Today I'm angry about.....

[TANGODANCER]

Religion itself is fine, it's the idiots who practise it that cause the problems. It's always been that way.

Yeah, those little old ladies causing a rumpus as soon as their Sunday morning service is over. Get them hanged!

Shouldn't need defining. Idiots exist in all walks of life, but I didn't think I needed to state some of, or mispractise it. If it keeps you happy however, consider it done ....

[Montreal Wanderer]

Nothing to do with Empire either. As I said earlier, Masai warriors, Canadian Inuits, Australian Aborigines, Papuan head hunters, Belizian Mesquito Indians... nope, no problem integrating there ( if they're here), and not much on the (ongoing) war front out there against us either.

I think your first 3 groups particularly had some trouble with integration.

I think the Inuit differ significantly from these other ethnic groups (although I'm not sure of all of them) in that they occupied land than no one had the least economic interest in (at least until the recent discovery of oil in the Arctic). Their culture was to a large extent destroyed by giving them the benefits of civilization and ruling them under Acts of Parliament and a civil service that they did not understand to the same extent they were not understood.

Agreed but I was mainly thinking of the poor beggars that were shoved further into the arctic to develop colonies and left to fend for themselves by well meaning Westerners.

Any poor beggars (i.e indigenous peoples) shoved into the Arctic areas would be native Americans not Inuit. These were mostly given reservations well below the Arctic. We Westerners would not and did not colonize anywhere near the Arctic circle. We're not completely mad. 90+% of us live within 100 miles of the American border. It is actually 6,217 kms from Montreal to the Arctic circle (and that is too close). Bolton is less than 1500 kms away from the circle.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Nothing to do with Empire either. As I said earlier, Masai warriors, Canadian Inuits, Australian Aborigines, Papuan head hunters, Belizian Mesquito Indians... nope, no problem integrating there ( if they're here), and not much on the (ongoing) war front out there against us either.

I think your first 3 groups particularly had some trouble with integration.

I think the Inuit differ significantly from these other ethnic groups (although I'm not sure of all of them) in that they occupied land than no one had the least economic interest in (at least until the recent discovery of oil in the Arctic). Their culture was to a large extent destroyed by giving them the benefits of civilization and ruling them under Acts of Parliament and a civil service that they did not understand to the same extent they were not understood.

Agreed but I was mainly thinking of the poor beggars that were shoved further into the arctic to develop colonies and left to fend for themselves by well meaning Westerners.

Any poor beggars (i.e indigenous peoples) shoved into the Arctic areas would be native Americans not Inuit. These were mostly given reservations well below the Arctic. We Westerners would not and did not colonize anywhere near the Arctic circle. We're not completely mad. 90+% of us live within 100 miles of the American border. It is actually 6,217 kms from Montreal to the Arctic circle (and that is too close). Bolton is less than 1500 kms away from the circle.

Look. Back to basics. We have nearly two million Muslims in our country who have not integrated in any significant way. Why the feck they'd want to be here is beyond me. Nearly fifty percent of them come from two small villages in the Punjab.
On the other hand, scattered across the arctic from the tip of Alaska all the way round to Greenland are Inuit who were equally previous subjects of our Queen Victoria. You don't find two million of them in Dewsbury agitating for whale fishing rights. and the one or two you do find here have so successfully integrated most people don't even know they are Inuit (Bill Werbenuik and Nigel Farage for example)

[Beefheart]

Where does the near 2 million figure come from? How do you define 'significant'?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Where does the near 2 million figure come from? How do you define 'significant'?

I made it up.
I define it as notable, noteworthy, indicative of something.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Where does the near 2 million figure come from? How do you define 'significant'?

I made it up.
I define it as notable, noteworthy, indicative of something.

I'm not sure two population centres in the Punjab with an average population of 500,000 could be called villages. One strongly suspects that might have been fabricated too. And Nigel....

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Where does the near 2 million figure come from? How do you define 'significant'?

I made it up.
I define it as notable, noteworthy, indicative of something.

I'm not sure two population centres in the Punjab with an average population of 500,000 could be called villages. One strongly suspects that might have been fabricated too. And Nigel....

He's obviously Inuit, you can tell that even though he's almost totally integrated he's retained some of the stereotypical Inuit vices: the drinking and the anorak give it away.

[Worthy4England]

Look. Back to basics. We have nearly two million Muslims in our country who have not integrated in any significant way. Why the feck they'd want to be here is beyond me. Nearly fifty percent of them come from two small villages in the Punjab.
On the other hand, scattered across the arctic from the tip of Alaska all the way round to Greenland are Inuit who were equally previous subjects of our Queen Victoria. You don't find two million of them in Dewsbury agitating for whale fishing rights. and the one or two you do find here have so successfully integrated most people don't even know they are Inuit (Bill Werbenuik and Nigel Farage for example)

Errrr 50% of 2,000,000 is 1,000,000? That's significant output for two small villages in the Punjab...

[Lord Kangana]

I thought Nigel Farage was a Belle Ende?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Where does the near 2 million figure come from? How do you define 'significant'?

I made it up.
I define it as notable, noteworthy, indicative of something.

But, having made it up, I can tell you that Cameron's speech cites research showing 22% of Muslim women - c~190,000 speak little or no English despite many having lived here for decades, of which 40,000 speak none at all.
So 22% equals a total poulation of 1.7 million if the sexes are equal, which they aren't in Muslim immigrant society. So my 2mill and significant stand.
As for the two villages, the reasons they are now cities is because they're breeding like fxcking rabbits, yet another indication of minimal integration.
And the fact that youths three generations British are still fxcking back off to Mirzpur to drag yet another arranged bride back into Dewsbury isn't exactly a tell-tale of integration either.
And talking of Mirpur, have you strolled down the main drag in Longsight recently, it might as well be Mirzpur, even down to the fxckin toilet habits.

[thebish]

some scurrilous people might point out the fact that Cameron & Co. have been busilly SLASHING all the funding for ESL classes for quite a few years now...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Any-fecking-way, 62 people have the combined wealth of half the global population.
Now I am in no way supportive of violence, but I think 5 billion of us can hunt these cxnts down and redistribute it a bit more fairly.
No???

[Lost Leopard Spot]

some scurrilous people might point out the fact that Cameron & Co. have been busilly SLASHING all the funding for ESL classes for quite a few years now...

We wouldn't need to SLASH anything if we stopped importing Muslim arranged brides from Pakistan who provide no skills, nor economic benefit, in the first-fecking-place
They're only here to provide wombs for the Sharia brigade..

[Prufrock]

That stat is still as big a load of bollocks as it was last year, and every other year before.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

That stat is still as big a load of bollocks as it was last year, and every other year before.

What stat?
And how the fxck do you know?

[Prufrock]

Chill.....

Those "the richest X are richer than the poorest Y" stats. They come around every year and they're balls. They use net wealth to work it out. Sounds reasonable until you consider somebody like me, earning an OK wage, paying rent in London, but with no actual assets and a student loan and credit cards (and so negative net wealth) is considered poorer than an African farmer who owns naught but a donkey. In fact, I don't just skew the stat by being included in the poorest Y, but my negative net wealth skews it further by meaning you need several African farmers, with several donkeys, just to cancel out my net contribution, never mind start catching up the richest X.

Also, the Independent headlined an article based on that stat this morning with, "You could fit the richest 62 people on earth in a single coach" which made me smile!

[Lord Kangana]

Couldn't you fit the poorest 62 people on a coach aswell?

Being poor, they'd be used to it not actually having enough seats so it'd probably be easier, wouldn't it?

I think I'm rambling now.

[thebish]

Also, the Independent headlined an article based on that stat this morning with, "You could fit the richest 62 people on earth in a single coach" which made me smile!

could you fit them UNDER a coach?

[bobo the clown]

So, Pru.

About this donkey to which you aspire. I could get you one on the knock if you like. Where would you park it ?

[Worthy4England]

So, Pru.

About this donkey to which you aspire. I could get you one on the knock if you like. Where would you park it ?

Have we finally found Pru's level? 1/3 of a donkey farmer?