Support NeoGAF

[clarky]

I wouldn't live in UK either. If I had to choose it would be Switzerland, Sweden, or Norway. Likely Switzerland since I have family there.

All very nice places but all very expensive. Suppose if you live and work there then its all relative but as a visitor they suck.

 

[Three]

"Not having a clue how statistics work" equals looking at historical and current demographics trends, apparently. But taking a single snapshot in time like "3/4 of schools are white British majority in 2025" and thinking that proportion will hold true thirty, forty, or fifty years into the future in spite of the historical data trend from the years up to this point demonstrates a strong grasp of statistics, does it? Very strange.

You're acting like you have horse blinders on. You'll shout "74 percent of people in England were white British in the 2021 census, they're still the majority!" while ignoring the obvious fact that that number has been consistently decreasing over the last half-century. It's like a man sitting in his dining room when he notices a fire has erupted from his stovetop; he remarks to himself, "Nothing to fret over, the flames will stay confined to the kitchen" and goes back to reading his paper.

The problem is that you're looking at the incorrect EU snapshot in time and not the current trend and making wild assumptions about what that means for schools in the future based purely on political agenda. It's pseudostatistics bullshit.

You're fixated on London being some sort of statistical anomaly, an exception to the rule. What, then, of Birmingham?

Because it is. It is the literal extreme that you presented.

Net migration numbers fell last year compared to the peak in 2023, true, yet they're still dramatically higher than pre-Brexit levels. And as I'm sure you're aware, immigration is only one factor in demographic change: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/

Not only did they fall they had the record highest drop. They're still dropping and projected to continue dropping.
Another one of those telegraph articles doing the same thing as the last one but yes it's not just immigration. The kids born here though are British nonetheless.

So forgive me if I voice my sympathy for all of your fellow countrymen who haven't willingly dug their heads into the sand and enabled the treacherous fools in charge for the last thirty years, those who grow more concerned by the day at the state of the country their grandchildren will one day inherit.

Want to know what's funny about this? You being from the US. A country of immigrants where the original "countrymen" were pretty much wiped out by UK immigrants. The truth is though you/we live fine. The fact that my fellow countrymen here in the UK are a mix of originally European, Indians or others doesn't change the fact that the majority of them are still considered my countrymen. "Oh no they weren't originally from here", neither was your entire country.

This is the problem with right-wing politics introduced by foreigners like yourself, the aim is to divide a country, the more your bunch tries to fearmonger and divide people who live here based on race the worse you make it too. The people that did immigrate begin to consider themselves less British when they should be proud to be British. Ironically some people who were here from pre-1993 begin to immigrate as expats and shit on their own country while being an immigrant themselves.

 

[P:axMagellanic]

When Jack The Ripper was living in UK there was no Poland on the map. In that time emigration to UK, US and other countries was quite massive.

After WW2 Poland was completely destroyed and 6 million people were missing (killed by Germans), no wonder those who could wanted to emigrate. During communism borders were pretty much locked (only some people were allowed to travel west).

There's just under a million poles in GB. And the vast majority of those arrived after Blair.

 

[DaciaJC]

The problem is that you're looking at the incorrect EU snapshot in time and not the current trend and making wild assumptions about what that means for schools in the future based purely on political agenda. It's pseudostatistics bullshit.

What's the wild assumption being made here, that based on historical data points and current birth rate figures, non-ethnic British children will comprise an increasingly greater share of the school-age population as the years go on? What exactly are you disputing?

Because it is. It is the literal extreme that you presented.

And the other cities I listed as examples of the same exact trend?

Not only did they fall they had the record highest drop. They're still dropping and projected to continue dropping.
Another one of those telegraph articles doing the same thing as the last one but yes it's not just immigration. The kids born here though are British nonetheless.

By birthright citizenship, sure, but very obviously many of them are not ethnically British (English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish), which was the starting point for this discussion. "Just because a dog is born in a stable doesn't make it a horse" and all that.

Want to know what's funny about this? You being from the US. A country of immigrants where the original "countrymen" were pretty much wiped out by UK immigrants. The truth is though you/we live fine. The fact that my fellow countrymen here in the UK are a mix of originally European, Indians or others doesn't change the fact that the majority of them are still considered my countrymen. "Oh no they weren't originally from here", neither was your entire country.

This is the problem with right-wing politics introduced by foreigners like yourself, the aim is to divide a country, the more your bunch tries to fearmonger and divide people who live here based on race the worse you make it too. The people that did immigrate begin to consider themselves less British when they should be proud to be British. Ironically some people who were here from pre-1993 begin to immigrate as expats and shit on their own country while being an immigrant themselves.

To be frank, I don't find anything funny about this at all. Make no mistake, the US finds itself in the same crisis, as do Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Spain, and a host of other countries. Great Britain is a very peculiar case, however, because even though the people issued a mandate to rein in immigration vis a vis Brexit, successive governments only made it worse.

Your very own Enoch Powell correctly forecast the perils of mass immigration in the 60s, and even back then most listeners were receptive to his message. Fellow Britons have commented in this thread on their negative experiences amidst the changing landscape of the UK. There are hundreds of published interviews and testimonials of women no longer feeling safe walking in their neighborhood because of foreign men leering at them or stalking them, of parents concerned for the safety of their children when migrants are housed nearby and found congregating by schools and playgrounds, of illegal boat migrants being put up in four-star hotels while destitute and homeless locals are left to fend for themselves. You're willing to dismiss all of that as simply the product of some nebulous American psy-ops project?

 

[MarV0]

Want to know what's funny about this? You being from the US. A country of immigrants where the original "countrymen" were pretty much wiped out by UK immigrants. The truth is though you/we live fine. The fact that my fellow countrymen here in the UK are a mix of originally European, Indians or others doesn't change the fact that the majority of them are still considered my countrymen. "Oh no they weren't originally from here", neither was your entire country.

This is the problem with right-wing politics introduced by foreigners like yourself, the aim is to divide a country, the more your bunch tries to fearmonger and divide people who live here based on race the worse you make it too. The people that did immigrate begin to consider themselves less British when they should be proud to be British. Ironically some people who were here from pre-1993 begin to immigrate as expats and shit on their own country while being an immigrant themselves.

The Europeans brought technology and civilization to America. What do immigrants from the third world bring to the UK?

 

[Bojji]

What's the wild assumption being made here, that based on historical data points and current birth rate figures, non-ethnic British children will comprise an increasingly greater share of the school-age population as the years go on? What exactly are you disputing?

Birth rates of people from Africa and ME will plummet after some time, immigration is not a fix for low birth rate problems around the world and it was proven that people from 3rd world countries don't produce as much children once their life conditions improve. Even India and few African counties are on same trajectory (but it will happen few decades from now)



Edit: This part of the video shows exactly what some people here don't want to believe (and evidence is punching them in the face at this point).

But at the same time, STILL INCOMING migration and (at first) still higher birth rates will make UK 50/50 (white/other) not that long into the future.

The Europeans brought technology and civilization to America. What do immigrants from the third world bring to the UK?

Kebabs.

 

[Madserb2023]

Immigration won't make up for the low birth rate because they don't have many children either. It just means we will have even more old people relative to young people in the future. As shocker, immigrants age.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Immigration won't make up for the low birth rate because they don't have many children either.

Somewhat true. The birthrate for non-UK-born women is around 2, while for UK-born women it's closer to 1.5. Obviously, "non-UK" is a broad category, and certain ethnicities and religions have significantly higher rates.

Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2021

 

[Three]

The Europeans brought technology and civilization to America. What do immigrants from the third world bring to the UK?

And some of them were Hillbillies from the poorer south that didn't bring any of that, some brought guns and literal war to wipe out the people, what's your point?

In much the same way immigrants from "third world countries" are not all Hillbillies, the poorer places are just disadvantaged and not related to race. A lot of those "asians" you see in the population graphs being presented actually work for some of the biggest technology companies bringing todays tech to the UK. non-white british, some born here in the UK, some who came here, make up some of the best students in the UK too.

Look at where the majority, White British is. So are those White British kids population bringing more tech than the Asians that are born here? If your answer is somehow yes the idea that white British kids in school are bringing more technology than those Asains is ludicrous but certainly not unexpected from some here. Those people are all British despite their race.

What's the wild assumption being made here, that based on historical data points and current birth rate figures, non-ethnic British children will comprise an increasingly greater share of the school-age population as the years go on? What exactly are you disputing?

The wild assumption is that this will happen based on the population in London. The actual statistics or "how the math works" would require far more nuance than looking at the majority immigration city over a period of open borders and just claiming "that's how the math works". For one if the school is already part of the 1 in 4 but White Other and Asain continue to outnumber White British in those areas the 3/4 stat doesn't change the percentages at those schools do. You have to look at how many schools there are, dispersion of population to those schools that are the majority outside of those places, actual school population data, etc.

And the other cities I listed as examples of the same exact trend?

What about them. They're lower, some even still had white british as the majority in your handpicked cities meaning those schools will not be part of it assuming the school populations match city population like in your initial assumption. You need the new data where immigration has been massively culled by closed borders in 2024. You need where it is headed and you need models to estimate population change, models to predict dispersion into different schools across the country. This is what you need to show truly how the math works. If you can't show the methodology they used say you can't dont throw out some extreme pseudostatistics out there and call others retarded.

By birthright citizenship, sure, but very obviously many of them are not ethnically British (English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish), which was the starting point for this discussion. "Just because a dog is born in a stable doesn't make it a horse" and all that.

To be frank, I don't find anything funny about this at all. Make no mistake, the US finds itself in the same crisis, as do Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Spain, and a host of other countries. Great Britain is a very peculiar case, however, because even though the people issued a mandate to rein in immigration vis a vis Brexit, successive governments only made it worse.

You completely missed the point. Are you native American? If not then you're that dog in a stable and dont belong there either using your rational. Most of the people in the US are dogs in that stable.

If it wasn't clear this is what I meant by native American below, it would be the same for the actual criminals the UK sent to Australia which again is doing and living fine today.

 

[Walliwallipaloo]

And some of them were Hillbillies from the poorer south that didn't bring any of that, some brought guns and literal war to wipe out the people, what's your point?

In much the same way immigrants from "third world countries" are not all Hillbillies, the poorer places are just disadvantaged and not related to race. A lot of those "asians" you see in the population graphs being presented actually work for some of the biggest technology companies bringing todays tech to the UK. non-white british, some born here in the UK, some who came here, make up some of the best students in the UK too.

Look at where the majority, White British is. So are those White British kids population bringing more tech than the Asians that are born here? If your answer is somehow yes the idea that white British kids in school are bringing more technology than those Asains is ludicrous but certainly not unexpected from some here. Those people are all British despite their race.

The wild assumption is that this will happen based on the population in London. The actual statistics or "how the math works" would require far more nuance than looking at the majority immigration city over a period of open borders and just claiming "that's how the math works". For one if the school is already part of the 1 in 4 but White Other and Asain continue to outnumber White British in those areas the 3/4 stat doesn't change the percentages at those schools do. You have to look at how many schools there are, dispersion of population to those schools that are the majority outside of those places, actual school population data, etc.

What about them. They're lower, some even still had white british as the majority in your handpicked cities meaning those schools will not be part of it assuming the school populations match city population like in your initial assumption. You need the new data where immigration has been massively culled by closed borders in 2024. You need where it is headed and you need models to estimate population change, models to predict dispersion into different schools across the country. This is what you need to show truly how the math works. If you can't show the methodology they used say you can't dont throw out some extreme pseudostatistics out there and call others retarded.


You completely missed the point. Are you native American? If not then you're that dog in a stable and dont belong there either using your rational. Most of the people in the US are dogs in that stable.

If it wasn't clear this is what I meant by native American below, it would be the same for the actual criminals the UK sent to Australia which again is doing and living fine today.

Your country is full of murderous rapists being imported against the will of an overwhelming majority of people. They are murdering. They are violating women for kicks. Your government is complicit, and is banning wrongthink opinions in order to stamp out any possibility of protest or pushback - sending armed goons to arrest people in the dead of night for saying stuff like "we should protect our kids." EDIT: Also, I should go on to mention they're not arresting the murderers and rapists, and when they do, they give them fluff sentences or just release them straight away. Almost like the government wants its citizens to suffer. Weird.

Just like that other guy, before I took a break from this thread: what are you doing? Your ignorance is astounding. Captivatingly breathtaking. This is what they teach in public schools?

If you want to blame someone for what happened to the American natives, blame the natives themselves. They sort of started this great pattern of murdering settlers, you see. But even with all that, was it the settlers that brought them to heel? Nope, it was the federal government. But you wouldn't know all that, because you're just repeating what someone told you.

 

[MarV0]

And some of them were Hillbillies from the poorer south that didn't bring any of that, some brought guns and literal war to wipe out the people, what's your point?

In much the same way immigrants from "third world countries" are not all Hillbillies, the poorer places are just disadvantaged and not related to race. A lot of those "asians" you see in the population graphs being presented actually work for some of the biggest technology companies bringing todays tech to the UK. non-white british, some born here in the UK, some who came here, make up some of the best students in the UK too.

So we have to welcome the third world into Britain, people that will commit more crime and will claim more benefits and will put a huge strain into our services and housing of our tiny island because their kids might perform just as well in school?

 

[Three]

Your country is full of murderous rapists being imported against the will of an overwhelming majority of people. They are murdering. They are violating women for kicks. Your government is complicit, and is banning wrongthink opinions in order to stamp out any possibility of protest or pushback - sending armed goons to arrest people in the dead of night for saying stuff like "we should protect our kids." EDIT: Also, I should go on to mention they're not arresting the murderers and rapists, and when they do, they give them fluff sentences or just release them straight away. Almost like the government wants its citizens to suffer. Weird.

Just like that other guy, before I took a break from this thread: what are you doing? Your ignorance is astounding. Captivatingly breathtaking. This is what they teach in public schools?

If you want to blame someone for what happened to the American natives, blame the natives themselves. They sort of started this great pattern of murdering settlers, you see. But even with all that, was it the settlers that brought them to heel? Nope, it was the federal government. But you wouldn't know all that, because you're just repeating what someone told you.

No the majority of those immigrants are not murderous rapists but keep pretending they are. I showed you the crime rates by ethnicity already too.

So we have to welcome the third world into Britain, people that will commit more crime and will claim more benefits and will put a huge strain into our services and housing of our tiny island because their kids might perform just as well in school?

Have you seen the crime statistics I posted? Most of them are not more prone to crime. Also your benefits bullshit is wrong:

"In June 2025, 76.4% of Universal Credit claimants were from the White ethnic group. Asian/Asian British, Black/African/Caribbean/Black British, Mixed/Multiple Ethnic groups, and Other ethnic groups accounted for 10.3%, 6.0%, 2.9%, and 4.4% respectively."

but keep going off with this nonsense if it makes you feel better.

 

[clarky]

Seen as we were talking about baby names earlier, 2024 stat's just came out today.

Most popular boys' and girls' names of 2024 revealed

New entrants into the top 100 most popular in England and Wales include Athena and Yahya.

www.bbc.co.uk

Muhammad retained its place as the most popular boys' name, with 5,721 babies given the name. It was ranked first in five of nine regions in England and came 57th in Wales.
Other spellings of the name also made the list: Mohammed came in 21st place, with 1,760 given the name, and Mohammad in 53rd place, with 986.

2022 and 2023 for reference.

 

[Walliwallipaloo]

No the majority of those immigrants are not murderous rapists but keep pretending they are. I showed you the crime rates by ethnicity already too.

You walk right up to one of the thousands of people who suffered violence at the hands of hostile foreigners imported en masse, and tell them "well, the majority of them aren't rapists" and see what happens. No, I mean it: I want to know if anyone in the UK has any balls left.

Whew, I'm out of this thread again. I can't deal with this level of blithe disregard for human life. Not without totally melting down.

 

[Madserb2023]

Immigration is one of those things that people will argue about until whatever is forecasted happens. They thought the Byzantium Empire was going to last forever let alone fall to Islam. Its human nature. However to me, the benefits or negatives of immigration don't matter. Its not China or at least shouldn't be, if 95% of people there didn't want something, it doesn't matter. They don't care what the people think. No party here has ever ran on increasing the population by millions and letting thousands of people just walk in. They normally say they will do the opposite. If there was a referendum 20 years ago to increase the population by 10 million and to house assylum seekers in hotels and the majority of people voted for it then so be it. I still wouldn't like it but I would accept it. I don't care what any left winger says about immigration because I am not been given a choice. I don't even know why people on the left even try to persuade people of immigration as they will force it anyway.

 

[Three]

You walk right up to one of the thousands of people who suffered violence at the hands of hostile foreigners imported en masse, and tell them "well, the majority of them aren't rapists" and see what happens. No, I mean it: I want to know if anyone in the UK has any balls left.

Only if you go up to the thousands who have suffered from any race first. Asians are the least murderous ethnicity going by actual statistics and you still have a problem with them in London it seems.

 

[Walliwallipaloo]

Only if you go up to the thousands who have suffered from any race first. Asians are the least murderous ethnicity going by actual statistics and you still have a problem with them in London it seems.

I disregard your bait. I have a problem with rapists and murderers, who have no business being imported into any country. I said nothing about "asians," but I also don't care: no government has business importing foreigners en masse without the consent of a nation's people. If a nation doesn't have borders, it ceases being a nation. It becomes occupied territory.

The sheer number of the people imported who are doing grievous harm is the direct result of mass-importation. It might be that this result is entirely accidental - a product of staggering ignorance, because (somehow) the engineers of this disaster truly did not realize the possibility that importing unlimited numbers of unvetted foreigners might be detrimental. There's an equal chance that it's done on purpose, and the people pushing for this are a-okay with citizens being harmed. Either way, those complicit in this are engaging in crimes against humanity - be they by intent or ignorance is irrelevant.

The UK's Big-Brother dystopia isn't just about games and porn - it's "we're going to drive you out of your homes, and you're not gonna complain about it." So much for replacement "theory" being a myth. Brits need to put their porn down, look up, and start paying attention to what's happening just outside their door. Perhaps the "Online Safety Act" might be doing some of them a favor.

 

[Three]

I disregard your bait. I have a problem with rapists and murderers, who have no business being imported into any country. I said nothing about "asians," but I also don't care: no government has business importing foreigners en masse without the consent of a nation's people. If a nation doesn't have borders, it ceases being a nation. It becomes occupied territory.

Everybody has a problem with rapists and murderers. The problem is that people seem to be showing populations of ethnicity and claiming they're rapists and murders when the majority are not and the statistics dont show them as rapists and murderers. The UK has borders and those borders have been shut on the EU. Another claim that has no bases in reality.

The UK's Big-Brother dystopia isn't just about games and porn - it's "we're going to drive you out of your homes, and you're not gonna complain about it." So much for replacement "theory" being a myth. Brits need to put their porn down, look up, and start paying attention to what's happening just outside their door. Perhaps the "Online Safety Act" might be doing some of them a favor.

Who is "we"? Most of the white other and asian population being discussed as "taking over" are british just as the majority of african americans and white other are American despite them being "a dog born in a stable" as some of those people who have a problem with it like to put it.

 

[Walliwallipaloo]

Everybody has a problem with rapists and murderers. The problem is that people seem to be showing populations of ethnicity and claiming their rapists and murders when the majority are not and the statistics dont show them as rapists and murderers. The UK has borders and those borders have been shut on the EU. Another claim that has no bases in reality.

Who is "we"? Most of the white other and asian population being discussed as "taking over" are british just as the majority of african americans and white other are American despite them being "a dog born in a stable" as some of those people who have a problem with it like to put it.

If you're protecting them by arresting the people who complain about them, you don't have a problem with them. In fact, you're complicit in their crimes.

I can't take anything you say seriously. At all.

 

[Three]

If you're protecting them by arresting the people who complain about them, you don't have a problem with them. In fact, you're complicit in their crimes.

I can't take anything you say seriously. At all.

I get that you need to use some scandal as some basis for painting with a very broad brush but maybe take a look at some actual data every now and then:

Statistics on Ethnicity and the Criminal Justice System, 2022 (HTML)

www.gov.uk

"68% of principal suspects convicted of homicide were from the white ethnic group, followed by 14% from the black ethnic group and 15% from the other ethnic group."

 

[Madserb2023]

I get that you need to use some scandal as some basis for painting with a very broad brush but maybe take a look at some actual data every now and then:

Statistics on Ethnicity and the Criminal Justice System, 2022 (HTML)

www.gov.uk

"68% of principal suspects convicted of homicide were from the white ethnic group, followed by 14% from the black ethnic group and 15% from the other ethnic group."

You do realize these statistics are really bad. Only 68% are white? The population is about 81% white. Some parts of the country are still 95% white. Black people are 4% of the population. So what you have shown is that non whites make up a disproportionate amount of murderers. Surely you noticed this before posting it.

 

[Three]

You do realize these statistics are really bad. Only 68% are white? The population is about 81% white. Some parts of the country are still 95% white. Black people are 4% of the population. So what you have shown is that non whites make up a disproportionate amount of murderers. Surely you noticed this before posting it.

Using the percentage for "Some parts of the country" is that pseudostatistics nonsense again. There is no point claiming some village with 100 people who had 1 to 5 murders is 95% white because in that region the asain or black homicides will likely be 0 anyway.

Homocide crimes mostly happen in those built up cities (there is a link between urbanisation and homocide) where the proportion is not the same and where people were just claiming are disproportionately "not white british" so this proportion works against you. If you take the very high homicides in london, Birmingham and Manchester which make up the majority then apply the proportionality you would have great disproportionately that actually works against your argument. look at the homicide heatmap:

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8224/CBP-8224.pdf

 

[Madserb2023]

Using the percentage for "Some parts of the country" is that pseudostatistics nonsense again. There is no point claiming some village with 100 people who had 1 to 5 murders is 95% white because in that region the asain or black homicides will likely be 0 anyway.

Homocide crimes mostly happen in those built up cities (there is a link between urbanisation and homocide) where the proportion is not the same and where people were just claiming are disproportionately "not white british" so this proportion works against you. If you take the very high homicides in london, Birmingham and Manchester which make up the majority then apply the proportionality you would have great disproportionately that actually works against your argument. look at the homicide heatmap:

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8224/CBP-8224.pdf

Just give up. You have shown that non whites commit more murders.

 

[Calverz]

What's the wild assumption being made here, that based on historical data points and current birth rate figures, non-ethnic British children will comprise an increasingly greater share of the school-age population as the years go on? What exactly are you disputing?



And the other cities I listed as examples of the same exact trend?



By birthright citizenship, sure, but very obviously many of them are not ethnically British (English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish), which was the starting point for this discussion. "Just because a dog is born in a stable doesn't make it a horse" and all that.



To be frank, I don't find anything funny about this at all. Make no mistake, the US finds itself in the same crisis, as do Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Spain, and a host of other countries. Great Britain is a very peculiar case, however, because even though the people issued a mandate to rein in immigration vis a vis Brexit, successive governments only made it worse.

Your very own Enoch Powell correctly forecast the perils of mass immigration in the 60s, and even back then most listeners were receptive to his message. Fellow Britons have commented in this thread on their negative experiences amidst the changing landscape of the UK. There are hundreds of published interviews and testimonials of women no longer feeling safe walking in their neighborhood because of foreign men leering at them or stalking them, of parents concerned for the safety of their children when migrants are housed nearby and found congregating by schools and playgrounds, of illegal boat migrants being put up in four-star hotels while destitute and homeless locals are left to fend for themselves. You're willing to dismiss all of that as simply the product of some nebulous American psy-ops project?

Please please tell me you are American

 

[Three]

Just give up. You have shown that non whites commit more murders.

no I have not but whatever helps you sleep at night. I have shown the majority of murderers are not the ethnicity you think. You tried to apply "proportionality" absolutely ridiculously and failed. It would be like claiming "Qatari people are dying of hunger and they're mostly wealthy" when using statistics for the entire middle east.

Those 95% white regions existing mean nothing unless you look at murder statistics in those regions specifically. Did that 95% white region have a statistical 95% chance of a white murderer? then there is no disproportionality there. It will probably not even show and 100% would be white murders if the number is low like 1-5 murders. But you don't understand statistics so yes I do give up on you.

 

[Madserb2023]

no I have not but whatever helps you sleep at night. I have shown the majority of murderers are not the ethnicity you think. You tried to apply "proportionality" absolutely ridiculously and failed. It would be like claiming "Qatari people are dying of hunger and they're mostly wealthy" when using statistics for the entire middle east.

Those 95% white regions existing mean nothing unless you look at murder statistics in those regions specifically. Did that 95% white region have a statistical 95% chance of a white murderer? then there is no disproportionality there. It will probably not even show and 100% would be white murders if the number is low like 1-5 murders. But you don't understand statistics so yes I do give up on you.

You literally showed that non whites commit more murders. You are hung up on the claim that some areas are 95% white. It was bait. You showed that non white disproportionately commit more murders. That's it. In fact blacks are more than three times relative to the population according to you. Of course whited will make up the majority of crime, it's a white majority country. If 68% of murders were by non whites, there wouldn't even be a discussion over immigration. I know, and just about everyone on here would know that if you had a statistic showing whites committing a disproportionate amount of crime, you wouldn't make excuses for it. You would be calling everyone racist. There are loads of cities across Europe especially in Eastern Europe that have a fraction of a fraction of the crime than the cities here, sometimes lower than the rural areas. In fact in Wales, the rural towns are actually worse for crime than Cardiff proportionately. Just keep digging mate. Explains alot about the mess.

 

[DaciaJC]

The wild assumption is that this will happen based on the population in London.

We're arguing in circles here. kruis brought up the statistic of minority-white British schools as a metric, a measure, an indicator of the overall population trend. Substitute in percentage of total students who are white British if you want (that number is 62 percent, by the way), it all alludes to the same pattern. I posted the graph of London to counter the implication that the ethnic distribution would remain perfectly static from here on out, because as fate would have it, London was 75 percent white British at one point and it sure isn't anymore! And would you look at that, the same is true of Birmingham, Bradford, and Manchester! And as immigrants become more widely dispersed throughout the country, we're like to see more and more cities, towns, and villages lose their white British majority status in time.

Here's a headline I came across from 2010: Ethnic minorities to make up 20% of UK population by 2051

Seeing as white people made up only 83 percent of the UK in the 2021 census, it's probably safe to say you've already reached that point by now, a whole 25 years ahead of schedule! How sad is that? As it so happens, someone used census data along with Coleman's work from 2010 to map out a prediction of the proportion of all white people (ethnically British plus others) in the UK up to 2056.

If you want to keep prattling on about "pseudostatistics," then I encourage you to produce any reasonable model that completely discredits the above projection.

You completely missed the point. Are you native American? If not then you're that dog in a stable and dont belong there either using your rational. Most of the people in the US are dogs in that stable.

If it wasn't clear this is what I meant by native American below, it would be the same for the actual criminals the UK sent to Australia which again is doing and living fine today.

I'm afraid the analogy doesn't stretch quite that far. Nobody here in the States who is descended from European immigrants refers to themself as "native American" or "Indian" (unless you're Senator Elizabeth Warren). The Indian tribes didn't exist as formal political entities with internationally recognized borders at the time the first settlers began to arrive and establish colonies, therefore the situations then and now are hardly comparable. The same, incidentally, could be said of Australia. The fate of the native American and Aboriginal peoples was far from exceptional. Go back in history far enough and you'll find that virtually every inhabited region on the planet experienced its resident population getting replaced or subsumed by another group at one point or another. That can't be used as justification for the importation of millions of foreigners, a great many of whom originate from cultures incompatible with Western values, when we live in the modern civilized age operating under such principles as national borders and the social contract.

 

[Three]

You literally showed that non whites commit more murders. You are hung up on the claim that some areas are 95% white. It was bait.

Not hung up on the 95% just showing there is a severe flaw in the pseudostatistics you are doing. applying that same 68% homicide rate to regions like say London, Birmingham or Manchester would work against your argument because the white population becomes much lower, 53% white and applying that homicide rate of 68% white murders would mean it is proportionately higher. Do you at least see how this logic is very flawed now? Regional population differences need regional homicide statistics. These would not work in your favour.

You showed that non white disproportionately commit more murders. That's it. In fact blacks are more than three times relative to the population according to you. Of course whited will make up the majority of crime, it's a white majority country. If 68% of murders were by non whites, there wouldn't even be a discussion over immigration. I know, and just about everyone on here would know that if you had a statistic showing whites committing a disproportionate amount of crime, you wouldn't make excuses for it. You would be calling everyone racist. There are loads of cities across Europe especially in Eastern Europe that have a fraction of a fraction of the crime than the cities here, sometimes lower than the rural areas. In fact in Wales, the rural towns are actually worse for crime than Cardiff proportionately. Just keep digging mate. Explains alot about the mess.

We have some of the most densely populated cities, and homicides happen in the poorer regions of our big cities. Proportionaly I would hazard a guess that this wouldn't be that far from the national average of 68% of murders commited by white ethnicity and being proportionately high because the majority of murders are happening in those densely populated regions and they are influencing the averages the most.

What is your theory about rural regions of Wales and cardiff? Cardiffs white population is lower than the national average at 79% white, the rest of Wales is 93% white. Why would there be lower crime in Cardiff vs rural areas based on your ideas?

 

[Madserb2023]

Not hung up on the 95% just showing there is a severe flaw in the pseudostatistics you are doing. applying that same 68% homicide rate to regions like say London, Birmingham or Manchester would work against your argument because the white population becomes much lower, 53% white and applying that homicide rate of 68% white murders would mean it is proportionately higher. Do you at least see how this logic is very flawed now? Regional population differences need regional homicide statistics. These would not work in your favour.

We have some of the most densely populated cities, and homicides happen in the poorer regions of our big cities. Proportionaly I would hazard a guess that this wouldn't be that far from the national average of 68% of murders commited by white ethnicity and being proportionately high because the majority of murders are happening in those densely populated regions and they are influencing the averages the most.

What is your theory about rural regions of Wales and cardiff? Cardiffs white population is lower than the national average at 79% white, the rest of Wales is 93% white. Why would there be lower crime in Cardiff vs rural areas based on your ideas?

Its quite simple, because its proof that it is an absolute fact that urbanization means more crime. That is a tiring trope that is only dished out when people point to crime in ethnically diverse cities in the West like London and New York. Completely falls apart when some of the most urban areas in East Asia with population dozens of times greater, have crime levels we can only dream of. Its a rubbish excuse. Just looking at the crime statistics, Asians while disproportionately still commiting more murders than whites are still less than the black population and they even more so disproportionately live in Urban areas. When it comes down to it whites commit less homicides as a proportion of the population and some of these places that are overwhelming white as are some of the poorest areas in Europe let alone the Uk. Which is another tired trope.

 

[Three]

We're arguing in circles here. kruis brought up the statistic of minority-white British schools as a metric, a measure, an indicator of the overall population trend. Substitute in percentage of total students who are white British if you want (that number is 62 percent, by the way), it all alludes to the same pattern. I posted the graph of London to counter the implication that the ethnic distribution would remain perfectly static from here on out, because as fate would have it, London was 75 percent white British at one point and it sure isn't anymore! And would you look at that, the same is true of Birmingham, Bradford, and Manchester! And as immigrants become more widely dispersed throughout the country, we're like to see more and more cities, towns, and villages lose their white British majority status in time.

Here's a headline I came across from 2010: Ethnic minorities to make up 20% of UK population by 2051

Seeing as white people made up only 83 percent of the UK in the 2021 census, it's probably safe to say you've already reached that point by now, a whole 25 years ahead of schedule! How sad is that? As it so happens, someone used census data along with Coleman's work from 2010 to map out a prediction of the proportion of all white people (ethnically British plus others) in the UK up to 2056.

If you want to keep prattling on about "pseudostatistics," then I encourage you to produce any reasonable model that completely discredits the above projection.

Who is this "someone" and why is he using projections created in 2010? Why are you using an article from 2010. Brexit had a massive impact on immigration as people tried to make the window and it accelerated it massively until it also dropped it massively. There are far more recent projections you could use. Let me do some very basic maths for you based on actual national figures and projections. If immigration is continued the UK is projected to have a population increase from 67M to 77M in 2046 with 92% of that 10M from immigration. So lets go with roughly 9.2M and NONE of them white (a very incorrect assumption but one used to show that even with the absolute extreme it's not as high a percentage change as this "someone" projected with 2010 data). 82% of 67M is 55M. Let's even buy into the sensationalist telegraph headlines and say that ethnic minorities reproduce 1/3rd more than white british, I won't even count the "white others" they considered ethnically not the same as "white British" as white. so lets go with the extreme of 1/3 of births white and 2/3 nonwhite.

That means 55.3M whites by 2046. That gives a lower bound percentage of 72% as the absolute extreme here. This assumes all immigrants, every single one of them are non-white. An absolutely stupid assumption I made to make a point. The real data is that the immigrants birth places are in fact dominated by Poland, Romania, and Ireland too. I even counted white births as nonwhite too. See how this is higher than the 2010 projection even with these extreme assumptions?

heres the thing, without immigration and the millions of migrants the UK population will rapidly decline, its GDP will fall, it will become more of a "failed state" than what you Americans seem to keep trying to pretend it is.

I'm afraid the analogy doesn't stretch quite that far. Nobody here in the States who is descended from European immigrants refers to themself as "native American" or "Indian" (unless you're Senator Elizabeth Warren). The Indian tribes didn't exist as formal political entities with internationally recognized borders at the time the first settlers began to arrive and establish colonies, therefore the situations then and now are hardly comparable. The same, incidentally, could be said of Australia. The fate of the native American and Aboriginal peoples was far from exceptional. Go back in history far enough and you'll find that virtually every inhabited region on the planet experienced its resident population getting replaced or subsumed by another group at one point or another. That can't be used as justification for the importation of millions of foreigners, a great many of whom originate from cultures incompatible with Western values, when we live in the modern civilized age operating under such principles as national borders and the social contract.

Justify your own existence however you like but you're no different to the millions born in Britian in the modern civilised age and into social contracts that they follow.

 

[Madserb2023]

Not hung up on the 95% just showing there is a severe flaw in the pseudostatistics you are doing. applying that same 68% homicide rate to regions like say London, Birmingham or Manchester would work against your argument because the white population becomes much lower, 53% white and applying that homicide rate of 68% white murders would mean it is proportionately higher. Do you at least see how this logic is very flawed now? Regional population differences need regional homicide statistics. These would not work in your favour.

We have some of the most densely populated cities, and homicides happen in the poorer regions of our big cities. Proportionaly I would hazard a guess that this wouldn't be that far from the national average of 68% of murders commited by white ethnicity and being proportionately high because the majority of murders are happening in those densely populated regions and they are influencing the averages the most.

What is your theory about rural regions of Wales and cardiff? Cardiffs white population is lower than the national average at 79% white, the rest of Wales is 93% white. Why would there be lower crime in Cardiff vs rural areas based on your ideas?

Regarding whites making up 53% of Manchester and then being disproportionately worse for whites makes no sense, not even mathematically. For obvious reasons, there are parts of the country that are 99% white so that makes whites only making up 68% of the homicides look really good but as with your nonsensical Machester claim, that's not how proportionality works. We don't have the numbers for Manchester but Whites could make up 38% of the homicides and be 53% of the population and be proportionate to the 82/68 for the whole country.

 

[Three]

Its quite simple, because its proof that it is an absolute fact that urbanization means more crime. That is a tiring trope that is only dished out when people point to crime in ethnically diverse cities in the West like London and New York. Completely falls apart when some of the most urban areas in East Asia with population dozens of times greater, have crime levels we can only dream of. Its a rubbish excuse. Just looking at the crime statistics, Asians while disproportionately still commiting more murders than whites are still less than the black population and they even more so disproportionately live in Urban areas. When it comes down to it whites commit less homicides as a proportion of the population and some of these places that are overwhelming white as are some of the poorest areas in Europe let alone the Uk. Which is another tired trope.

I don't know where you're getting your incorrect information from about asain but regardless you still didn't explain: If nonwhites are performing those crimes in the city why does the less white Cardiff have lower crime than the more white rural areas of wales? Makes no sense what you're saying there. I'm not sure I understand your first sentence either so you agree that there are more crimes in urban areas or you don't? If you don't what exactly are you showing? That the more white rural areas are more susceptible to it or less? I showed a nice heatmap of the country showing where the majority of recent homicides have happened proportionately applying the average there would not work in your favour. You can perhaps look at old regional data about it for London from 2018 and make a claim for black homicides but again where is this "Asians are proportionately committing more murders" coming from? That's complete and utter bullshit unless you think South America and the like doesn't exist and all "other" is equivalent to "Asain" which would be another silly statistics mistake to make.

 

[Three]

Regarding whites making up 53% of Manchester and then being disproportionately worse for whites makes no sense, not even mathematically. For obvious reasons, there are parts of the country that are 99% white so that makes whites only making up 68% of the homicides look really good but as with your nonsensical Machester claim, that's not how proportionality works. We don't have the numbers for Manchester but Whites could make up 38% of the homicides and be 53% of the population and be proportionate to the 82/68 for the whole country.

Duh, that was the whole point I was making regarding your 95% claim and you saying 68% is lower than it proportionately. I told you you would have to use regional data. This will play a bigger role on averages where homicides are the highest though so in fact will not work in your favour in those cities. I provided you the heatmap where you can do the math. That was the entire point.

 

[Madserb2023]

Duh, that was the whole point I was making regarding your 95% claim and you saying 68% is lower than it proportionately. I told you you would have to use regional data. This will play a bigger role on averages where homicides are the highest though so in fact will not work in your favour in those cities. That was the entire point.

This makes no sense. If there are lots of places, typically non urban areas that are say 95% white, whites in those areas should be making up around 95% of the crime but its only 68% as a whole fir the country which means there are areas where there must be a small percentage of crime by whites and those are going to be the cities because it would be impossible for whites to make up 68% of the crime in areas that are 95% white. Its a shame they don't have data for cities like Manchester, but if its anything like the New York Metro area, 58% of population is white while being about 28% of the felonies. All we have is information for the country as a whole and whites proportionately commit less crime. Neither of us have access to urban areas but I can't see why the UK would be an outlier.

 

[Three]

This makes no sense. If there are lots of places, typically non urban areas that are say 95% white, whites in those areas should be making up around 95% of the crime but its only 68% as a whole fir the country which means there are areas where there must be a small percentage of crime by whites and those are going to be the cities because it would be impossible for whites to make up 68% of the crime in areas that are 95% white.

i have no idea what you're saying here. It makes absolutely no sense. The 95% white areas should statistically make up 95% of the homicides for the area but not the 68% national average. Conversly in the big cities the 53% whites should make up 53% of homicides but if you apply the same flawed logic it becomes disproportionately higher at 68%. heat maps show homicides per million in a region. They are dominated by those cities so make up the majority of homicides the only way this would still make sense is if a majority were white in those regions too and certainly not asian.

Its a shame they don't have data for cities like Manchester, but if its anything like the New York Metro area, 58% of population is white while being about 28% of the felonies. All we have is information for the country as a whole and whites proportionately commit less crime. Neither of us have access to urban areas but I can't see why the UK would be an outlier.

Look I'm going to give up on this discussion but I'm going to show you data that shows there is no real correlation between immigration over the years and murderers.

Why are homicides decreasing to be less than they were before, you know less than when the immigrants hadn't arrived and apparently started murdering people? Why were there so many homicides in 2000 when the place was more majority white british? You can't show this correlation because this correlation doesn't really exist. Homicides decreased despite this massive influx of immigration that people keep showing for this period. Are the incoming murderers not murdering people? We have a less murderous population now than we had before.