with you, as is mass imigration you will certainly find support for that. People should indeed be able to live in accordance with thier own way of life however if they choose to do that in a country where that countrys law conflicts with there way of life then the countrys law must take precedence. That should be what we are aiming for.

__________________
Mr Delors said that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the community, The Commission to be The Executive and The Council Of Ministers The Senate. NO! NO! NO!
(Margaret Thatcher 30 Oct 1990)

Ignore List: The Prophets of ST Al the Unelectable.

Tom Wilde

Yes, as I plainly indicated in my post. Read it again.

What bit do you think I am conceding? I think you'll find you are mistaken.

I was merely pointing out that our culture, far from being threatened, is one of the most successful and dominant in the world today. Do you seriously deny that?

Hello, brainiac? Read my post again, slowly. See where it says that "Muslims constitute about 3% of the UK population"? See where it says that "0.5-1% of the UK's population would actually like to see Sharia law in Britain"? You'll find that these two statements taken together imply that I estimate about 15-30% of the Muslim population want Sharia law. (Actually I suspect the true figure is much lower, but I was conceding a figure of up to 30% purely for the sake of argument.) In other words, we disagreed but only by about a factor of 2. So it seems like you are diagnosing mental illness on a pretty shaky evidential foundation, professor. If you want evidence that I'm bonkers, then you might start instead with the fact that I'm bothering to argue with you at all.

I wouldn't mind your lousy maths and half-baked presuppositions if they were a purely private matter, but somebody very gullible might think you knew what you were talking about, and thus take seriously your ridiculous conclusion that we face the possibility of being subjected to Sharia law. More fool them, but if it led them to support discriminatory legislation against peaceful and law-abiding British Muslims then you would have done real harm.

For_England

Okay, that's nice to know people will still be reading Shakespeare and playing cricket long after we are gone.

That liberals live in la-la land.

Both are true.


I read over it again, and grammatically my interpretation of your words was possible, since the subject of the previous sentence was 'UK Muslims', and you didn't transition to a new subject of the 'UK population', but spoke of the UK population only in the genitive. It was quite acceptable for me to supply 'Muslim' in your sentence - '1-3 % of the UK's [Muslim] population etc'. It was capable of both interpretations, so the problem is only with your lack of clarity. You could simply have left off the apostrophe - 'the UK population', and we wouldn't be having this pointless attempt on your part to diminish my mental abilities and education (don't bother, because you will lose, I assue you. I have more academic awards and memberships then probably all of you put together). However, it is not true to say that the majority of Muslims would be horrified by Sharia law. In fact a majority want it, and more so among the younger generations. However, wasn't it you who challenged me on Muslim demographics, and then never responded when I gave evidence that at present rates, there will be 20-30 million Muslims in the country by the mid century? Don't pretend that we are worried with the present number of the Muslim population - it is the demographics that concern sane people not afflicted with liberalism.


I don't think you are bonkers - at least in a conventional sense. However just because I have 'bnp' in my user name doesn't mean I'm not a real person with real and unaddressed concerns, and it certainly doesn't imply I'm am bonkers either. It simply implies that I see only one party that wishes to preserve the national self-determination of the ethnic group called the English (and the Scots and Welsh too, though I personally don't care as much about them, though I hope they wake up too). I see little hope in our ethnic ghettos that Britain will be a nice place for my children to live in if the BNP don't get in. Being thought of as 'bonkers' by obviously intellectually-challenged UKIPers (I'm talking of the board as a whole, not you in particular - strange, UKIPers generally aren't too bad - this board must attract recent graduates or something - that would explain the ignorance mixed with intellectual arrogance) is a small price to pay for their future.

LOL you really think you got me on my maths ('lousy' - sorry, I didn't realise the Ameircans had invaded), when in fact it was your own grammar. Then answer my demographic arguments - perhaps I can dig them out and repost them? I'm not after legislation against them. They want to live in accordance to their laws. I agree. I think they should be repatriated forcibly. The Indians and everyone can stay if they choose, but the Muslims are a threat. Our forbears in the British empire forcibly removed the French from Arcadia (an evil act) by marching them across a continent. And softy softy brits today don't even want to put these subversive people on an air-conditioned aeroplane - not to the middle of the ocean, not to gas chambers - but to their own countries, where they can have the acceptance which they will never find in someone elses land, where they want to be the dominant force and have their culture and religion 'respected' at the cost of ours. That is the most sensible and humane option in the long run for everyone. Your ideas will lead to misery and bloodshed for everyone.

Tom Wilde

Whatever your academic field, it plainly isn't statistics, linguistics or psychology! And as to 'diminishing your mental abilities', well I'm afraid I couldn't possibly.

Oddly, I do seem to remember responding - by pointing out the careless factor-of-four error in the final paragraph of what you are pleased to call your 'Muslim demographics'. I intended to respond further, but was too busy thinking up devastating refutations of the claims that the earth is hollow and that the moon is made of gruyere - both of which theories have better supporting evidence than your one about Muslim population growth. If I had responded further, I might have pointed out that your projections seem to assume that Muslims, unlike members of other religious denominations, have no mortality rate. (If this is really true, I might convert to Islam myself!) Your figures also assumed that all Muslim communities, regardless of their cultural background, share the same marriage patterns and birthrates as the one in the single city you quoted (was it Bradford?); and that a growing community of Muslims would nonetheless continue to import overseas brides at the same proportional rate as at present, rather than at a falling proportional rate. I seem to recall that some of the 'data' from which you extrapolated was unsourced, too. Sorry I can't be more specific now, but it is late and I'm too tired to look up your original post. Do feel free to link to it from here, if you aren't too embarrassed.

Do we all get to play this game of saying which British citizens we wish to throw out of this country? If it was a choice between expelling five randomly-selected British Muslims or five randomly selected BNP members, I'd cheerfully help bundle the BNP types onto the plane. Sadly for this fantasy, I don't believe in forced deprivation of nationality.

For_England

My linguistics?

Since they were based upon the city of Bradford's reckoning, then I would imagine that even silly liberals like the ones making up the council there would have factored that in.

Yes. Do you have any evidence that this was a poor assumption to make? Did I not quote figures for Muslims in general?

Yes, that is a valid criticism, though we certainly don't see any evidence that it will stop anytime soon, and the city of Bradford isn't expecting it to. It's certainly not improbable that it will continue as at the present rate. But it's fair to also calculate what it will be if we only deal with the birth rate. Still, your assumption is that things will get better, and they will assimilate more and more. In fact younger generations are more radical. Your dreams are simply that.



rather than at a falling proportional rate. I seem to recall that some of the 'data' from which you extrapolated was unsourced, too. Sorry I can't be more specific now, but it is late and I'm too tired to look up your original post. Do feel free to link to it from here, if you aren't too embarrassed.


Yes, of course you do, because you do not believe that the present policies are leading us down the path towards war and misery. And so you think that people such as I - who merely point out the problems - are the problem.

Independence Now!

Mass, uncontrolled immigration is being used by the British government and by employers to cover-up dire deficiencies in the state 'education' system and training. Admittedly, our state schools weren't perfect decades ago but many people did get a semblance of an education out of them. Now, virtually no-one does. I would like to see a Grammar school in every town that wants want. They were the 'poor man's public school' and did an excellent job for working-class youngsters whose parents weren't rich enough to afford school fees but who were bright. Of course, we also need to improve our other state schools as well but the Grammars should be brought back.


Britain supposedly has the forth largest economy in the world so why the need for mass immigration, especially when there are millions of Britons 'economically inactive'. Something has gone very wrong somewhere!

Millennium3

I don't know if anyone recalls the old Industry Training Boards. These were statutory organisations which were entitled to levy a proportion of companies emoluments [1% I think] which could be returned as a form of grant for industrial training provided by the company. These were closed down by Thatcher.

They operated on the bases that, although it was the states job to provide academic training, work related training was for the benefit of employers and so should be paid for by them. If a similar scheme were revived - it would be in businesses interest to take many of those already on the scrap heap and train them up.