Appalling stuff from the Daily Express

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

Most of the violence is Iraqis killing other Iraqi's isnt it?

Yes, but that doesn't help BBKing knocking the efforts of British people over there trying to make things better.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

If you read the thread, you would find the figures from the Office of National Statistics on page 2, post number 20.
ONS

A breakdown of the ethnic minorities of large cities and northern towns is also interesting.

For instance the Muslim Council of Great Britain puts the Muslim populations of these local authorities at:

Tower Hamlets - 71,000 (36% of population))
Newham - 59,000 (24%)
Blackburn - 27,000 (19%)
Bradford - 75,000 (16%)
Waltham Forest - 33,000 (15%)
Luton - 27,000 (15%)
Birmingham - 140,000 (14%)
Hackney - 28,000 (14%)
Pendle - 12,000 (13%)
Slough - 16,000 (13%)
Brent - 32,000 (12%)
Redbridge - 29,000 (12%)
Westminster - 21,000 (12%)
Camden - 23,000 (12%)
Haringey - 24,000 (11%)

Some of these Muslims are no doubt white and British.

Information available from local authorities shows a much heavier concentration of ethnic minorities in some areas. One of the broadsheets, the Independent I think, produced an ethnic map of Britain which illustrated where these concentrations were, but sadly it no longer seems to be available on their website.

But information is available about ethnic make up in individual areas (based on self-declared information in the 2001 Census) is available from the CRE.

I think the country is fracturing along racial/cultural lines, and it's worrying. I have relations who live in some of those Northern towns and resentment is building on all sides.

Originally Posted by freezin

....snip......

I think the country is fracturing along racial/cultural lines, and it's worrying. I have relations who live in some of those Northern towns and resentment is building on all sides.

I live in one of those northern towns, and I disagree. There may be instances of frictions between different groups, but they had those in Glasgow and Liverpool (amongst others) in the 60's and 70's between Catholics and Protestants, and I don't remember anyone claiming that the UK would be over-run with left-footers within the next couple of generations.

I think the main reason that there is any possibility of "the country is fracturing along racial/cultural lines" is that people keep crying wolf for their own agendas, hoping to raise fear, uncertainty, and doubt amongst all members of society, to enable their own ends to be met.

Yes, there are issues and problems in areas of our communities, but there have always been social and cultural differences with immigrants to our shores, from the Romans, to the Normans, to the Huguenots, to the Commonwealth citizens of the Caribbean we invited in 50's and 60's - but it has all worked out in the end, because most people want to get along, and not use the fact that just because people are different, that does not make them "invaders" or "not brittish" (to quote earlier posters).

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Yes, but that doesn't help BBKing knocking the efforts of British people over there trying to make things better.

They are an easy target for those that would not have the balls to do what they are doing, The type that does not give a hoot about this country's security but would see some **** bag get away with murder . "That was NOT aimed at BBKing btw"

Multiracialism is irrelevant, I think multiculturalism is the 'problem'. A commitment to a religion is adherence to a whole distinctive lifestyle, so segregation is unavoidable as people with common dietary requirements/rituals/beliefs will naturally stick together and form their own communities. Hopefully, religiousity will decline in the next few generations and the as will the tensions with it. The government should have a view to make these communities at the very least much more moderate, and to not pander to their cultural differences as this will perpetuate the segregation and tensions. Immigrants should accept sacrifices of their previous culture and must learn English.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I live in one of those northern towns, and I disagree. There may be instances of frictions between different groups, but they had those in Glasgow and Liverpool (amongst others) in the 60's and 70's between Catholics and Protestants, and I don't remember anyone claiming that the UK would be over-run with left-footers within the next couple of generations.

People like Trevor Philips have voiced serious concerns about the segregation of communities, as in this speech. Is he doing any of the things you suggest? And I wouldn't call the recent riots "frictions"!

I think the main reason that there is any possibility of "the country is fracturing along racial/cultural lines" is that people keep crying wolf for their own agendas, hoping to raise fear, uncertainty, and doubt amongst all members of society, to enable their own ends to be met.

I disagree. I think as the country becomes more crowded, quality of life will fall for everyone here. But please be more specific. Which people are doing that and in what way are they doing so? Is anyone who expresses concerns about mass immigration doing that in your view? And just what is the agenda of the people who support mass immigration?

Yes, there are issues and problems in areas of our communities, but there have always been social and cultural differences with immigrants to our shores, from the Romans, to the Normans, to the Huguenots, to the Commonwealth citizens of the Caribbean we invited in 50's and 60's - but it has all worked out in the end, because most people want to get along, and not use the fact that just because people are different, that does not make them "invaders" or "not brittish" (to quote earlier posters).

The British population before the Black Death was approximately 7 million, and even by the 1960s it it still hadn't reached 53 million, so immigration in the past simply did not have the impact that it does today. It has now reached over 60 million and official predictions expect it to reach 70.5 million by 2074 with a current official net immigration rate of about 180,000 pa. (But the government doesn't actually know the population of the country so official estimates should be treated with caution.) Given that we are already one of the World's most densely populated countries, would you expect Britain's future inhabitants to have a good quality of life?

A total of only 50,000 or so Hugeunots fled to Britain when the population was still comparatively tiny and they integrated. It is also interesting to note that after the Black Death which almost halved the population, life for the surviving peasants improved in that their employers had to contend with the increased mobility in the labour market prompting wage inflation ... the opposite of what we see today.

[Xaccers]

Freezin, what can you tell us about the mass immigration from Ireland that occured in the 50's?

[BBKing]

Most of the violence is Iraqis killing other Iraqi's isnt it?

Most of the *deaths* are, but the Iraqis aren't in armored cars, in body armor, with ROE that say 'shoot cars that don't stop', and with medevac helicopters standing by.

For a long time the violence, defined as number of attacks however, was overwhelmingly against coalition forces, and indeed may still be so (not seen any figures recently). The includes anything from a chap having a pop with a rifle at a patrol to a mine explosion capable of destroying a tank to the rather elaborate co-ordinated downing of a US chopper followed by two ambushes of the rescue party. We've really given the bad guys world-class training in counter-insurgency.

Yes, but that doesn't help BBKing knocking the efforts of British people over there trying to make things better.

I'm certainly not knocking the British Army, since I tend to agree with a lot of the views expressed on ARRSE, in particular (shorter version: 'Blair is a ****/the mission's pointless/get out now'). I *am* knocking a) the people who lied to send them there and b) people who have an irrationally rosy view of the situation out of all proportion to the few known facts, who don't listen to the views of serious military men who know what they're talking about, preferring the views of charlatans like Bush and Blair.

The troops want to come home, the population of the UK overwhelmingly want them to come home, the population of *Iraq* overwhelmingly want them to come home, so why should all three views receive the middle finger?

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by ginge51

id like a link to that please as thats totally untrue.
whites in gb make up possibly 75-80% of gb possibly less.
how on earth with all these different cultures can there be 90-95% white polulation?
especially with all the immergrents coming in.

Could you provide a link as well please? Preferably one that shows the apparent correlation between the 'far-right' members of our happy little band, and their complete inability to either write in English or spell...

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by BBKing

I'm certainly not knocking the British Army, since I tend to agree with a lot of the views expressed on ARRSE, in particular (shorter version: 'Blair is a ****/the mission's pointless/get out now'). I *am* knocking a) the people who lied to send them there and b) people who have an irrationally rosy view of the situation out of all proportion to the few known facts, who don't listen to the views of serious military men who know what they're talking about, preferring the views of charlatans like Bush and Blair.

The troops want to come home, the population of the UK overwhelmingly want them to come home, the population of *Iraq* overwhelmingly want them to come home, so why should all three views receive the middle finger?

And the British people living and working out there trying to make things better BBKing? What about them? Force them home? March in the streets of London to abandon them like you'd do for the Iraqi people who don't want things to get worse, who want to live in a peaceful country, but hey lets ignore them, they don't matter do they?
It's a mess, we could stay and help out as we have done? Oh wait, that's a positive statement, can't have that now can we? Obviously everything our forces do is a joke to you, they're not there giving security, you scoffed at that suggesting in another thread. Lets just bring them home and turn our backs on other human beings in need hey?
Hmm, sounds similar to Locky, wonder if you realised you had so much in common with him?

Most of the *deaths* are, but the Iraqis aren't in armored cars, in body armor, with ROE that say 'shoot cars that don't stop', and with medevac helicopters standing by.

For a long time the violence, defined as number of attacks however, was overwhelmingly against coalition forces, and indeed may still be so (not seen any figures recently). The includes anything from a chap having a pop with a rifle at a patrol to a mine explosion capable of destroying a tank to the rather elaborate co-ordinated downing of a US chopper followed by two ambushes of the rescue party. We've really given the bad guys world-class training in counter-insurgency.

The troops want to come home, the population of the UK overwhelmingly want them to come home, the population of *Iraq* overwhelmingly want them to come home, so why should all three views receive the middle finger?

I supported the war in Iraq, Now I dont. But the army serves at the command of the government and its leaders and not public perception.

With regards to Iraq, surely a lot of the people wanting the troops to leave are the ones who want to gain control of Iraq and are doing the killings? They are attacking US/UK troops and are each other. Wont our leaving open the door to a massive spade of killings and power grabs?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

It's a mess, we could stay and help out as we have done?

Surely we played a large part in creating the mess? I'm not saying things were good under Saddam, but they could hardly be worse than they are now?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by danielf

Surely we played a large part in creating the mess? I'm not saying things were good under Saddam, but they could hardly be worse than they are now?

Exactly, through lack of support, and by allowing militias etc to gain power, hence why we should remain until the Iraqi goverment are able to keep the peace, rather than withdraw and let things get worse.
It's all about thinking of your fellow man rather than sticking two fingers up at them and leaving them to be killed.
The likes of Locky have stated they'd prefer Iraqi's be left to kill each other (actually he said British business should profit from foreigners killing each other).
Pulling out the troops before the Iraqi government is able to maintain order would have that effect.

Originally Posted by freezin

People like Trevor Philips have voiced serious concerns about the segregation of communities, as in this speech. Is he doing any of the things you suggest? And I wouldn't call the recent riots "frictions"!

But unlike other commentators, Trevor Philips proposed solutions to increase integration, rather than just repeating "rivers of blood" type speeches. If by the "recent riots" you mean Birmingham Lozells, they seem very reminiscent of occurrences in Norn Iron in the 60's up to recently (or doesn't NI count as part of UK?), and that appears to be settling down nicely now. If you mean the riots in 2001, not very "recent", are they?

Originally Posted by freezin

I disagree. I think as the country becomes more crowded, quality of life will fall for everyone here. But please be more specific. Which people are doing that and in what way are they doing so? Is anyone who expresses concerns about mass immigration doing that in your view? And just what is the agenda of the people who support mass immigration?

Oooh, to name but a few - BNP, UKIP; if you read their literature (and I am sure you do), you will find many instances of comments and language catering to the lowest common demoninator of fear of difference people and cultures.

I don't believe that everyone who raises the issue of immigration (loved the way you inserted "mass" in there - nice trick using emotive language ) is crying wolf, just the ones who use the topic to incite fear in others for their own ends, appealing to those who feel uneasy and are looking for someone, anyone, to blame. btw, who said (besides you, twisting things round and using more emotive language) that some people support "mass" (there's that extra word slipped in again) immigration, and that they have an agenda? Is ther actually an organisation that exists whose stated purpose is to ensure "mass" immigration into our green and sceptered isle? Or is that the old political trick of creating and smearing non-existent opponents, in order to let the the smearers (uuurgh) make statements that would otherwise have no justification? (as in, we must stand against all these (non-existent) organisations and people who believe in "mass" (love that word) immigration).

Originally Posted by freezin

The British population before the Black Death was approximately 7 million, and even by the 1960s it it still hadn't reached 53 million, so immigration in the past simply did not have the impact that it does today. It has now reached over 60 million and official predictions expect it to reach 70.5 million by 2074 with a current official net immigration rate of about 180,000 pa. (But the government doesn't actually know the population of the country so official estimates should be treated with caution.) Given that we are already one of the World's most densely populated countries, would you expect Britain's future inhabitants to have a good quality of life?

erm, 48th out of 230 - not really "one of the World's most densely populated countries", is it?

Originally Posted by freezin

A total of only 50,000 or so Hugeunots fled to Britain when the population was still comparatively tiny and they integrated. It is also interesting to note that after the Black Death which almost halved the population, life for the surviving peasants improved in that their employers had to contend with the increased mobility in the labour market prompting wage inflation ... the opposite of what we see today.

Black Death = 14th Century; Hugeunots = 17th Century - the connection is? The plague outbreak in the 17th Century killed approx 100k in England, and the Hugeunots integrated over time, just like (I believe) recent immigrants will.
btw, the 14th Century Black Death also has some other social side effects (Wiki) -"The Black Death had a drastic effect on Europe's population, irrevocably changing Europe's social structure. It was a serious blow to the Roman Catholic Church, Europe's predominant religious institution at the time, and resulted in widespread persecution of minorities such as Jews, Muslims, foreigners, beggars and lepers"

---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

Surely we played a large part in creating the mess? I'm not saying things were good under Saddam, but they could hardly be worse than they are now?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Exactly, through lack of support, and by allowing militias etc to gain power, hence why we should remain until the Iraqi goverment are able to keep the peace, rather than withdraw and let things get worse.
It's all about thinking of your fellow man rather than sticking two fingers up at them and leaving them to be killed.
The likes of Locky have stated they'd prefer Iraqi's be left to kill each other (actually he said British business should profit from foreigners killing each other).
Pulling out the troops before the Iraqi government is able to maintain order would have that effect.

Xaccers, a lot of the present mess was caused by de-Ba'athification of the Iraqi Civil Service, and the decision to disband the Iraqi Army; this left a lot of trained, unemployed, discontented people who blamed the Coalition for their problems, and a lot of unguarded weapons facilities -this was a Coalition policy decision, which most people, including Paul Bremer and leading members of US and UK governments, realise was wrong.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Exactly, through lack of support, and by allowing militias etc to gain power, hence why we should remain until the Iraqi goverment are able to keep the peace, rather than withdraw and let things get worse.
It's all about thinking of your fellow man rather than sticking two fingers up at them and leaving them to be killed.

I find that a rather distasteful accusation. I was not particularly in favour of the war, but, for a long time felt that we should stay to clear up the mess we created. Right now I'm leaning towards thinking we are doing more harm than good. It's got nothing to do with sticking two fingers up to the Iragis. Quite the opposite in fact.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The likes of Locky have stated they'd prefer Iraqi's be left to kill each other.
Pulling out the troops before the Iraqi government is able to maintain order would have that effect.

Again, I suggest you reconsider your posting style. Comparing people that disagree with you with people that would like to see a race war? What type of debating technique is that?