So what do we think the UK will be like in 50yrs from now?
Discussion
Kermit power said:
Feel free to analyse it as you see fit, but as you'll see, with a maximum number of foreigners arrested in any given year of just over 80,000, the numbers show that UK-born people are a little more than twice as likely to be arrested as immigrants.
based on that statement, that surely indicates that an immigrant is more likely to commit a crime? given immigrants make up a small proportion of the overall populationand as such wouldnt it be wise to reduce the likely crime causing immigrants in the country.
easily done by a simple selective process rather than open borders
mikebradford said:
Kermit power said:
Feel free to analyse it as you see fit, but as you'll see, with a maximum number of foreigners arrested in any given year of just over 80,000, the numbers show that UK-born people are a little more than twice as likely to be arrested as immigrants.
based on that statement, that surely indicates that an immigrant is more likely to commit a crime? given immigrants make up a small proportion of the overall populationand as such wouldnt it be wise to reduce the likely crime causing immigrants in the country.
easily done by a simple selective process rather than open borders
Immigrants make up 13% of the population, yet commit only 5.8% of the crime.
Kermit power said:
How do you figure that one out?
Immigrants make up 13% of the population, yet commit only 5.8% of the crime.
you statedImmigrants make up 13% of the population, yet commit only 5.8% of the crime.
"with a maximum number of foreigners arrested in any given year of just over 80,000, the numbers show that UK-born people are a little more than twice as likely to be arrested as immigrants."
i would say that implies that an immigrant is commiting 1 crime, to every 2 non immigrant related crimes.
And as immigrants make up as you state 13% of the population, they are proportionally more likely to commit crime.
Im not saying the figures are correct, im just stating what you wrote and basing it on that
Fully reading what you have put and clrifying with the info links you provided, i can now see your point
Edited by mikebradford on Tuesday 19th August 16:58
mikebradford said:
Kermit power said:
How do you figure that one out?
Immigrants make up 13% of the population, yet commit only 5.8% of the crime.
you statedImmigrants make up 13% of the population, yet commit only 5.8% of the crime.
"with a maximum number of foreigners arrested in any given year of just over 80,000, the numbers show that UK-born people are a little more than twice as likely to be arrested as immigrants."
i would say that implies that an immigrant is commiting 1 crime, to every 2 non immigrant related crimes.
And as immigrants make up as you state 13% of the population, they are proportionally more likely to commit crime.
Im not saying the figures are correct, im just stating what you wrote and basing it on that
Fully reading what you have put and clrifying with the info links you provided, i can now see your point
Edited by mikebradford on Tuesday 19th August 16:58
13% of the people in this country were born overseas.
5.8% of arrests are of people born overseas.
If foreigners and people born in the UK committed exactly the same amount of crime per capita, then you'd expect the immigrant population (13% of the total) to commit 13% of crimes, but the reality is less than half this.
Kermit power said:
mikebradford said:
Kermit power said:
How do you figure that one out?
Immigrants make up 13% of the population, yet commit only 5.8% of the crime.
you statedImmigrants make up 13% of the population, yet commit only 5.8% of the crime.
"with a maximum number of foreigners arrested in any given year of just over 80,000, the numbers show that UK-born people are a little more than twice as likely to be arrested as immigrants."
i would say that implies that an immigrant is commiting 1 crime, to every 2 non immigrant related crimes.
And as immigrants make up as you state 13% of the population, they are proportionally more likely to commit crime.
Im not saying the figures are correct, im just stating what you wrote and basing it on that
Fully reading what you have put and clrifying with the info links you provided, i can now see your point
Edited by mikebradford on Tuesday 19th August 16:58
13% of the people in this country were born overseas.
5.8% of arrests are of people born overseas.
If foreigners and people born in the UK committed exactly the same amount of crime per capita, then you'd expect the immigrant population (13% of the total) to commit 13% of crimes, but the reality is less than half this.
So, for the avoidance of doubt, the numbers show that people born here are twice as likely per capita to be arrested than immigrants.
Kermit power said:
Sorry, scratch this. I've just realised how you got to your conclusion. It hadn't occurred to me that anyone would fail to include the implied "per capita" from the statement that home born citizens were twice as likely to be arrested as immigrants.
So, for the avoidance of doubt, the numbers show that people born here are twice as likely per capita to be arrested than immigrants.
Sure, but that neatly ignores the children and grandchildren of those immigrants, who are vastly over represented in the crime stats. So, for the avoidance of doubt, the numbers show that people born here are twice as likely per capita to be arrested than immigrants.
LucreLout said:
Sure, but that neatly ignores the children and grandchildren of those immigrants, who are vastly over represented in the crime stats.
"children and grandchildren of those immigrants" - why stop at grandchildren?What about great-grandchildren? or great-great-grandchildren? or......well, I think you get my drift
p.s. how do you know that children/grandchildren are over-represented? I've never seen a form that asks you to disclose the birth country of your parents/grandparents
Zod said:
Kermit power said:
Or maybe we could recognise that London became the world's greatest city precisely because it takes anyone and everyone?
You are forgetting that most of these people hate London. They went there once and found it was big, busy and full of foreign types. Better to stay in their provincial town and worry about immigrants.Although I was gobsmacked at the number of S-Class Mercs outside the Russian Emabassy
WinstonWolf said:
CrutyRammers said:
NRS said:
It's racist when your complaining about foreigners because they're different. It's what a race is...?
Well, no.I suspect that, like many, what he is daring to not be completely happy about, is foreign cultures, not races.
I've yet to meet anyone who dislikes someone of a different race who is well integrated. The problem is lack of integration, and that's not about race, it's about culture.
Unfortunately the last 20 or so years of telling everyone that any thought that people should integrate is "racist" has left people unable to think beyond the knee-jerk "oh you must hate brown people then. Racist." type of response.
This country has changed massively since I were a lad, and I'll be honest, I'm not crazy about it. And that's not just because I hate darkies either.
Go look at Baghdad, Tehran, Kingston etc. They're not 'vibrant, alive and interesting', they're f
king stholes. There's a lot of good stuff in foreign cultures, but there's also an awful lot that would make Britain a worse place to live.If those countries were the models that we should be basing society on they would have people queueing up at the door to get in. I'm not seeing those queues...
And how do you decide what is "good" and ok for them to keep? One person enjoying curry is someone else's annoyance about stinky food. It's got nothing to do with culture and everything to do with the person. Why not tell all the benefit thieves to integrate?
And what about British people abroad? TYou know, taking all the jobs in other countries? We are terrible at integrating, and create Mini Britain in Spain etc. Do you complain about them? There's a similar number of British people working abroad as those that come in from the EU for example. So for those people complaining about the Poles etc - well, complain about the Brits going the other way.
NRS said:
So for those people complaining about the Poles etc - well, complain about the Brits going the other way.
Not sure if that statistic is available, but id be intrigued to see what contribution those living abroad make overall.I imagine it would be positive overall for the country they live in. My sister in law lives in Crete, and she gets bugger all of the government there, as well as being entitled to nothing. But gets hit with new taxes what feel like every week.
Intrestingly enough shes happy, as she never went there with the intention of that government subsidising her life.
Those expats in spain i imagine convert their pensions into money, in local peoples pockets through having to live and buy in their choosen town.
mikebradford said:
NRS said:
So for those people complaining about the Poles etc - well, complain about the Brits going the other way.
Not sure if that statistic is available, but id be intrigued to see what contribution those living abroad make overall.I imagine it would be positive overall for the country they live in. My sister in law lives in Crete, and she gets bugger all of the government there, as well as being entitled to nothing. But gets hit with new taxes what feel like every week.
Intrestingly enough shes happy, as she never went there with the intention of that government subsidising her life.
Those expats in spain i imagine convert their pensions into money, in local peoples pockets through having to live and buy in their choosen town.
NRS said:
WinstonWolf said:
CrutyRammers said:
NRS said:
It's racist when your complaining about foreigners because they're different. It's what a race is...?
Well, no.I suspect that, like many, what he is daring to not be completely happy about, is foreign cultures, not races.
I've yet to meet anyone who dislikes someone of a different race who is well integrated. The problem is lack of integration, and that's not about race, it's about culture.
Unfortunately the last 20 or so years of telling everyone that any thought that people should integrate is "racist" has left people unable to think beyond the knee-jerk "oh you must hate brown people then. Racist." type of response.
This country has changed massively since I were a lad, and I'll be honest, I'm not crazy about it. And that's not just because I hate darkies either.
Go look at Baghdad, Tehran, Kingston etc. They're not 'vibrant, alive and interesting', they're fking stholes. There's a lot of good stuff in foreign cultures, but there's also an awful lot that would make Britain a worse place to live.If those countries were the models that we should be basing society on they would have people queueing up at the door to get in. I'm not seeing those queues...
And how do you decide what is "good" and ok for them to keep? One person enjoying curry is someone else's annoyance about stinky food. It's got nothing to do with culture and everything to do with the person. Why not tell all the benefit thieves to integrate?
And what about British people abroad? TYou know, taking all the jobs in other countries? We are terrible at integrating, and create Mini Britain in Spain etc. Do you complain about them? There's a similar number of British people working abroad as those that come in from the EU for example. So for those people complaining about the Poles etc - well, complain about the Brits going the other way.
TLandCruiser said:
otolith said:
If they were born in the UK, where are you going to send them back to?
revoke their citizenship and send them to the sthole they want to fight for...in this case, IraqBet you'd love that!
LucreLout said:
Kermit power said:
Sorry, scratch this. I've just realised how you got to your conclusion. It hadn't occurred to me that anyone would fail to include the implied "per capita" from the statement that home born citizens were twice as likely to be arrested as immigrants.
So, for the avoidance of doubt, the numbers show that people born here are twice as likely per capita to be arrested than immigrants.
Sure, but that neatly ignores the children and grandchildren of those immigrants, who are vastly over represented in the crime stats. So, for the avoidance of doubt, the numbers show that people born here are twice as likely per capita to be arrested than immigrants.
Let's assume your assertion is correct, and for sake of argument, let's say that the children and grandchildren of immigrants are twice as likely to offend as the population as a whole. Given that immigrants are half as likely to offend, that means they're four times more likely to offend than their parents/grandparents!!
What do you think explains that?
Moving from fact to complete conjecture, I wonder if those people are any more or less likely to offend than their White British equivalents?
Of course there are middle class immigrants, but a large proportion of post WW2 immigrants have been poor people with little more than the clothes on their backs who, whilst they've found work and bettered themselves in their eyes, have nevertheless remained at the lower end of society, working in the s
tty jobs that nobody else wants.Now assume you're the child or grandchild of such an immigrant. You haven't gone through the experience of moving from the crushing poverty of a Kingston shanty town or the terror of escaping Amin's Uganda to view life on a South London council estate as a step up. Instead, you've just been born into an impoverished South London council estate family with little prospect of bettering your own life beyond where you are.
What really would be interesting would be to know whether the children of immigrants on sink estates are more or less likely to be arrested than the children of White British people growing up on those same estates. Until you can do that, you're comparing crime rates amongst a small, largely impoverished section of society with the crime rates amongst society as a whole, which is never going to play out favourably.
I think it all depends where the nuke goes off & who is responsible. Notice the way I don't say if. I firmly believe that within our lifetime there will be an act of nuclear terrorism.
As we sit in front of our computer blithely typing out posts about Arsenal or if Cliff is fiddling with kids or even if one of our members wrote a rather cracking one hit wonder, somebody else is sitting in front a screen trying to work out how to fulfil his desire to kill hundreds of thousands, which may in turn lead to the death of millions. And one of the issues with this, is that any bomb that can be built now would have the explosive of more than a couple of Hiroshima's. I think that no matter how many times you watch Terminator 2, I don't believe a lot of todays generation can fully understand the horror of such an event and its long term consequences.
And as I mentioned it all depends where & who & which sky pixie they believe in. If we are lucky it might be an internal dispute, in a country which geo-politically we don't give a toss about, an attempt to draw us in.
London, New York or Rome would be very bad. London & New York because of their political, economic and cultural history. Rome because of its position as the centre of the Christian world. I'm sure revenge would be swift and sure but hopefully contained.
If its Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, things will get very bad, very quickly. The Israelis not only have their own nukes but their own independent systems of delivering them and I would have thought not much patience with regard to just making do with sanctions and a couple of normal airstrikes. If it was, shall we say, the usual suspects, I would have thought Mecca would probably be wiped from the earth like a bug from a windscreen as would the capital city of any state of any country even remotely suspected of having anything to do with it. Basically they would not piss about and it would lead to the whole of the region actually, physically going up in smoke. What this would do to the worlds oil supplies & therefore the basic resources we need to function in the western world doesn't even bear thinking about. Especially when you throw in the threat to food supplies from the spread of fallout as well.
Coming back to that lunatic at his computer screen, has anyone done any research into what effect an EMP of a limited nuclear exchange would be? Hopefully the stories of mega-servers buried deep in Switzerland by all the banks and Google are true because if London is wiped from the map like spittle off the mouth of a baby, we better have a bit more than a few USB sticks as back up for everyone's bank account.
And this is even before we get to long term psychological damage to worlds population. I would have thought whatever group of extremists are to blame, any member of the faith they claim to represent will be looking at the world through barbed wire for a very long period of time.
..... and now here's Bob with the weather! How's it looking out there Bob?
As we sit in front of our computer blithely typing out posts about Arsenal or if Cliff is fiddling with kids or even if one of our members wrote a rather cracking one hit wonder, somebody else is sitting in front a screen trying to work out how to fulfil his desire to kill hundreds of thousands, which may in turn lead to the death of millions. And one of the issues with this, is that any bomb that can be built now would have the explosive of more than a couple of Hiroshima's. I think that no matter how many times you watch Terminator 2, I don't believe a lot of todays generation can fully understand the horror of such an event and its long term consequences.
And as I mentioned it all depends where & who & which sky pixie they believe in. If we are lucky it might be an internal dispute, in a country which geo-politically we don't give a toss about, an attempt to draw us in.
London, New York or Rome would be very bad. London & New York because of their political, economic and cultural history. Rome because of its position as the centre of the Christian world. I'm sure revenge would be swift and sure but hopefully contained.
If its Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, things will get very bad, very quickly. The Israelis not only have their own nukes but their own independent systems of delivering them and I would have thought not much patience with regard to just making do with sanctions and a couple of normal airstrikes. If it was, shall we say, the usual suspects, I would have thought Mecca would probably be wiped from the earth like a bug from a windscreen as would the capital city of any state of any country even remotely suspected of having anything to do with it. Basically they would not piss about and it would lead to the whole of the region actually, physically going up in smoke. What this would do to the worlds oil supplies & therefore the basic resources we need to function in the western world doesn't even bear thinking about. Especially when you throw in the threat to food supplies from the spread of fallout as well.
Coming back to that lunatic at his computer screen, has anyone done any research into what effect an EMP of a limited nuclear exchange would be? Hopefully the stories of mega-servers buried deep in Switzerland by all the banks and Google are true because if London is wiped from the map like spittle off the mouth of a baby, we better have a bit more than a few USB sticks as back up for everyone's bank account.
And this is even before we get to long term psychological damage to worlds population. I would have thought whatever group of extremists are to blame, any member of the faith they claim to represent will be looking at the world through barbed wire for a very long period of time.
..... and now here's Bob with the weather! How's it looking out there Bob?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff