hill16bhoy wrote: » The claim was made that English people are a minority in London. This is disinformation. It is FALSE.
hill16bhoy wrote: » The claim was made that English people are a minority in London. Who's the calm one again?
Dallas Thousands Ammonia wrote: » Calm down dear, the census referes to 'ethnicity', the census doesn't care if you sing 'god song the ...' every morning or wave bunting. It only cares what box (people themselves) actually tick on the census form. It only cares about hard data, stats and such. If Hans from Holland, who lives in London wants to tick the Dutch box by himself, is that not allowed now? Is he not allowed to identify to his heritage, must he become british as soon as he steps of his KLM flight? Maybe post your crocadles tears in a glass jar, to their Office for National Statistics.
Podge_irl wrote: » What court? It would not be enshrined in Irish or European law.
hill16bhoy wrote: » non-white people cannot be English or British.
RandomName2 wrote: » And the Mail, Sputnik, RT, Sun, Breitbart, Fox. Is there anything else on the banned list? Google it! For something that's common knowledge the onus is on you not to be lazy! Laziness does not excuse ignorance.https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/census-reveals-white-britons-as-minority-in-capital-for-first-time-8405998.htmlhttps://www.ft.com/content/4bd95562-4379-11e2-a48c-00144feabdc0https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21511904https://mangomap.com/demographics/mapshttps://www.londonmedicine.ac.uk/londons-landscape/population/ethnicity-in-london/http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/london-population/https://data.london.gov.uk/topic/demographics Wait, is he a Sinn Fein guy? That would actually explain a lot.
hill16bhoy wrote: » Non-whites are not British now, apparently.
Redneck Culchie wrote: » Ah yes the typical "I'm not actually a Shinner" routine yet you post their rhetoric non stop. Why don't you fellas just admit you vote for Sinn Fein? Because you would have to stand over their nonsense. Easier to attack everyone else isn't it. There was easily 150, maybe even 200 including people at the sides supporting us quietly. A number of republicans were present. Sinn Fein are more likely to wave the rainbow flag than the tricolour these days.
Redneck Culchie wrote: » Yep he is, can tell by his posting. He was attacking people for voting Casey in the last election. Even his name gives it away, a typical Celtic supporting Sinn Fein lout.
hill16bhoy wrote: » I'm not a "Shinner", mate. I'm not a member of any political party and have no fixed party loyalty - but nice attempt at a straw man. You've just said 150 people turned up, and given that you have a heavy vested interest in bigging up the turnout, we can safely assume it was nowhere near that. Even at your claimed upper limit of 150, it's utterly hilarious to see you claim that the "amount of ex-Sinn Fein voters" you met "was amazing". You evidently have a very, very low amazement threshold.
Dallas Thousands Ammonia wrote: » The Daily Express sells little compared to the likes of the Mail, Sun, or Mirror. However it still greatly outsells the extreme left's news handbook i.e. the Guardian - which sells the very least of all daily national newspapers. Q. Did you actually check the 2011 census for youself? A. No.The 'White British' classification only makes up 44.9% of all Londoners. So compared to all other enthicities combined (that are not white british), they would indeed appear to be technically outnumbered as such.
hill16bhoy wrote: » i) Is the Daily Express a reputable source? ii) Is the claim true? I'll give you a hint on both counts - the answer is no.
hill16bhoy wrote: » I asked the previous poster for a source. You haven't provided a source. Oh, and by the way "everybody knows" isn't a source either. Everybody knows that. Except you, it seems.
Redneck Culchie wrote: » Good one shinner. Nothing extreme right at all about last night, if I was you I'd be bricking it, the amount of ex Sinn Fein members and voters I met last night was amazing. Guess that is what happens when you turn into the Labour Party haha. You lot are ****ing history.
Redneck Culchie wrote: » Well I was wrong the Profit Before People and their rent a mob anarchist pals did indeed show up. They had a counter protest of about 30-40. Was about 150 of us protesting on the Irexit/UN Migration Pact side. A very decent turnout on a Thursday evening. All normal ordinary people unlike the professional protestors with PBP. They were a truely pathetic bunch. Gardai did a good job keeping the peace and there was no violence just threats and abuse being hurled. Lucky for the posh PBP bourgeois scum who would have had their arse handed to them very easily if they tried anything. The days of Antifa running people off the streets are well over.
RandomName2 wrote: » You really are pretty cheeky, you know that? Ask for sources, discredit sources, change the goalposts, and call the person you're talking to a racist. Is that a typical approach you follow? I know you mean well, but you're doing your position no favors.
English people make up 44.9% of the population of London. Are you actually taking the piss? Everybody knows that crime has risen in Germany because of migration, and you glibly declare otherwise. Everyone knows that English people are a minority in London, so naturally you query this as well. You should fight battles you can win. Throwing up idiotic roadblocks that people can easily disprove are going to do your arguments no favors, at all.
hill16bhoy wrote: » Your link is from that rag the Daily Express, so what do you think?
hill16bhoy wrote: » Source please.
Redneck Culchie wrote: » There is a protest against Ireland signing the UN Migration Pact without any debate, protest is outside the Dail tomorrow 6/6.30pm. Organised by Irexit party but all those who oppose the signing of the UN Migration Pact are welcome to attend. Expecting a decent crowd hopefully. It won't be the usual PBP types at it either.
political analyst wrote: » https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1053064/United-nations-Global-Compact-for-Safe-Orderly-and-Regular-Migration-Alistair-Burt-italy Is this true?
BRITAIN will sign a controversial new legislation proposal put forward by the United Nations (UN) which could see people who criticise EU migration policies jailed and makes immigration a universal human right.
Sand wrote: » In London the English have already become a minority in their own capital,
demfad wrote: » Facilitating "Safe, Orderly and regular migration" describes actions toward exiting migration. It does not facilitate migration, in fact it reduces that prospect. It facilitates making migration safer etc. You are deliberately and dishonestly misleading.
To describe it as mass or otherwise you must substantiate and quantify it. How do you evaluate "rapid demographic change".
Migration that creates rapid demographic change in relatively short periods of time. You could alternatively define it as migration that is of such a scale that it creates large populations able to resist assimilation and sustain their own culture. Sweden for example is only track for the Swedes to become a minority in their own homeland within our lifetimes if they a) don't increase their fertility and b) don't end mass migration into Sweden. In London the English have already become a minority in their own capital, with Birmingham soon to follow. In Germany, politicians now acknowledges that Germans will also become a minority in their own cities, but that this fine. The story is the same across western Europe to varying degrees.
The compact seeks to reduce existing migration and make migration safer. Your assertion is baseless.
Migration of peoples happen for a variety of reasons. You would think with the upcoming climate change cataclysm that opponents of migration would be advocates of a global response to human made climate breakdown or wars or other drivers of human movement. But no, your solution is based on barbed wire guns and firing statistics out to make these people appear lesser. It is petty, and ultimately it is stupid.
RobertKK wrote: » I read that it is non binding, yet there could in the future be legal consequences if some court made a ruling based on it.
demfad wrote: » despicable. disgusting Disingenuous nonsense.
Not the recent ones. There is a huge debate in Sweden about immigration and crime. And we know from earlier statistics that the foreign-born commit three times as many crimes on average as native-borns. But these riots and crimes in the suburbs, they are related mostly to drugs and gangs. Those people are born and raised in Sweden. It has nothing to do with the recent immigration. It’s the children of migrants and maybe people that came when they were young. There has been this issue of sexual harassment. And there is some evidence that the new refugees are somewhat involved in this. But there are no official statistics on it.
Gun violence is on the rise, with daylight shootings and without regard for bystanders. In the past nine years, reported and attempted murders involving guns have almost doubled. .. Yet it’s still hard for Swedish authorities to be frank about what’s going on. It’s widely known that gang members are mainly first- and second-generation immigrants, and problems are rampant in what police euphemistically refer to as ‘vulnerable areas’. Thus the gang wars serve as a constant reminder of Sweden’s failed migration and integration policies. This is a problem for the government (and even the opposition) in a country that prides itself on being a ‘humanitarian superpower’. And yet politicians, in government and opposition, seem particularly concerned that violence in immigrant suburbs is a PR problem, a threat to the image of Sweden, and that the remedy is spin.
Crime statistics show that violent offences have remained at broadly the same level for the past decade but that certain offences — particularly shootings — have increased in Sweden’s three largest cities, Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmo. All three cities are home to significant numbers of immigrants — Sweden took in more immigrants in 2015 than almost any other European country relative to the size of population — with local police saying dozens have joined local gangs who deal drugs and have become increasingly brazen in attacking each other.
Of 100 people linked to murder and assassination of firearms, 90 have at least one foreign-born parent, shows DN's review.
Since crime is intimately linked to the country’s failure to integrate its immigrants, the rise in violence is a sensitive subject. When the Swedish government and opposition refer to the country as a “humanitarian superpower” because it opened its doors to more immigrants per capita during the migrant crisis than any other EU country, they mean it. This has resulted in some impressive contortions.
hill16bhoy wrote: » It really is amazing how you continue to ignore the fact that Sweden considerably broadened its definition of sexual crime in both 2005 and 2013. Then, again, when you're desperately trying to spin a flagrantly racist narrative, I suppose it isn't at all suprising.
RandomName2 wrote: » I said that that the statistics in relation to crime and immigration are quite complicated. However, despite the fact that there is no single, all encompassing experience across Europe, Germany and Sweden have both experienced an increase in crime that has a connection to immigration.
My assertion has not been contradicted by any evidence provided.
I suspect that you would also be of the opinion that little research should be conducted into the entire topic though, because to do so could produce unwanted effects.
demfad wrote: » Is Right wing pundits racially slurring immigrants based on unclear 'Statistics' and disinformation not the ultimate in slimyiness ? Your opinion, please.
demfad wrote: » "The only statistic that you can find"??? You are viciously attacking an entire group of prople. Is your statistic reliable? How do you know?
demfad wrote: » If it is not reliable you are using abuse based on race on a group with no substantiation. Please explain.
RandomName2 wrote: » It is pretty simple. There is a large increase in sexual crime in Sweden. This was used by right-wing pundits to criticize immigration policies in Sweden. The response to this is 'If you ignore sexual crimes except rape convictions then there has been no rise in crime rates' As slimy a position as you can get, and only used to undermine the right-wing pundits. I'm not saying that right-wing pundits are averse from using victims to suit their own agenda, but that does not make the response any less gross.
RandomName2 wrote: » Did it? Because I read your source and what it said was And yet the same source says that there hasn't been any increase in the number of rape convictions. This is very true. Indeed, rape is a small fraction of sex crimes in Sweden. Although reported rapes have gone up, and the majority of reported rapes by a stranger have been by non-nationals, you can, if you like, ignore both those things because the definition of rape has been widened. However, sex crimes as a whole (excluding rape convictions) have been increasingly significantly in the last number of years. The only statistic that I could find says that the majority of perpetrators for these crimes have been non-nationals.
hill16bhoy wrote: » It really is amazing how you continue to ignore the fact that Sweden considerably broadened its definition of sexual crime in both 2005 and 2013.
Sweden broadened its definition of rape
hill16bhoy wrote: » Then, again, when you're desperately trying to spin a flagrantly racist narrative, I suppose it isn't at all suprising.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » All of this relies on the flimsy and likely flawed assumption that this has not or will not be discussed in the Oireachtas. Can you please provide a shred of evidence that this will be signed without Oireachtas approval or show us where you derive the assumption that the Government can sign UN Resolutions (or alike) unilaterally? I think you'll find, with a modicum of research, that signing these UN documents can be done at a Cabinet level following a joint Oireachtas committee (i.e. public) decision and ratification (making it law) requires a full Oireachtas vote, as with all legislation.
