UK population is to increase beyond 70 million in the next 12 years

[JC Footy Genius]

I didn't present it. I have admitted that I don't have the expertise to interpret the ONS data. Have you? You presented it.

Have the people who write Migrant Watch? We don't know. So it is fairly worthless.

No I don't which is why we rely on others expertise. Migration watch does have a Professor of Demography at Oxford University on it's advisory panel.

Formerly Reader and Lecturer in Demography. Educated at Oxford University. Between 1985 - 1987 worked as Special Adviser to the Home Secretary and later to the Ministers of Housing and the Environment. Research interests include Comparative Demographic Trends in the Industrial World; Immigration Trends and Policies, and the Demography of Ethnic Minorities. He has worked as a consultant for the Home Office, the United Nations and private business. He has published over 90 papers and 8 books.

Perhaps he knows something about the subject.

 

[Stato]

No I don't which is why we rely on others expertise. Migration watch does have a Professor of Demography at Oxford University on it's advisory panel.

Formerly Reader and Lecturer in Demography. Educated at Oxford University. Between 1985 - 1987 worked as Special Adviser to the Home Secretary and later to the Ministers of Housing and the Environment. Research interests include Comparative Demographic Trends in the Industrial World; Immigration Trends and Policies, and the Demography of Ethnic Minorities. He has worked as a consultant for the Home Office, the United Nations and private business. He has published over 90 papers and 8 books.

Perhaps he knows something about the subject.

You mean long time member of the Eugenics Society and demographer trusted by the BNP, Dr David Coleman: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/mar/16/watchingdavidcoleman1

 

[JC Footy Genius]

You mean long time member of the Eugenics Society and demographer trusted by the BNP, Dr David Coleman: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/mar/16/watchingdavidcoleman1

After decrying using sources with an obvious agenda you use a source written by a rabidly pro immigration member of the International Marxist movement in the Guardian!

Worse than that you cherry pick sections of her article trying to use the same smears she does. Using the term Eugenics and mentioning the BNP inferring he is some sort of master race extremist is pretty low IMO.

To quote your good self ...If you used it to form an academic argument you would be marked down for not giving consideration to the possible bias or unreliability of your sources. .... marked down, You would be lucky to get ungraded.

 

[Stato]

After decrying using sources with an obvious agenda you use a source written by a rabidly pro immigration member of the International Marxist movement in the Guardian!

Worse than that you cherry pick sections of her article trying to use the same smears she does. Using the term Eugenics and mentioning the BNP inferring he is some sort of master race extremist is pretty low IMO.

To quote your good self ...If you used it to form an academic argument you would be marked down for not giving consideration to the possible bias or unreliability of your sources. .... marked down, You would be lucky to get ungraded.

I admit that I was being flippant, because I noticed that you left his name out of your quote, presumably being aware of the controversy surrounding him and knowing that full disclosure may not support your argument.

However, I didn't quote any of the points or interpretations from Ms Hayter's article, merely used it to reference a source confirming that he was a member of the Eugenics Society.

I didn't 'use the term eugenics.' I stated that he was a member of the Eugenics Society. He was and he doesn't deny it. He may have many arguments with Ms Hayter, but this is not in dispute.

Her reference to the BNP's friendship with Migration watch is a quote from the BNP's own website. Primary Source material.

Whether you like it or not, The Guardian, like the right wing broadsheets, is considered to be an acceptable place to reference statements of fact, which is what I did. The sarcastic tone was my own original work.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Dress it up how you want your intention was crystal clear. But I have enjoyed our little debate, you would have a good career in politics .... defending the indefensible is a much sort after skill in that line of work. (or Lawyer)

 

[Stato]

Dress it up how you want your intention was crystal clear. But I have enjoyed our little debate, you would have a good career in politics .... defending the indefensible is a much sort after skill in that line of work. (or Lawyer)

Presumably by 'the indefensible' you mean an opinion that is different from yours.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I see adding more people year on year as effecting our quality of life at the end of the day.
There is no excuse for mass immigration on the levels we have seen, because I remember when this country functioned just fine without it.

Don't people understand extra people means more competition there is for your jobs, more pressure on your local services meaning everyone has to eventually wait longer.

Problems that where generally associated with London, overcrowding, inflated house prices are slowly being pushed outwards, in the end it is all counter productive, and if we stay in the EU we will never be able to introduce a proper immigration system to this country. Immigration will continue rising because it just won't be people from the EU coming to the UK, it will be people who arrived in the EU from outside, can't people see this.

 

[heathgate]

I see Germany has put a 50 migrants per hour limit on its 6 crossing points from Austria....that 300 per hour, that's 7200 per day from Austria alone.

Now as has been widely reported, most if these migrants have no papers or passports, so in the fullness of time they will get German passports, then they will be free to head anywhere in the EU.....think about it.

7200 per day.
2.5m per year through Austria alone

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I see Germany has put a 50 migrants per hour limit on its 6 crossing points from Austria....that 300 per hour, that's 7200 per day from Austria alone.

Now as has been widely reported, most if these migrants have no papers or passports, so in the fullness of time they will get German passports, then they will be free to head anywhere in the EU.....think about it.

7200 per day.
2.5m per year through Austria alone

And that's the reason why we need to get out of the EU because nobody can stop these people coming. This doesn't include the possible inclusion of Turkey to the EU either. Why can't people see this? It's quite possible by the end of 2016 we could see an extra 4-5 million people arrive in the EU.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I see adding more people year on year as effecting our quality of life at the end of the day.
There is no excuse for mass immigration on the levels we have seen, because I remember when this country functioned just fine without it.

Don't people understand extra people means more competition there is for your jobs, more pressure on your local services meaning everyone has to eventually wait longer.

Problems that where generally associated with London, overcrowding, inflated house prices are slowly being pushed outwards, in the end it is all counter productive, and if we stay in the EU we will never be able to introduce a proper immigration system to this country. Immigration will continue rising because it just won't be people from the EU coming to the UK, it will be people who arrived in the EU from outside, can't people see this.

A majority of people do and those that don't probably have not yet experienced it or are blinded by the diversity/multiculturalism "progressive" ideology trotted out by the usual suspects.