The wonderful EU and Migration thread!

[Hoboh]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/a ... dogan-poem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She'll be taking him coca and slippers next to go with Six billion Euro's and visa free travel!

Bloody woman,

[bedwetter2]

Just remind us again how Merkel gets anything official onto the EU statute books? Coz I'll be delighted if you clear that one up.

Diktat?

So using the same base voting strength as us?

I don't think so. It appears she has much more sway with the Commission than most of her wet counterparts put together.

[bedwetter2]

She'll be taking him coca and slippers next to go with Six billion Euro's and visa free travel!

Don't forget his nightly bottle of raki.

[Hoboh]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... ool-places" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The latest data reveals that the councils facing shortfalls in places by 2019-20 are Bolton, Manchester, Oldham, Leeds, Leicester, Birmingham, Walsall, Bexley, Greenwich, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton and Slough.

I wonder what most of these places have in common?

No doubt the usual response will apply, "we'll have to build more".

One day someone might hit upon the answer being, control whose in or out.

[Worthy4England]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... ool-places

The latest data reveals that the councils facing shortfalls in places by 2019-20 are Bolton, Manchester, Oldham, Leeds, Leicester, Birmingham, Walsall, Bexley, Greenwich, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton and Slough.

I wonder what most of these places have in common?

No doubt the usual response will apply, "we'll have to build more".

One day someone might hit upon the answer being, control whose in or out.

I think they'll have the following in common:

1) Significantly white English demographic.
2) Reasonably high Indian and Pakistani communities (Non-EU) - so an immigration aspect within our control (12.1% for Bolton at last census)
3) Reasonably small populations with a country of origin within the EU or elsewhere other than India and Pakistan (4.9% for Bolton at last census)
4) Lots of school-age children

So from last census it's been entirely within the UK's control for 95.1% of Bolton's demographic...

[bedwetter2]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... ool-places

The latest data reveals that the councils facing shortfalls in places by 2019-20 are Bolton, Manchester, Oldham, Leeds, Leicester, Birmingham, Walsall, Bexley, Greenwich, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton and Slough.

I wonder what most of these places have in common?

No doubt the usual response will apply, "we'll have to build more".

One day someone might hit upon the answer being, control whose in or out.

I think they'll have the following in common:

1) Significantly white English demographic.
2) Reasonably high Indian and Pakistani communities (Non-EU) - so an immigration aspect within our control (12.1% for Bolton at last census)
3) Reasonably small populations with a country of origin within the EU or elsewhere other than India and Pakistan (4.9% for Bolton at last census)
4) Lots of school-age children

So from last census it's been entirely within the UK's control for 95.1% of Bolton's demographic...

Do you really still believe 'official' figures?

[Worthy4England]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... ool-places

The latest data reveals that the councils facing shortfalls in places by 2019-20 are Bolton, Manchester, Oldham, Leeds, Leicester, Birmingham, Walsall, Bexley, Greenwich, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton and Slough.

I wonder what most of these places have in common?

No doubt the usual response will apply, "we'll have to build more".

One day someone might hit upon the answer being, control whose in or out.

I think they'll have the following in common:

1) Significantly white English demographic.
2) Reasonably high Indian and Pakistani communities (Non-EU) - so an immigration aspect within our control (12.1% for Bolton at last census)
3) Reasonably small populations with a country of origin within the EU or elsewhere other than India and Pakistan (4.9% for Bolton at last census)
4) Lots of school-age children

So from last census it's been entirely within the UK's control for 95.1% of Bolton's demographic...

Do you really still believe 'official' figures?

Depends on which figures they are - when it comes to understanding how many Chinese people live in Bolton, it's notoriously difficult to do (or appears to be). We could of course make our own figures up for everything - that usually makes a sound basis for debate.

What do you think are the Indian and Pakistani numbers for Bolton (can't remember whether you live in Bolton or not)?
What are the numbers of other migrants?
Where are you getting your information from?

[bedwetter2]

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... ool-places

The latest data reveals that the councils facing shortfalls in places by 2019-20 are Bolton, Manchester, Oldham, Leeds, Leicester, Birmingham, Walsall, Bexley, Greenwich, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton and Slough.

I wonder what most of these places have in common?

No doubt the usual response will apply, "we'll have to build more".

One day someone might hit upon the answer being, control whose in or out.

I think they'll have the following in common:

1) Significantly white English demographic.
2) Reasonably high Indian and Pakistani communities (Non-EU) - so an immigration aspect within our control (12.1% for Bolton at last census)
3) Reasonably small populations with a country of origin within the EU or elsewhere other than India and Pakistan (4.9% for Bolton at last census)
4) Lots of school-age children

So from last census it's been entirely within the UK's control for 95.1% of Bolton's demographic...

Do you really still believe 'official' figures?

Depends on which figures they are - when it comes to understanding how many Chinese people live in Bolton, it's notoriously difficult to do (or appears to be). We could of course make our own figures up for everything - that usually makes a sound basis for debate.

What do you think are the Indian and Pakistani numbers for Bolton (can't remember whether you live in Bolton or not)?
What are the numbers of other migrants?
Where are you getting your information from?

I will try to answer your questions where I can - you have concentrated on the sub-continent but most of my views and information applies to all selectively constructed and released "official" information, whether immigration, financial or legislative. I live 90 miles from Bolton although I can't really see how that is relevant. From the start of the 1960s when I were a nipper the steady immigration from the Indian sub-continent into areas of Bolton was very noticeable. This I observed whenever I was taken to visit my relatives. Immigration carried on apace from then to the present day and it was obvious (at least to me via innocent eyes) that the majority did not integrate or even try. We now know why in the case of the muslims. Of course a lot of the first generation migrants were very poor as was some of the white population but there was no attempt by the Government or councils to alter the ghetto mindset. I don't remember any significant studies into how the newly arrived should be spread about more evenly. The lack of any policies led to "whiteflight" for those who could afford to move. The older indigenous population who couldn't or wouldn't move became surrounded by newcomers with whom they had little in common.

Now, all of this is anecdotal and is not indicative of whether a figure of 12% is correct for those from the sub-continent is correct or not, but (and this is a big but ) you say the last census said 12.1% but how accurate is that figure. It is fairly well known that muslims in particular are notorious for dissembling and some say they couldn't lie straight if their lives depend on it. They guard their real attitudes to a variety of matters which they know to be incompatible with their host nations way of life.

There are supposedly 3 million muslims in Britain according to the Government. In reality, as no immigration checks were made or recorded at borders until a couple of months ago, the real figure is unknown.

The Government has recently been upbraided by the ONS for the discrepancy between recorded immigration figures and the issue of new national insurance numbers to immigrants for the same period - some 2.5 times more N.I numbers than official immigration figures. The Government has been asked to explain but has not yet offered any reasonable account of what is going on. This is all immigration, not just pakistanis!

Yes, I am sure that the first reaction of yer average white liberal is to point to the few examples of successful and personable muslims in their town; a doctor here, an accountant there and the occasional businessman. These are the exceptions, not the average. Then yer average white liberal will do one of two things or possibly both; ignore any evidence which does not fit their worldview or argue that the proponent of strict immigration controls is an unmitigated racist or bigot.

The Gideon Osborne package of "facts" is the most extreme to date example of questionable "official" figures. I'm not going to drag out all questionable statistics but there have been more than enough over the last 50 years to make one question the entire cabal in governments and the civil service.

[thebish]

I will try to answer your questions where I can - you have concentrated on the sub-continent but most of my views and information applies to all selectively constructed and released "official" information, whether immigration, financial or legislative. I live 90 miles from Bolton although I can't really see how that is relevant. From the start of the 1960s when I were a nipper the steady immigration from the Indian sub-continent into areas of Bolton was very noticeable. This I observed whenever I was taken to visit my relatives. Immigration carried on apace from then to the present day and it was obvious (at least to me via innocent eyes) that the majority did not integrate or even try. We now know why in the case of the muslims.

do we? what do we know now that we didn't know before - specifically about Muslims rather than just any immigrant community? (and how do we know this?)

[thebish]

Now, all of this is anecdotal and is not indicative of whether a figure of 12% is correct for those from the sub-continent is correct or not, but (and this is a big but ) you say the last census said 12.1% but how accurate is that figure. It is fairly well known that muslims in particular are notorious for dissembling and some say they couldn't lie straight if their lives depend on it.

to the casual observer - that comes across as a bit prejudiced... just saying, like...

how is it well known that muslims in particular are notorious for dissembling?

are you really asserting that muslims (per se) are bigger liars than any other group/community? really??

[Worthy4England]

I will try to answer your questions where I can - you have concentrated on the sub-continent but most of my views and information applies to all selectively constructed and released "official" information, whether immigration, financial or legislative. I live 90 miles from Bolton although I can't really see how that is relevant. From the start of the 1960s when I were a nipper the steady immigration from the Indian sub-continent into areas of Bolton was very noticeable. This I observed whenever I was taken to visit my relatives. Immigration carried on apace from then to the present day and it was obvious (at least to me via innocent eyes) that the majority did not integrate or even try. We now know why in the case of the muslims. Of course a lot of the first generation migrants were very poor as was some of the white population but there was no attempt by the Government or councils to alter the ghetto mindset. I don't remember any significant studies into how the newly arrived should be spread about more evenly. The lack of any policies led to "whiteflight" for those who could afford to move. The older indigenous population who couldn't or wouldn't move became surrounded by newcomers with whom they had little in common.

Now, all of this is anecdotal and is not indicative of whether a figure of 12% is correct for those from the sub-continent is correct or not, but (and this is a big but ) you say the last census said 12.1% but how accurate is that figure. It is fairly well known that muslims in particular are notorious for dissembling and some say they couldn't lie straight if their lives depend on it. They guard their real attitudes to a variety of matters which they know to be incompatible with their host nations way of life.

There are supposedly 3 million muslims in Britain according to the Government. In reality, as no immigration checks were made or recorded at borders until a couple of months ago, the real figure is unknown.

The Government has recently been upbraided by the ONS for the discrepancy between recorded immigration figures and the issue of new national insurance numbers to immigrants for the same period - some 2.5 times more N.I numbers than official immigration figures. The Government has been asked to explain but has not yet offered any reasonable account of what is going on. This is all immigration, not just pakistanis!

Yes, I am sure that the first reaction of yer average white liberal is to point to the few examples of successful and personable muslims in their town; a doctor here, an accountant there and the occasional businessman. These are the exceptions, not the average. Then yer average white liberal will do one of two things or possibly both; ignore any evidence which does not fit their worldview or argue that the proponent of strict immigration controls is an unmitigated racist or bigot.

The Gideon Osborne package of "facts" is the most extreme to date example of questionable "official" figures. I'm not going to drag out all questionable statistics but there have been more than enough over the last 50 years to make one question the entire cabal in governments and the civil service.

Thanks for a well thought out response.

The problems we have are manifold - consistently occurring is what are "facts" and what aren't - I agree that there are inconsistencies in government data, (like you do), but if we all make up our own facts, then there's little point in using any facts, as they'll never agree and people will use their own made-up numbers to support their viewpoint. We're seeing lots of this just at the moment. I only picked Bolton, as I thought you might have a better view of Bolton than Slough.

When we look at what folks are presenting here as "anti-EU" arguments, the picture gets more confused in respect of immigration. There's lots of pointing at the many EU immigrants, but the problem that's often cited seems to be in respect of muslims - the point I'm making is that most of the muslim immigrants we currently have are diddly squat to do with EU immigration. So what's the main problem - that we can't control the immigration from non-EU countries (that we have control over) or that we can't control immigration from EU countries (which we have less control over)?

I actually agree with you that envisaged integration doesn't seem to have worked in terms of "where people live" and social engagement, my experience from where I work is that it's more integrated. I'm not sure how the thinking runs in terms of solving or even defining the problem that already exists from when we had and still have border control.

Apparently leaving the EU is going to solve this problem - I don't see it.

[bedwetter2]

I will try to answer your questions where I can - you have concentrated on the sub-continent but most of my views and information applies to all selectively constructed and released "official" information, whether immigration, financial or legislative. I live 90 miles from Bolton although I can't really see how that is relevant. From the start of the 1960s when I were a nipper the steady immigration from the Indian sub-continent into areas of Bolton was very noticeable. This I observed whenever I was taken to visit my relatives. Immigration carried on apace from then to the present day and it was obvious (at least to me via innocent eyes) that the majority did not integrate or even try. We now know why in the case of the muslims. Of course a lot of the first generation migrants were very poor as was some of the white population but there was no attempt by the Government or councils to alter the ghetto mindset. I don't remember any significant studies into how the newly arrived should be spread about more evenly. The lack of any policies led to "whiteflight" for those who could afford to move. The older indigenous population who couldn't or wouldn't move became surrounded by newcomers with whom they had little in common.

Now, all of this is anecdotal and is not indicative of whether a figure of 12% is correct for those from the sub-continent is correct or not, but (and this is a big but ) you say the last census said 12.1% but how accurate is that figure. It is fairly well known that muslims in particular are notorious for dissembling and some say they couldn't lie straight if their lives depend on it. They guard their real attitudes to a variety of matters which they know to be incompatible with their host nations way of life.

There are supposedly 3 million muslims in Britain according to the Government. In reality, as no immigration checks were made or recorded at borders until a couple of months ago, the real figure is unknown.

The Government has recently been upbraided by the ONS for the discrepancy between recorded immigration figures and the issue of new national insurance numbers to immigrants for the same period - some 2.5 times more N.I numbers than official immigration figures. The Government has been asked to explain but has not yet offered any reasonable account of what is going on. This is all immigration, not just pakistanis!

Yes, I am sure that the first reaction of yer average white liberal is to point to the few examples of successful and personable muslims in their town; a doctor here, an accountant there and the occasional businessman. These are the exceptions, not the average. Then yer average white liberal will do one of two things or possibly both; ignore any evidence which does not fit their worldview or argue that the proponent of strict immigration controls is an unmitigated racist or bigot.

The Gideon Osborne package of "facts" is the most extreme to date example of questionable "official" figures. I'm not going to drag out all questionable statistics but there have been more than enough over the last 50 years to make one question the entire cabal in governments and the civil service.

Thanks for a well thought out response.

The problems we have are manifold - consistently occurring is what are "facts" and what aren't - I agree that there are inconsistencies in government data, (like you do), but if we all make up our own facts, then there's little point in using any facts, as they'll never agree and people will use their own made-up numbers to support their viewpoint. We're seeing lots of this just at the moment. I only picked Bolton, as I thought you might have a better view of Bolton than Slough.

When we look at what folks are presenting here as "anti-EU" arguments, the picture gets more confused in respect of immigration. There's lots of pointing at the many EU immigrants, but the problem that's often cited seems to be in respect of muslims - the point I'm making is that most of the muslim immigrants we currently have are diddly squat to do with EU immigration. So what's the main problem - that we can't control the immigration from non-EU countries (that we have control over) or that we can't control immigration from EU countries (which we have less control over)?

I actually agree with you that envisaged integration doesn't seem to have worked in terms of "where people live" and social engagement, my experience from where I work is that it's more integrated. I'm not sure how the thinking runs in terms of solving or even defining the problem that already exists from when we had and still have border control.

Apparently leaving the EU is going to solve this problem - I don't see it.

Slough??? How dare you. I live in beautiful rural Shropshire.

I am not anti-EU as such but anti-domination of national competences by an unelected Commission, imposition of huge numbers of directives, and most importantly anti-corruption and sclerotic action on such matters as external borders. Regarding internal borders, we are not part of the Schengen area but still have no say over the movement of EU citizens into the UK. If the entire Schengen agreement was rolled back and individual states were able to decide how many people were allowed in to their country the situation would be improved immeasurably. The likelihood that the Euro economy is probably going to implode is neither here nor there.
Running a country is massively difficult, running a "union" of 28 countries with wildly different GDPs and states of economic development is impossible and with or without the UK, the EU is doomed to failure.

In terms of immigration, we have a handle on neither internal EU nor external. EU obviously for the reasons discussed and externally because the UK is still supposedly morally bound to allow families of previous immigrants in. That plus the discrete lobbying of big business to allow cheap labour in and universities to allow as many foreign students as possible in; it all adds up.

[bedwetter2]

I will try to answer your questions where I can - you have concentrated on the sub-continent but most of my views and information applies to all selectively constructed and released "official" information, whether immigration, financial or legislative. I live 90 miles from Bolton although I can't really see how that is relevant. From the start of the 1960s when I were a nipper the steady immigration from the Indian sub-continent into areas of Bolton was very noticeable. This I observed whenever I was taken to visit my relatives. Immigration carried on apace from then to the present day and it was obvious (at least to me via innocent eyes) that the majority did not integrate or even try. We now know why in the case of the muslims.

do we? what do we know now that we didn't know before - specifically about Muslims rather than just any immigrant community? (and how do we know this?)

The recent ICM attitude survey about which Trevor Phillips has written about in the Sunday Times and presented on Channel 4 was conducted on a one to one, face to face basis by muslims employed by the research organisation specifically so honest responses could be elicited. They even went as far as asking the interviewees to write down their views and seal them in envelopes if they felt uncomfortable discussing their real attitudes.

There have been previous attempts to get to the bottom of muslim attitudes to living in the UK, one in the late 90s (1999 I think, without looking it up) which showed similar results and when presented to the then Labour Government was buried very quickly.

The survey confirmed that 52% of muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, 39% that a woman should always obey her husband irrespective of circumstances, 18% believe in violence toward anyone insulting the prophet, 4% (100,000 people in the UK) support suicide bombers, 66% would not inform the authorities of anyone involved in supporting terrorism. 53% supported the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris.

There was many other responses to questions such as do you meet with non-muslims outside work? Have you ever been in a non-muslim home? Very high no responses from both these questions 92% for have you ever been in a non-muslim home.

Obviously you don't want to admit it or agree, but from all that has recently been gleaned muslims in general are a nation within a nation. Their dismissive anti-democratic views (probably explains their gerrymandering of votes in elections) and subserviance only to their prophet makes them a clear and present danger, in my opinion.

[BWFC_Insane]

Now, all of this is anecdotal and is not indicative of whether a figure of 12% is correct for those from the sub-continent is correct or not, but (and this is a big but ) you say the last census said 12.1% but how accurate is that figure. It is fairly well known that muslims in particular are notorious for dissembling and some say they couldn't lie straight if their lives depend on it.

to the casual observer - that comes across as a bit prejudiced... just saying, like...

how is it well known that muslims in particular are notorious for dissembling?

are you really asserting that muslims (per se) are bigger liars than any other group/community? really??

A bit? Think that is understating it somewhat!

[Prufrock]

I will try to answer your questions where I can - you have concentrated on the sub-continent but most of my views and information applies to all selectively constructed and released "official" information, whether immigration, financial or legislative. I live 90 miles from Bolton although I can't really see how that is relevant. From the start of the 1960s when I were a nipper the steady immigration from the Indian sub-continent into areas of Bolton was very noticeable. This I observed whenever I was taken to visit my relatives. Immigration carried on apace from then to the present day and it was obvious (at least to me via innocent eyes) that the majority did not integrate or even try. We now know why in the case of the muslims.

do we? what do we know now that we didn't know before - specifically about Muslims rather than just any immigrant community? (and how do we know this?)

The recent ICM attitude survey about which Trevor Phillips has written about in the Sunday Times and presented on Channel 4 was conducted on a one to one, face to face basis by muslims employed by the research organisation specifically so honest responses could be elicited. They even went as far as asking the interviewees to write down their views and seal them in envelopes if they felt uncomfortable discussing their real attitudes.

There have been previous attempts to get to the bottom of muslim attitudes to living in the UK, one in the late 90s (1999 I think, without looking it up) which showed similar results and when presented to the then Labour Government was buried very quickly.

The survey confirmed that 52% of muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, 39% that a woman should always obey her husband irrespective of circumstances, 18% believe in violence toward anyone insulting the prophet, 4% (100,000 people in the UK) support suicide bombers, 66% would not inform the authorities of anyone involved in supporting terrorism. 53% supported the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris.

There was many other responses to questions such as do you meet with non-muslims outside work? Have you ever been in a non-muslim home? Very high no responses from both these questions 92% for have you ever been in a non-muslim home.

Obviously you don't want to admit it or agree, but from all that has recently been gleaned muslims in general are a nation within a nation. Their dismissive anti-democratic views (probably explains their gerrymandering of votes in elections) and subserviance only to their prophet makes them a clear and present danger, in my opinion.

They were probably just dissembling.

[bedwetter2]

Now, all of this is anecdotal and is not indicative of whether a figure of 12% is correct for those from the sub-continent is correct or not, but (and this is a big but ) you say the last census said 12.1% but how accurate is that figure. It is fairly well known that muslims in particular are notorious for dissembling and some say they couldn't lie straight if their lives depend on it.

to the casual observer - that comes across as a bit prejudiced... just saying, like...

how is it well known that muslims in particular are notorious for dissembling?

are you really asserting that muslims (per se) are bigger liars than any other group/community? really??

Have you heard of the following terms, all originating in Islamic law and used extensively :- "takiyya", "kitman"

Also, out of interest:- "tawriya", "muruna"

Their bloody legal tenets allow it to deceive unbelievers, so how on earth do you think they may be notorious for dissembling?
A friend of mine who used to live in Leicester, but escaped, has seen it in action many times and our gullibility is used against us vicar. From something as simple as denying their car hit your parked car, to organising massive scamming operations. But don't believe me. That wouldn't suit your worldview.

[bedwetter2]

I will try to answer your questions where I can - you have concentrated on the sub-continent but most of my views and information applies to all selectively constructed and released "official" information, whether immigration, financial or legislative. I live 90 miles from Bolton although I can't really see how that is relevant. From the start of the 1960s when I were a nipper the steady immigration from the Indian sub-continent into areas of Bolton was very noticeable. This I observed whenever I was taken to visit my relatives. Immigration carried on apace from then to the present day and it was obvious (at least to me via innocent eyes) that the majority did not integrate or even try. We now know why in the case of the muslims.

do we? what do we know now that we didn't know before - specifically about Muslims rather than just any immigrant community? (and how do we know this?)

The recent ICM attitude survey about which Trevor Phillips has written about in the Sunday Times and presented on Channel 4 was conducted on a one to one, face to face basis by muslims employed by the research organisation specifically so honest responses could be elicited. They even went as far as asking the interviewees to write down their views and seal them in envelopes if they felt uncomfortable discussing their real attitudes.

There have been previous attempts to get to the bottom of muslim attitudes to living in the UK, one in the late 90s (1999 I think, without looking it up) which showed similar results and when presented to the then Labour Government was buried very quickly.

The survey confirmed that 52% of muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, 39% that a woman should always obey her husband irrespective of circumstances, 18% believe in violence toward anyone insulting the prophet, 4% (100,000 people in the UK) support suicide bombers, 66% would not inform the authorities of anyone involved in supporting terrorism. 53% supported the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris.

There was many other responses to questions such as do you meet with non-muslims outside work? Have you ever been in a non-muslim home? Very high no responses from both these questions 92% for have you ever been in a non-muslim home.

Obviously you don't want to admit it or agree, but from all that has recently been gleaned muslims in general are a nation within a nation. Their dismissive anti-democratic views (probably explains their gerrymandering of votes in elections) and subserviance only to their prophet makes them a clear and present danger, in my opinion.

They were probably just dissembling.

ha ha, like it

[BWFC_Insane]

I will try to answer your questions where I can - you have concentrated on the sub-continent but most of my views and information applies to all selectively constructed and released "official" information, whether immigration, financial or legislative. I live 90 miles from Bolton although I can't really see how that is relevant. From the start of the 1960s when I were a nipper the steady immigration from the Indian sub-continent into areas of Bolton was very noticeable. This I observed whenever I was taken to visit my relatives. Immigration carried on apace from then to the present day and it was obvious (at least to me via innocent eyes) that the majority did not integrate or even try. We now know why in the case of the muslims.

do we? what do we know now that we didn't know before - specifically about Muslims rather than just any immigrant community? (and how do we know this?)

The recent ICM attitude survey about which Trevor Phillips has written about in the Sunday Times and presented on Channel 4 was conducted on a one to one, face to face basis by muslims employed by the research organisation specifically so honest responses could be elicited. They even went as far as asking the interviewees to write down their views and seal them in envelopes if they felt uncomfortable discussing their real attitudes.

There have been previous attempts to get to the bottom of muslim attitudes to living in the UK, one in the late 90s (1999 I think, without looking it up) which showed similar results and when presented to the then Labour Government was buried very quickly.

The survey confirmed that 52% of muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, 39% that a woman should always obey her husband irrespective of circumstances, 18% believe in violence toward anyone insulting the prophet, 4% (100,000 people in the UK) support suicide bombers, 66% would not inform the authorities of anyone involved in supporting terrorism. 53% supported the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris.

There was many other responses to questions such as do you meet with non-muslims outside work? Have you ever been in a non-muslim home? Very high no responses from both these questions 92% for have you ever been in a non-muslim home.

Obviously you don't want to admit it or agree, but from all that has recently been gleaned muslims in general are a nation within a nation. Their dismissive anti-democratic views (probably explains their gerrymandering of votes in elections) and subserviance only to their prophet makes them a clear and present danger, in my opinion.

If you surveyed white English men in Greater Manchester, what % do you think would have similar views on homosexuality and women, for example?

Or if you surveyed ex-pat communities in Spain, how well integrated do you think many of them would be?

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

do we? what do we know now that we didn't know before - specifically about Muslims rather than just any immigrant community? (and how do we know this?)

The recent ICM attitude survey about which Trevor Phillips has written about in the Sunday Times and presented on Channel 4 was conducted on a one to one, face to face basis by muslims employed by the research organisation specifically so honest responses could be elicited. They even went as far as asking the interviewees to write down their views and seal them in envelopes if they felt uncomfortable discussing their real attitudes.

There have been previous attempts to get to the bottom of muslim attitudes to living in the UK, one in the late 90s (1999 I think, without looking it up) which showed similar results and when presented to the then Labour Government was buried very quickly.

The survey confirmed that 52% of muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, 39% that a woman should always obey her husband irrespective of circumstances, 18% believe in violence toward anyone insulting the prophet, 4% (100,000 people in the UK) support suicide bombers, 66% would not inform the authorities of anyone involved in supporting terrorism. 53% supported the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris.

There was many other responses to questions such as do you meet with non-muslims outside work? Have you ever been in a non-muslim home? Very high no responses from both these questions 92% for have you ever been in a non-muslim home.

Obviously you don't want to admit it or agree, but from all that has recently been gleaned muslims in general are a nation within a nation. Their dismissive anti-democratic views (probably explains their gerrymandering of votes in elections) and subserviance only to their prophet makes them a clear and present danger, in my opinion.

Goes to show a lack of consistency in either their views or answers given to the survey. As the Insane one suggests, I suspect an equally candid set of people from parts of the UK might give some similar answers to some of those questions.

I also suspect that many of them just want to be left alone to live their life the way they see fit, which whilst not necessarily fitting with the way others live/see things, are not necessarily pernicious to the wider society. As a white male living in a relatively strict Islamic country I pretty much want to be left alone to live my life as I wish and in peace. I don't particularly share the same ideals and beliefs as my hosts or the majority of the population here. I don't see it as a problem as I have no agenda other than to live in peace here and as long as those in the UK wish to do the same the it's fine that they think what they like. If they are pushing to change society to their values over ours then a different matter. I don't believe anything other than a small minority that are seeking to change anything over there, though my absence from the country may mean I'm out of touch with goings on.

[bedwetter2]

I will try to answer your questions where I can - you have concentrated on the sub-continent but most of my views and information applies to all selectively constructed and released "official" information, whether immigration, financial or legislative. I live 90 miles from Bolton although I can't really see how that is relevant. From the start of the 1960s when I were a nipper the steady immigration from the Indian sub-continent into areas of Bolton was very noticeable. This I observed whenever I was taken to visit my relatives. Immigration carried on apace from then to the present day and it was obvious (at least to me via innocent eyes) that the majority did not integrate or even try. We now know why in the case of the muslims.

do we? what do we know now that we didn't know before - specifically about Muslims rather than just any immigrant community? (and how do we know this?)

The recent ICM attitude survey about which Trevor Phillips has written about in the Sunday Times and presented on Channel 4 was conducted on a one to one, face to face basis by muslims employed by the research organisation specifically so honest responses could be elicited. They even went as far as asking the interviewees to write down their views and seal them in envelopes if they felt uncomfortable discussing their real attitudes.

There have been previous attempts to get to the bottom of muslim attitudes to living in the UK, one in the late 90s (1999 I think, without looking it up) which showed similar results and when presented to the then Labour Government was buried very quickly.

The survey confirmed that 52% of muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, 39% that a woman should always obey her husband irrespective of circumstances, 18% believe in violence toward anyone insulting the prophet, 4% (100,000 people in the UK) support suicide bombers, 66% would not inform the authorities of anyone involved in supporting terrorism. 53% supported the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris.

There was many other responses to questions such as do you meet with non-muslims outside work? Have you ever been in a non-muslim home? Very high no responses from both these questions 92% for have you ever been in a non-muslim home.

Obviously you don't want to admit it or agree, but from all that has recently been gleaned muslims in general are a nation within a nation. Their dismissive anti-democratic views (probably explains their gerrymandering of votes in elections) and subserviance only to their prophet makes them a clear and present danger, in my opinion.

If you surveyed white English men in Greater Manchester, what % do you think would have similar views on homosexuality and women, for example?

Or if you surveyed ex-pat communities in Spain, how well integrated do you think many of them would be?

I see, so the only difference as you see it is that white English men in Greater Manchester are less likely send a suicide bomber in pursuit of little you. Well, that must be very comforting to you. The only mention of ex-pats in Spain has come from you. Again, whilst the majority (I know others who do) don't integrate much they nevertheless seem to manage to stop at getting pissed rather than blowing up innocent Spaniards.

What a condescendingly glib response you have come up with there. I won't call you what I think you are because that would be abusive and I generally don't do that.