BBC News: Why have the white British left London?

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish

Pay not attention to the trolls playing semantics.

Only when it is too late will the nay sayers admit they were wrong and multiculturalism doesn't work.


I suspect that they won't admit they were wrong even then.

Those damn pessimistic, prejudiced, stupid, bigoted racists will have caused it all!


edit on 6-3-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 




You think Britain is a "white country". You're a bigot.


You see, there you go again.

Have you read this?

terms and conditions

Pay special attention to:-

15g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling



Which is why you can't actually engage with any of what I've written. There's no actual basis to your position beyond prejudice.


I'm more than happy to engage with any poster. I can engage all night long.

So far, you have proven to be a slippery customer who craftily skates around awkward questions put to him.....I rather suspect because you don't like the answer.

Like this question, for example:

"I wonder how your wonderful multicultural/multiethnic utopian world outlook would go down in New Delhi and Islamabad?"

We both know the answer to that one, but you don't like it because it doesn't support your political agenda.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

You realise that you're basically saying that you're allowed to be a bigot because you think other people might be? Does that seem logical to you?


But you haven't answered his question. Insulting a poster to evade answering a question suggests that you are unable to justify your position.


CJCrawley

"I wonder how your wonderful multicultural/multiethnic utopian world outlook would go down in New Delhi and Islamabad?"


Without trying to again evade the question by insulting him (again), how well do you think a multicultural/multiethnic utopia would go down in New Delhi and Islamabad?



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by greatfriendbadfoe

Originally posted by Agarta
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I love how they state

white Brits are now in a minority in London, making up just 45% of its residents.


How does 45% of a population constitute a minority when the other 55% is made up of MINORITIES?

Mixed 405,279 5.0% = Minority
Asian 1,511,546 18.4% = Minority
Black 1,088,640 13.3% = Minority
Arab 106,020 1.3% = Minority
Any other ethnic group 175,021 2.1% = Minority(all above = 40.1%)
White 4,887,435 59.8% = Not a Minority even if White British 3,669,284 44.9%

Source


45% in my book is still less than half which means a minority compared to other races. Call me racist I DON'T CARE! When an area loses its original appeal due to other groups coming into that area then it means one has to either change their perspective on things or change their location. Looks like many brits decided to change their location. Also says that maybe, just maybe, multiculturism isn't all that it's cut out to be. sure wouldn't want to live in an area where my language has lost its place.


We just have a different definition on Minority apparently. Whites are the Majority, however when you group everyone else into a single category whites comprise of less than 50%. Lets say,

Bob receives 45% of the vote for Presidency
Jane receives 31.5%
Steve receives 14%
Jim receives 3.2%
Joe receives 2.6%
Tammy receives 1.9%
Scott receives 1.3%
Mike receives .3%
Tim receives .2%

Does this mean the Jane, Steve, Jim, Joe, Tammy, Scott, Mike, and Tim are now President? NO why because Bob received the MAJORITY of the vote.

Edit to add: It is just a way to twist and manipulate words in order to twist and manipulate minds and politicians, lawyers, and women(lol sorry bad joke, sorry ladies, bad Agarta bad bad bad Agarta) have been doing this forever. I do not discredit anything else in regards to your feelings or this subject but I hate the twisting of words.
edit on 6-3-2013 by Agarta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agarta

Bob receives 45% of the vote for Presidency
Jane receives 31.5%
Steve receives 14%

Does this mean the Jane, Steve, Jim, Joe, Tammy, Scott, Mike, and Tim are now President? NO why because Bob received the MAJORITY of the vote.


So the largest minority is actually the majority?

Are you sure that makes sense?

Surely Bob would only have received the majority of the votes if he had received more than 50%?



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by CJCrawley


"I wonder how your wonderful multicultural/multiethnic utopian world outlook would go down in New Delhi and Islamabad?"



Ah yes! This is the simple question that is skillfully avoided.

The same people that want Europe flooded with everyone else will say the world has no boarders and belongs to everyone. But the prospect of Europeans doing it to others is colonialism.

But to your question specifically, the answer (if it ever comes) shall be interesting.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 


I see what you mean but I still stick by my perception. If I was a white pom looking around for other white poms, I would see poms or not poms. Hence, if I was not wanting to be in a minority, I would leave. I would not see the divisions that you put forward. And I say again that I was bagged out here on ats by, imo, a fool from victoria when I stated that I don't want this sort of garbage happening down here in Oz. We are in a position to make sure it doesn't happen but unfortunately the vocal minority of manipulative PC nutters might destroy what we have and then, when it's too late AKA GB, they will turn around and deny they had anything to do with it



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Pay not attention to the trolls playing semantics.
Only when it is too late will the nay sayers admit they were wrong and multiculturalism doesn't work.


This is little more than an appeal to stick your head in the sand. As I've repeatedly said, I favour an honest discussion of immigration and multiculturalism. That's impossible if you pretend that accuracy is "semantics" or "trolling".



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CJCrawley
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 




You think Britain is a "white country". You're a bigot.


You see, there you go again.

Have you read this?

terms and conditions

Pay special attention to:-

15g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling



Which is why you can't actually engage with any of what I've written. There's no actual basis to your position beyond prejudice.


I'm more than happy to engage with any poster. I can engage all night long.

So far, you have proven to be a slippery customer who craftily skates around awkward questions put to him.....I rather suspect because you don't like the answer.

Like this question, for example:

"I wonder how your wonderful multicultural/multiethnic utopian world outlook would go down in New Delhi and Islamabad?"

We both know the answer to that one, but you don't like it because it doesn't support your political agenda.


I don't care about the website's terms and conditions. How uniquely cowardly to hide behind them. If you say that Britain is a "white country" you are a bigot. This is simply a matter of fact.

That you then go on to ignore my answers to your questions and insist - with no evidence whatsoever - that some obscure and irrelevant set of principles that you've invented applies in "New Delhi and Islamabad" just shows the poverty of your position. We do not "bot know" the answer to this question. You no more know it than you know what prejudice is.

Why is it that anti-immigrationists have to ignore facts and insist that others have an ulterior motive? Certainly it smacks of a very weak argument.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

You realise that you're basically saying that you're allowed to be a bigot because you think other people might be? Does that seem logical to you?


But you haven't answered his question. Insulting a poster to evade answering a question suggests that you are unable to justify your position.


CJCrawley

"I wonder how your wonderful multicultural/multiethnic utopian world outlook would go down in New Delhi and Islamabad?"


Without trying to again evade the question by insulting him (again), how well do you think a multicultural/multiethnic utopia would go down in New Delhi and Islamabad?



I have answered it, and I answered it again in a reply to you. You also answered it yourself. We both said we didn't know.

He doesn't know either. He's just pretending to, so that he can advance a bigoted position.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by wingsfan

Originally posted by CJCrawley


"I wonder how your wonderful multicultural/multiethnic utopian world outlook would go down in New Delhi and Islamabad?"



Ah yes! This is the simple question that is skillfully avoided.

The same people that want Europe flooded with everyone else will say the world has no boarders and belongs to everyone. But the prospect of Europeans doing it to others is colonialism.

But to your question specifically, the answer (if it ever comes) shall be interesting.


Read the thread. I have answered it.

But it's a pointless question anyway, since it's irrelevant, an attempt to deflect from an honest discussion. What does it matter what some people would do in a situation that will probably never occur? Why would generalising about that - about something you can never know the answer to anyway - have any bearing on the current discussion.

It's a deflection tactic because you don't like the facts.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by DaTroof
 


Are we not allowed to be proud of being white/british/english? Oh of course not silly me!! We've been indoctrinated and brainwashed to be totally ashamed of our heritage and of simply being white!

Strange how its ok to be a US patriot, Welsh Nationalist, Scottish Nationalist, Irish Nationalist but an absolute no no to be an English nationalist.

We accept all with quiet anger too scared to speak or stand up for ourselves because we are told we were such bad buggers in the past that now we must suffer. Apparently 2 wrongs do make a right!



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by ollncasino
 

Pay not attention to the trolls playing semantics.
Only when it is too late will the nay sayers admit they were wrong and multiculturalism doesn't work.


Well it's going to have to work eventually, or we're all dead.


The Irish used to be despised in America, but they're accepted now. Over time everything eventually sorts itself out.

I deleted things that I wrote that didn't come out as intended. I think skin tone indicates what part of the equator you evolved from and doesn't mean much else. 'White' shouldn't really be classified as a race any more than 'slightly not white' should be.

White persons having low self esteem is tiresome but so is the evil Muslims routine. The immigration in the UK has been sharp ... and it is a bit of a culture clash though I haven't had any violence directed at me when I've been there from those types of persons.

I think all of this is inevitable but the UK is accelerating it seemingly delibrately.
edit on 7-3-2013 by Pinke because: Blah I wrote thing that didn't rep what I was meaning - is bed time



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

The BBC article makes it clear that white British people at 45% of the population of London are in the minority. I am puzzled why you think it is somehow disingenuous to refer to this figure.


You said that Indians wouldn't like it if they were in a minority in their own cities. I pointed out that there is no city in the UK where British people are in the minority. White British people are in a minority in London (although they are overwhelmingly the largest group) but unless you think you have to be white to be British you should stop treating these two data as interchangeable.


If you would like to introduce data that white and non-white British people are in the majority in London then please be my guest. It will further the debate by introducing new information.


These are two different things! This is the core of my point - you should stop conflating them. White people are in a majority in London. British people are in a majority in London. White British are a slight minority.



With respect, I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what I have written.


I may be misunderstanding you, but I assure you it's not deliberate. If you could explain to me your point I'll address it.

If it's that "there are a lot of foreigners in London" then you won't find any argument from me. But since London is the motor of the UK economy and requires loads of cheap labour and foreign talent, I don't have a problem with it personally. Someone's got to keep paying for everybody else



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Treat people, how you would wish to be treated that's what I say!!! If i went to live on a another country, i would have a good go at learning the language for a start. I wouldn't go round spitting on the street and i would do my best to make a good impression and representation of the country I come from.
I know there is good and bad in all cultures, but at the end of the day you can't have everything. You have to make the best of what you have. Some immigrants do nothing but moan, but they forget about the white people whom have lived here all their lives and don't know any different as well as have suffered aswell, for whatever reason.
They have to realise you don't call an ambulance just because you have a headache.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
I think it's quite interesting, that despite this cultural shift. London schools are out performing those in the rest of England

.

London state schools have undergone a "startling turnaround and are now the best in England" according to a study by the Financial Times newspaper. The FT analysed 3.5 million children's exam results for the six years to 2011. In 2011 London pupils did better in five GCSEs including maths and English than pupils from any other region.


www.bbc.co.uk...

Now many of those pupils won't have English as their first language, yet still appear to be out performing other areas of the UK
edit on 7-3-2013 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
edit on 7-3-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

You said that Indians wouldn't like it if they were in a minority in their own cities. I pointed out that there is no city in the UK where British people are in the minority. White British people are in a minority in London (although they are overwhelmingly the largest group)


In addition to the 620,000 white British people who left London in the first decade of the 21st century it is also likely that a significant number of non-white British also did so. Sadly the BBC did not supply those numbers.

It is a mistake to assume that this issue is entirely about race. It is about culture.

With the 2011 census revealing that 37% of London's population being foreign born (42% in inner London), it suggests that immigrants are in some sense pushing British people out of the city. The BBC suggests that white British people have moved out due to rising house prices allowing them to move to the coast. I don't find that argument terribly convincing.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino


You didn't answer the question. You evaded the question. Well that and insult the person who asked it. But let's not get into he said, you said.


I most certainly did answer it, and I called the person who wrote it a bigot, since that's what they are.

I wrote this:

"I don't know whether they would or not, although my direct experience suggests they like white people."

You then suggested that you thought they wouldn't like it, but admitted that you might be wrong. In other words -and understandably, since it's an entirely metaphorical issue - you have no way of knowing.


But I don't understand why you're asking me. What does it matter what people in another country might or might not do under a set of highly unlikely circumstances? You are presumably trying to make some universal point that 'nobody likes immigration'? Or what? I don't get it.

The question is an attempt to lie about the terms of the debate. "How would they like mass immigration of a certain kind" it says, conveniently avoiding the fact that we don't have that level of immigration here. Unable to answer that fact, the questioner prefers to go to a metaphorical point which pretends that we do.

Imagine we were arguing over whether you had murdered your wife. It's like me asking you if you thought that murdering your wife was legal in Germany. It's irrelevant, but within the framework of the question it assumes that you've killed her. It's completely disingenuous, an effort to not engage with reality but instead discuss situations that aren't real.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino


In addition to the 620,000 white British people who left London in the first decade of the 21st century it is also likely that a significant number of non-white British also did so. Sadly the BBC did not supply those numbers.


I agree.But that doesn't change the fact that there is no city in Britain where the British are in a minority. So I don't understand why you asked the question about people in India not wanting to be in a minority. What relevance does it have?




With the 2011 census revealing that 37% of London's population being foreign born (42% in inner London), it suggests that immigrants are in some sense pushing British people out of the city. The BBC suggests that white British people have moved out due to rising house prices allowing them to move to the coast. I don't find that argument terribly convincing.


Fair enough. But you have no evidence to back up what you're saying. It's just vague conjecture on your part.
edit on 7-3-2013 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join