Daily Telegraph goes for naked racism


by Sunny
28th August, 2009 at 2:33 pm    

Via Anton Vowl – the Telegraph’s columnist Melanie McDonagh isn’t bothering with racist dog-whistles, it’s all about protecting middle-class whites against the unwashed ethnics from abroad.

The Office for National Statistics suggests that the increase in the population to 61.4 million is mostly attributable to an increase in the birth rate – for the first time in a decade the increase in births has overtaken net immigration as a factor. But the figures don’t suggest that Brits from all classes and communities are merrily procreating to the same extent. More than half the increase is attributable to mothers born outside the UK, and many of those mothers born here will be second generation immigrants.

Oh shit, these brown and black folks are making babies! More than the white folks! We’re all gonna be overrun by darkies in ten years time! Time to emigrate to Spain!

That’s why organisations such as the Optimum Population Trust seem so beside the point, proselytising about how we shouldn’t have more than two children. The people most likely to take their views to heart are the agonised Anglo-Saxon liberals, for whom excess fecundity is never going to be much of a problem in the first place. They don’t seem to cut much ice with the Somali mothers you see in West London.

Oh yeah, if there’s anything worse than black babies, it’s the off-spring of middle-class liberals, who are even more determined to take the UK to hell in a handcart.

In fact this kind of naked racism about black babies has become so common half the time it’s not even worth getting angry about. There is ample evidence that the off-spring of first-generation minorities (like yours truly) become quite integrated within mainstream culture in a sort of hybrid way.

And yet the people spouting this rubbish state they’re not actually being racist it’s just they want to protect their precious heritage.
As someone in the comments of that article states:

Let’s see, you lot buy foreign cars, Chinese-made electronics, holiday in Europe (or further afield), worship Hollywood, dress in designer clothes made by children in India, get Polish people to do your building work, eat foreign food, have Latvian nannies, sleep with Russian call-girls, spend your time running down your own country and then you have the cheek to moan about your cultural identity being lost…

Heh. Spot on. Welcome to modern right-wing wingnuttery – want to enjoy all the benefits of globalisation and free markets but as long as the darkies and their babies are kept out of the country.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Race politics,The BNP






111 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    New blog post: Daily Telegraph goes for naked racism http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5677


  2. kate_nightingale

    RT @pickledpolitics New blog post: Daily Telegraph goes for naked racism http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5677 great post


  3. Oliver Heath

    Ooops, that should’ve been http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5677


  4. Kurt

    Pickled Politics » Daily Telegraph goes for naked racism http://bit.ly/2S3FYP


  5. Hilton Makes a Monkey out of the Media 

    [...] My emphasis. You really do have to feel sorry for him, don’t you. On his other site, Pickled Politics, which is obsessed by supposed examples of apparent racism, he has a go at the Daily Telegraph, [...]




  1. Richard — on 28th August, 2009 at 2:41 pm  

    err….but isn’t it what the report states? It seems that you’re completely missong the point by intimating that any discussion or further analysis of these datasets is verbotten for reasons you don’t make clear. If you’re just gonna call someone racist who does a bit of drilling down then, well, have 7A* and proceed to the media studies course of your choice. Me no comprende.

  2. Sunny — on 28th August, 2009 at 2:44 pm  

    The point isn’t what the report states about changing demographics – the point is about how you interpret that data and whether you see brown babies as more dangerous than white babies. Please try engaging the brain sometimes,

  3. Sunny — on 28th August, 2009 at 2:47 pm  

    You know, if we’re going to get BNP clones here I’d appreciate some vaguely intelligent ones. Otherwise you people are just confirming the stereotype of the inbred knuckle-dragging neanderthal.

  4. marvin — on 28th August, 2009 at 2:51 pm  

    Why is it racist? It merely points out that it’s not Anglo-Saxons aren’t pushing up the population it’s immigrant births?

    If white lefties take the advice to heart then I’ve no problem with that. Survival of the fittest. I’m sure all those thousands at Climate Camp will refrain from producing children; the single biggest personal decision they could make which would have the biggest impact on saving the environment. :P

    There is ample evidence that the off-spring of first-generation minorities (like yours truly) become quite integrated within mainstream culture in a sort of hybrid way.

    I’d agree with this. So on this technical point, the author of the Telegraph article is probably incorrect.

    And where in the article exactly is “naked racism about black babies” ???

  5. Richard — on 28th August, 2009 at 2:55 pm  

    I’m not a BNP clone – it makes no reference to whether they were European, Oirish, Yanks,etc – I don’t know West London at all – but to infer that the author doesn’t would be an assumption. I saw Brick Lane and the author seemed intent on expressing the significant Bengali community. If it isn’t a statistical fact that immigrants are having more kids than 3rd generation (as she mentions 2nd generation) then cool – and Melanie is a prat, but if it is, then it is. Res ipsa loquitor. Just saying – hardly inflammatory BNP rhetoric is it?

  6. Sunny — on 28th August, 2009 at 2:58 pm  

    So why exactly would you make a big deal about somali mothers if you didn’t care about the race of the babies being born in the UK?

    Why would you state, as the headline, that more (white) middle class people need to have babies? Is it a PROBLEM that black people have a higher birthrate?

    Honestly, I know it’s friday and you two are regular trolls, but this isn’t fucking hard to understand.

  7. David O'Keefe — on 28th August, 2009 at 3:01 pm  

    Marvin read carefully, its half the increase in the birth rate, not half the total.

    “There were 791,000 babies born in 2008, an increase of 33,000 on the previous year. More than half of this rise came from births to mothers born outside Britain, but living in the UK. In London, 55 per cent of all births were to mothers born outside the country.”

    Thats from the Times. Anyway whitey is doing his bit as well, just that for McDonaugh its the wrong kind of white.

  8. Richard — on 28th August, 2009 at 3:05 pm  

    I hadn’t read the headline – I read YOUR fisk on it. And at no point does she mention colour or race in YOUR fisk – perhaps I should have read the full article before developing super human abilities to read bloody minds and work out that there’s inherent racism in the neurological pathways in the ether but why the hell let that get in the way of student hackery, incoherent argument and assumptions based on the absence of things unseen? For crying out loud. At what point is the occipital lobe to be deviant of rational analysis – I couldn’t give a monkeys who, what, where, when – but I do give a toss about census data and about the planning and effective delivery of services, the grant funding to local authorities, the adequate preparation of school places and, yer know, boring structural crap that doesn’t generate any sexy headlines but some poor mug has to do. Have a good weekend.

  9. douglas clark — on 28th August, 2009 at 3:09 pm  

    The ever reliable Daily Mail said that circa 5000 Polish babies were being born each year in the UK. So, if as I am lead to believe most Poles have buggered off now the boom is bust, that would be 5000 odd off the total, would it not? Y’know, for this year.

    The article has dated quickly don’t you think?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-420066/5-000-Polish-babies-born-UK-year.html

    Just saying.

  10. Don — on 28th August, 2009 at 3:15 pm  

    Of the indigenous mothers, many are in their twenties and some of the increase there is attributable to more generous benefits.

    She also seems less than happy about the ‘wrong kind’ of white babies.

  11. marvin — on 28th August, 2009 at 3:23 pm  

    It’s just stating facts that would be of concern to most people in the country. Most people don’t like the sudden changes in area caused by mass immigration. What was the statistic, something like 76% of immigrants themselves think there should be caps on immigration! Bunch of racists…

    If anglo-saxons aren’t having kids then Anglo-Saxons are making large scale immigration a necessity to support the economy and the ageing population. This is a fact. So really you’ve got a lot of Anglo-Saxons concerned that they feel their city centres seem to be changing with various ethnic groupings keeping to their own, yet they don’t make the connection with actually needing to have kids to actually do some bloody work and pay taxes to support the economy.

    What was the statistic, something like 76% of immigrants themselves think there should be caps on immigration! Bunch of racists…

    Somali mothers? Oh right I see. Yes that’s the black babies reference. Well, it’s not racist to refer to Somali mothers is it?…. It goes give ammunition to people who want to talk about the author hating blacks though, so an unwise choice.

    Somalians are one of the most isolated ethnic groups in the country. There’s a large Somali community down the road, hardly any of them appear to capable of speaking any English yet some of them have been here for decades. They have their own shops and you get very strange looks and responses if you go in to one of ‘their’ shops….

    But I will concede, that a white supremacist would also have pretty much the same talking point. But I don’t think the author is nazi. I think it’s just pointing out a few facts on birth rates and immigration. But then again many lefties have virtually identical talking points to virulent antisemites when it comes to certain topics. But I can generally tell the difference between naive lefty and yer actual antisemite.

  12. Dalbir — on 28th August, 2009 at 3:26 pm  

    Makes ya larf dunnit!

  13. Bearded Socialist — on 28th August, 2009 at 3:55 pm  

    I’m just impressed by the number of comments critical of the article, the Mail would never allow such dissent

  14. Rumbold — on 28th August, 2009 at 4:23 pm  

    The Telegraph is really going downhill.

  15. MixTogether — on 28th August, 2009 at 4:27 pm  

    Many immigrants to the UK want all the benefits of globalisation and free markets as long as they don’t have to have white relatives.

    That’s kind of nakedly racist too.

  16. Rumbold — on 28th August, 2009 at 4:30 pm  

    MixTogether:

    As you say, anyone who wants the benefits of globalisation without other religions/races is racist.

  17. Katy Newton — on 28th August, 2009 at 4:32 pm  

    Of the indigenous mothers, many are in their twenties and some of the increase there is attributable to more generous benefits.

    *snork*

    Yes, of course, Melanie, because the benefits are HUGE and having lots of children is REALLY CHEAP AND AFFORDABLE and NO WORK AT ALL.

  18. Rumbold — on 28th August, 2009 at 4:35 pm  

    The headline really condemns her:

    Britain needs a middle-class baby boom

    No pretence at all really. If people think there are too many people in this country, then fair enough. If they think there are too many of ‘the wrong sort’, that is different.

  19. Sunny — on 28th August, 2009 at 4:51 pm  

    You know what Mix-Together, giving blow-jobs to plastic dolls is wrong too!

  20. Dalbir — on 28th August, 2009 at 5:07 pm  

    Ha Ha! Britain has to face the chilling prospect of having more dark skinned people as citizens in future!

    Shock! Horror! What the fuck!

    Having studied with a few middle class white women. I think low birth rates in that community may actually be a boon if they can save us from yet more pretentious, smug and self-congratulatory poncey bollxxks that emanates from that quarter. The implied notion of the genetic superiority of such idiots in the piece is both comic and sad at the same time.

  21. MixTogether — on 28th August, 2009 at 5:15 pm  

    Dalbir i’m sorry, but if you re-write your comment and substitute ‘poor black’ for ‘middle class white’, it would not look out of place on some white racist website.

    Why is it ok for you to talk like that?

  22. Boyo — on 28th August, 2009 at 5:22 pm  

    i must say i will not grieve the demise of the self-satisfied white middle class (personally i am combining my genes with the italian white working class, which has more than a touch of “the moor”), however, it’s not about colour – it’s about class – and one smug elite will simply replace t’other. has always been thus, or at least until we get the caliphate when all our problems will be solved ;-)

  23. Dalbir — on 28th August, 2009 at 5:22 pm  

    Why is it ok for her to talk like that MixTogether?

  24. MixTogether — on 28th August, 2009 at 5:40 pm  

    The point is Dalbir, you can’t criticise her if you are doing the exact same thing yourself.

  25. Dalbir — on 28th August, 2009 at 5:42 pm  

    Besides, when have poor black people ever thrown around claims of genetic superiority?

  26. Dalbir — on 28th August, 2009 at 5:47 pm  

    Wake up MixTogether. It is the notion of inherent superiority that I am attacking. It seems to emanate from some places more than others.

    The poncey brigade need to check themselves in this respect as do any other bozos with the same mentality.

  27. Jai — on 28th August, 2009 at 6:06 pm  

    Well, since terms such as “Anglo-Saxons”, “Somalis”, “ethnic groups” and so on have been mentioned, let’s take a look at the actual figures in detail:

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Mothers_country_of_birth_Further_tables_commentary.xls

    Mother’s country of birth, followed by % of all UK live births in 2008:

    Pakistan: 2.7%
    Poland: 2.3%
    India: 1.8%
    Bangladesh: 1.2%
    Nigeria: 1.0%
    Somalia: 0.9%
    Germany: 0.7%
    South Africa: 0.6%
    Ghana: 0.5%
    Sri Lanka: 0.5%

    So, mothers born in the subcontinent accounted for just 6.2% of all births in the UK last year. 93.8% had absolutely nothing to do with them.

    Even if you add the African countries, that still means that non-white mothers born outside the UK were responsible for just 9.2% of all births in the UK last year.

    Which means that mothers who are British-born citizens, ie. not immigrants, were responsible for 90.8% of all babies born here last year.

    Puts a different spin on matters, doesn’t it.

  28. Jai — on 28th August, 2009 at 6:21 pm  

    Which means that mothers who are British-born citizens, ie. not immigrants, were responsible for 90.8% of all babies born here last year.

    Correction:

    Which means that mothers who are either British-born citizens (irrespective of race) or white immigrants were responsible for 90.8% of all babies born here last year.

    It’s still not a case of “non-white immigrants” causing the rise in population, regardless of the picture some people apparently want to paint.

  29. marvin — on 28th August, 2009 at 6:29 pm  

    Jai, I’m looking at that Excel spreadsheet, and at the bottom it has the total %, it says 24.1% were mothers born outside the UK in 2008, which would mean British born mothers would account for 75.9% of all births

  30. Jai — on 28th August, 2009 at 6:31 pm  

    And in relation to the list in #27 above, the total figure in relation to births as a result of immigrant mothers comes to 12.2% — but today’s Daily Express is repeatedly stating it is 24.1%, supplemented by statements such as “1 in 4 births to foreign mothers” and the headline “Immigrant Baby Boom”.

    The detailed statistics (which they’ve also supplied in a table in the newspaper, albeit not in the associated website article) contradict their claim. Someone there seems to have made a huge error in their calculations.

  31. Jai — on 28th August, 2009 at 6:39 pm  

    Marvin, you’re absolutely right (thanks for the correction — I can’t open the table from the computer I’m using).

    The Daily Express have been highly selective in the list of countries they’ve supplied — they haven’t provided the names of the countries responsible for the other 11.9%.

    They appear to be deliberately trying to skew their readership’s perceptions — and given the fact that the “hard copy” of the article and the table itself is accompanied with a picture of a Muslim woman wearing a full niqab and pushing a baby in a small pram, it’s not exactly going to do much to alleviate paranoid stereotypes about Muslims either.

  32. marvin — on 28th August, 2009 at 6:45 pm  

    with a picture of a Muslim woman wearing a full niqab and pushing a baby in a small pram

    Hahaha, The Express really know how to rile their readers; The Muslims are taking over!!!

    You can download Excel Viewer if you’re allowed to install stuff on the computer you’ve got there.

  33. Gibbs — on 28th August, 2009 at 6:49 pm  

    Now here’s a random thought !

    Wouldn’t it be FUNNY if the number of inter racial marriages shot up 500 % in one year ?

    I wonder what these “darkies don’t integrate enough” brigade say then ?

    Probably: “Too much integration – bring back segregation”.

    Hope my theory gets put to the test REAL soon.

  34. MixTogether — on 28th August, 2009 at 7:03 pm  

    Gibbs,

    It won’t be white people who prevent the increase in mixed relationships you dream of, take it from me!

    Besides, an increase of 500% on today’s rate would hardly even register in e.g. the Bangladeshi or Pakistani communities, because the current rate is so low.

  35. anobody — on 28th August, 2009 at 7:08 pm  

    Gibbs,

    The mosque my brother prays at up north, is majority afro-caribbean men born and raised in the UK. The majority of women in the ‘sisters section’ is white English/British, many of them accompanied by their husbands or male relatives. Many of them are people who have come back into the folds of Islam.

    It’s as some in the media and paranoid types like to call – due to their brand of Islam – a ‘wahabi’ mosque.

    That’s interracial integration for you. I wonder if it’s the right type. Haha.

  36. Dalbir — on 28th August, 2009 at 7:13 pm  

    It won’t be white people who prevent the increase in mixed relationships you dream of, take it from me!

    Yes, white people aren’t racist at all are they! It’s all these ‘pakis’.

    MixTogether, why not just fuck off? Read some books and then come back with something better than “Oye oye! Lets all shag!” as your one step solution to all of societies ills.

  37. Cyburn — on 28th August, 2009 at 7:19 pm  

    actually the whole Muslim taking over with higher birth rates is somewhat flawed since birth rates in the muslim world are declining.

    http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/demogislam/part3.html

  38. anobody — on 28th August, 2009 at 7:20 pm  

    Cyburn

    So I’m not going to get my Eurabia?

  39. Sunny — on 28th August, 2009 at 7:34 pm  

    It won’t be white people who prevent the increase in mixed relationships you dream of, take it from me!

    Just like those people who move out when too many ethnic minorities move into an area… you mean?

  40. keir — on 28th August, 2009 at 7:43 pm  

    Thought you might enjoy a read of the latest outpourings from Barking, shows just how nasty your old friend Margaret Hodge can be

    http://Barkingstruelabourpartymembers.blogspot.com

  41. Adnan — on 28th August, 2009 at 7:45 pm  

    Cyburn,

    the link you’ve provided says exactly the opposite to muslim birthrates declining. That article is berating Hindu secularists for trying to cover up the muslim population explosion. No surprise: it’s written by a Belgian right-wing extremist for Hindu extremists.

  42. MixTogether — on 28th August, 2009 at 7:50 pm  

    Dalbir, resorting to bad language suggests you don’t really have a strong enough point to make.

    Let’s look at some actual numbers, shall we?

    http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/raceinbritain/ethnicity_and_family_report.pdf

    Check tables 4 and 5. How do you explain the fact that men and women from the Indian sub-continent ethnic groups have the lowest rates of marriage to someone from a different ethnic group?

    I don’t have a ‘one step solution’, but at least I have some positve suggestions.

    And some evidence.

  43. MixTogether — on 28th August, 2009 at 7:59 pm  

    Sunny,

    Just like those people who move out when too many ethnic minorities move into an area… you mean?

    No I mean that some minority groups are hostile to race mixing (a bit like the BNP).

  44. douglas clark — on 28th August, 2009 at 8:02 pm  

    Marvin / Jai,

    Could I just check that your both using the same dataset as me? The set above is from statistics.gov.uk and does indeed appear to show that in total 24.1% of the children born here, the mothers were from abroad. As in, anywhere in the rest of the world! If you go to table 3h and take the first line of data, of the total live births (708,459), 170,738 were from abroad which is where the 24.1% comes from. But they give further breakdowns and if you take the total of African and Asian live births the figure comes out at 14.24% (of the original 708,459).

    It seems that it is the government that hasn’t broken the statistics down any further, or alternatively provided them.

    Dunno if that helps or not. To be honest, I am quite surprised at how high (24.1%) a figure that is. I’d not have expected it to be anything like that level.

  45. marvin — on 28th August, 2009 at 8:12 pm  

    Just on a note, if it were a 500% increase in inter-racial relationships for Asians that would be them at the same level of white people according to the ICM survey for BBC Asian, and also more than half of Asians would not date a black person, against 17% for white people.

    Sunny – why is that in areas like Bradford when asians flock together and only interact with their own, that’s fine and normal, but if whites do it’s racist? Sounds to me there’s a lot of racism in asian communities too – it’s just not talked about in the open.

    There’s racism in all communities and ethnicities, of course…

  46. Shamit — on 28th August, 2009 at 8:51 pm  

    Jai

    Wicked stats mate —
    *************************************
    Mix Together

    “No I mean that some minority groups are hostile to race mixing ”

    They are usually a very small minority within a minority.
    So castigating entire groups is probably not very fair or as you would say a bit BNP like. So shall we stay away from that please.
    *******************************************
    Richard – if the Telegraph article talked about the public service delivery issues and the challenges that immigration bring to a local community – I don’t think anyone would have cared. But this particular article is plain simple RACIST.

    And anyone who reads it and insinuation gets it? Also where does Telegraph get away with talking just like the BNP — so second generation immigrants that itself is wrong. Someone born here is not an immigrant and when do we get our rights – For god’s sake.

    What about our kids? Are they British enough?

  47. Leon — on 28th August, 2009 at 8:57 pm  

    Many immigrants to the UK want all the benefits of globalisation and free markets as long as they don’t have to have white relatives.

    That’s kind of nakedly racist too.

    And making negative generalisations about ethnic groups is what? You’re a fucking prick.

  48. 5cc — on 28th August, 2009 at 9:02 pm  

    @27

    Jai – careful with those stats – they only give the mother’s country of birth for the top 10 countries.

    Full stats are here Births, selected background data, England & Wales, in the ‘FM1 Chapter 9′ link. The total will be a bit higher than you have, but the point still stands.

    Of course, the papers are only shouting so loudly about these stats at all because immigration figures have gone down.

  49. MixTogether — on 28th August, 2009 at 9:14 pm  

    Leon,

    See 42.

  50. douglas clark — on 28th August, 2009 at 9:19 pm  

    Shamit,

    I agree with you. This is back to some sort of pathetic elitism around ‘My ancestors came over with William the Conqueror, and that makes me better than you – see!’

    Does that make a twenty generation attachment to the land any different from a first generation attachment?

    Well, no, it doesn’t, and it never will. I’d quite like to get one of those genetic test thingies, just to find out who I really am descended from. I’d hope to be amazed, but probably not.

    Though, you are what you say you are. At least Marshall Mathers got that right.

  51. douglas clark — on 28th August, 2009 at 9:29 pm  

    MixTogether,

    You said:

    How do you explain the fact that men and women from the Indian sub-continent ethnic groups have the lowest rates of marriage to someone from a different ethnic group?

    Why would an explanation be necessary? Are we now obliged to leap into a loveless melting pot? Just because?

    I’d have hoped that love would conquer all without this sort of, y’know, ‘right on’ requirement.

    Do you see what I’m saying?

    Just leave it alone for a bit and it’ll all work itself out.

    Sex beats Religion beats Politics. It’s obvious, in’t it?

  52. douglas clark — on 28th August, 2009 at 9:38 pm  

    5cc @ 48,

    If your interested, see my post at 44.

  53. MixTogether — on 28th August, 2009 at 9:48 pm  

    Douglas Clark,

    My post was a response to Dalbir, who has since gone a bit quiet.

    Nobody is obliged to jump into anything. The issue is where people WANT to have a relationship, and are prevented from doing so because of the race of their partner. The stats are relevant to that issue, and the question still stands.

  54. douglas clark — on 28th August, 2009 at 10:11 pm  

    Well, yes.

    Sort of.

    Maybe.

    You said:

    The issue is where people WANT to have a relationship, and are prevented from doing so because of the race of their partner.

    Well, that would be wrong. But it’d be a bit odd would it not, if the people involved had not already determined that their love overcome their respective racial identities?

    Like they are obliged to play out Romeo and Juliet, with all that grief?

    If you are trying to talk about societal pressures then that is a different kettle of fish, but you are the one concentrating on the primary suspects…..

  55. Sunny — on 28th August, 2009 at 10:33 pm  

    No I mean that some minority groups are hostile to race mixing (a bit like the BNP)

    Really? And where’s your evidence they’re hostile to mixing? And how many of them are writing articles in the media too?

  56. 5cc — on 28th August, 2009 at 11:47 pm  

    Douglas Clark @ 52,

    Hadn’t spotted your post or really looked at the stats to see how many births were from Asia and Africa.

    I wasn’t surprised that the number of births to mothers from overseas was as high as 24%, since the tabloids report them all the chuffing time and these ones were reported in May and again last month in the Mail.

    (There has been a teeny tiny rise since May, and I’m not sure where it comes from, since the most recent population figures link to Mays’ birth stats – it may have come from adding Scotland and Northern Ireland).

  57. 5cc — on 28th August, 2009 at 11:56 pm  

    Just had a look at the figures from the tables I posted, and the number of births to mothers from the New Commonwealth come to quite a bit less than 14% at just under 10%.

    Still, I’m knackered and I’m going to bed before I look at these properly.

  58. damon — on 29th August, 2009 at 12:06 am  

    You know what they say about statistics.

    I’m certainly not going to stick up for Melanie McDonagh in the Daily Telegraph, but there’s all kinds of statistics that go floating about.

    I mentioned these ones contained in a BBC London news piece about (so called) white flight on Pickled Politics before, where it focused on the ethnicities of children in London primary schools.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6FqM6lEf4A&feature=PlayList&p=0A2A1293D8FA3B11&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=14

    The first figure of note it mentions is that in inner London boroughs the number of children who could be called white British averages at under 22%.

    It then goes on to give figures for Hackney and Tower Hamlets which are 15% and in Newham, 12%.

    And then says that the fall in this ”white British” percentage is most pronounced in Barking and Dagenham where the change is three times the London average since 2003.
    Down 6.3% in London overall since then, and down 18.2% in Barking and Dagenham.

    Though you have to be careful with those last figures because Barking and Dagenham is still over 70% white British (according to wikipedia).

    I suppose they could be having the same angst-ridden discussion in France if they found that the birth rate in the suburban housing estates (that have some difficult issues) was above the national average too.

  59. dave bones — on 29th August, 2009 at 12:06 am  

    Time to emigrate to Spain!

    That is really funny. A friend of mine who has bought a place in the middle of France said that most of the Brits in the area were whites taking refuge in a more racist country. I’m not sure how they got their heads round the fact that the Frenchies couldn’t stand them.

    “They hate us cos we are immigrants but at least they are white?”

  60. MixTogether — on 29th August, 2009 at 1:23 am  

    Sunny

    Really? And where’s your evidence they’re hostile to mixing? And how many of them are writing articles in the media too?

    Evidence is all over the website I’ve been running for the last 5 years.

    Nothing in the media, all on the QT as you well know. Probably because people are worried that some screaming queen like you will jump on them if they ever wrote about their prejudices.

    What’s your take on the stats I have provided? Nothing useful I’m sure…

  61. TomTom — on 29th August, 2009 at 7:00 am  

    Maybe Somali mothers are living on benefits disproportionately ? Maybe they don’t work to feed a family. If I am funding their lifestyle through my taxes they are going to have a big shock when I stop paying them.

  62. Dalbir — on 29th August, 2009 at 7:33 am  

    My post was a response to Dalbir, who has since gone a bit quiet.

    That was because I went to the pub you pillock. I hope you enjoyed yourself in my absence.

  63. Dalbir — on 29th August, 2009 at 7:48 am  

    Anyway. MixTogether.

    If people don’t want to jump headfirst into a melting pot, then it is their decision. Plus you are being a twat (yet again!) by implying that people who have a preference for marrying within their culture are akin to the BNP.

  64. Dick the Prick — on 29th August, 2009 at 7:50 am  

    Oy Sunny – I’m the Richard goon you called a BNP troll and, for the record, this is the first time i’ve been here; got the feed from politics home. If you wanna go round calling people racists, well, that’s fine I guess – each to their own. I think you’ll find it’s slightly more fucking nuanced than that. I help people – if people phone me, if they somehow get my number which is widely advertised and the staff know to put them through, then I fucking bust a gut to help them. Racist? Yeah right, hit the fucking nail on the head there sunshine – wanker.

  65. douglas clark — on 29th August, 2009 at 8:11 am  

    5cc @ 58,

    Cheers. I understand that they have been in the public domain for a bit, but, at first blush they don’t make a lot of sense. For instance, have we become a birth tourist nation again, or what? How many of these kids are still here, say, a year later? I really don’t know.

    Neither is it reasonable to assume a racial identity based on a continent, which is what I have had to do, because the global table is only broken down to that level. And, in the other direction Carribean is part of the ‘rest of the world’.

    It leaves as many questions as answers, I think.

  66. John Gentle — on 29th August, 2009 at 11:04 am  

    Who wants their children to have loads of little Somalis in their class? If we have enough of them, the UK will become like Somalia**. The vast majority of indigenous Brits find this an abhorrent prospect. Indeed, the majority preference is for a REDUCTION in population and congestion. Pickled Politics: a mixture of fruit cake and totalitarianism.

    ** or Pakistan, Algeria, Iraq, etc. etc. (’nuff said)

  67. douglas clark — on 29th August, 2009 at 11:16 am  

    Who wants their children to have loads of little Gentles in their class? If we have enough of them, the UK will become like him**. The vast majority of indigenous Brits find this an abhorrent prospect. Indeed, the majority preference is for a REDUCTION in population and congestion. John Gentle: a mixture of fruit cake and totalitarianism.

    ** or Griffin, Barnbrooke, etc. etc. (’nuff said)

  68. Rumbold — on 29th August, 2009 at 11:18 am  

    Hahaha Douglas.

  69. John Gentle — on 29th August, 2009 at 11:29 am  

    Who wants their children to have loads of little Gentles in their class? If we have enough of them, the UK will become like him**.

    ** Yes, law-abiding and considerate. You obviously prefer our present descent where large parts of our cities have turned into dangerous/lawless drug-fuelled ghettos, or areas where our security services have to monitor hundreds of (thankfully amateurish) terrorist plots.

  70. douglas clark — on 29th August, 2009 at 11:35 am  

    Just holding up a mirror, John, holding up a mirror.

  71. Dalbir — on 29th August, 2009 at 12:28 pm  

    Ha ha @ 68.

    ** Yes, law-abiding and considerate. You obviously prefer our present descent where large parts of our cities have turned into dangerous/lawless drug-fuelled ghettos, or areas where our security services have to monitor hundreds of (thankfully amateurish) terrorist plots.

    Don’t try and hide the fact the the majority of lawless nonsense which transpires on weekends and Friday binge sessions involves indigenous people and costs a packet to monitor by the police. Not mentioning the strain on the NHS. Trying to portray all of white society as gentle, never-do-wrongs says a lot about how balanced you and your opinions are.

  72. John Gentle — on 29th August, 2009 at 12:44 pm  

    “Trying to portray all of white society as gentle …”

    Comprehension not your strong point, Dalbir? Clearly, I would like a law and order/ justice system that worked and and no free treatment (on taxpayers’ backs) for drunks or fatties. Most of our ills stem from socialism and welfare benefits.

  73. Dalbir — on 29th August, 2009 at 12:51 pm  

    Most of our ills stem from socialism and welfare benefits.

    What about unhealthy cultural practices? They play no part in your eyes huh?

  74. Sunny — on 29th August, 2009 at 1:01 pm  

    What’s your take on the stats I have provided? Nothing useful I’m sure…

    You haven’t provided any stats at all. You’ve just got some random anecdotal evidence – and I can provide plenty for the opposite. But Asian racism against whites isn’t as mainstream and everywhere like the kind cited above.

  75. John Gentle — on 29th August, 2009 at 1:03 pm  

    That’s enough, I’m off to sites where the massive failures of socialism and the welfare state are taken as givens.

  76. Dalbir — on 29th August, 2009 at 1:08 pm  

    Do you normally run off when you find yourself struggling to defend what you are espousing?

  77. Shamit — on 29th August, 2009 at 1:18 pm  

    Deleted

  78. Shamit — on 29th August, 2009 at 1:19 pm  

    “Pickled Politics: a mixture of fruit cake and totalitarianism.

    ** or Pakistan, Algeria, Iraq, etc. etc. (’nuff said)”

    Then why the fuck are you here? Did someone send you a gold embossed invitation to come here and sprout stupidity and sheer ignorance?

    What’s skin colour got to do with getting
    education in school?

  79. falcao — on 29th August, 2009 at 1:56 pm  

    A year ago they was reporting there are not enough babies being born i.e future workers/manpower to support the pension system in the next few decades. Now they complaining too many non anglo saxon white babies are being born allegedly if you belive the newspapers. Does it really matter what colour the babies are? Even if all the babies born where white i am sure they would complain about something else!

  80. 5cc — on 29th August, 2009 at 3:00 pm  

    For those not apalled enough by the article this thread’s about, there’s an almost identical one written by the immigrant Amanda Platell in the Mail’s ‘Why this baby boom will make us all go bust‘.

    I’ve covered it here When is an immigrant not an immigrant? in case anyone gives a stuff about what I think.

  81. Sunny — on 29th August, 2009 at 3:10 pm  

    Yeah I saw that 5cc. I’m going to blog about this later today

  82. Ravi Naik — on 29th August, 2009 at 4:39 pm  

    Sadly, though, it is not the indigenous middle-class, hard-working, tax-paying population that’s exploding.

    I have to say I found Amanda Platell’s article more shockingly racist and classist than the one written by Melanie McDonagh. How ignorant to assume that those who are not indigenous and middle-class do not pay taxes, or even are in the highest tax bracket. How arrogant of her to say that – and why doesn’t she consider herself as an immigrant?

  83. Dalbir — on 29th August, 2009 at 5:21 pm  

    Do they conspire to push out such stuff simultaneously, or is it just coincidence?

  84. P Diddy — on 30th August, 2009 at 12:02 am  

    The real issue here is that of The Optimum Population Trust ( which sounds vaguely Fascist/Eugenicist to me) , and their take that more babies is a BAD thing . Who the F are they to pronounce on this? Baron Porritt and his upper class chums are far more dangerous than some idiot Daily Mail puff piece

  85. damon — on 31st August, 2009 at 1:56 pm  

    This is a difficult issue to discuss it seems, and the ”what the heck does it matter where anyone is from?” position is a decent one to take. And argue the figures that these Daily Mail alarmists put out. Fine.

    So even if Somali’s (for example) are having larger families, what you reply is ”so what?”

    But those Tory middle Englanders do have some cause for their curtain twitching (if you look at the world like they do, and always fear the worst instead of hoping for the best).

    Rageh Omaar did a documantary on his own community which spoke of second generation difficulties.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ5nCEVcb58

    And there are loads of articles about Somail’s in the UK. The population has grown quite big in a very short period of time. For example, in Leicester it’s grown to perhaps 15,000 since 2001 (5% of the population).

    Whether that growth has leveled off or continues I have no idea.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/articles/2006/09/29/leicester_somali_community_feature.shtml

    This BBC article said ”Somali’s struggle in the UK”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5029390.stm

    And I read somewhere that a majority of Somali men in the UK chew Khat on a daily basis.

    It’s said to be a problem with youth in my local area.
    This was in this week’s paper.

    Alarmist maybe. But it still might be a problem. This is why those articles in the Mail and Telegraph get written.

  86. douglas clark — on 31st August, 2009 at 3:46 pm  

    Damon,

    With my liberal hat on:

    if it ain’t illegal for them to chew Khat, what’s the problem? If it ought to be illegal, then you can assume New Labour will make it illegal. Did I not read recently that they were going to make legal ‘highs’ illegal? I’m pretty sure I did.

    I’d have thought the education, education, education mantra should have been played out here. If folk are coming from a war zone, then you more or less have to expect problems. We should have perhaps paid more attention to the issues that these people had as they arrived.

    I’d have assumed speaking English might well be one of them.

    No?

  87. Don — on 31st August, 2009 at 4:18 pm  

    I agree with Douglas, if you are aware that a large number of young men are about to arrive from a failed state/war-zone/hell-hole it would make sense to anticipate some pretty serious issues around adjusting. The kind of services needed might seem expensive and cause outraged hissy-fits from the usual suspects, but it would have been a damn sight cheaper in the long run.

  88. platinum786 — on 1st September, 2009 at 11:45 am  

    Good to know Pakistani’s are topping the charts.

  89. hantsboy — on 1st September, 2009 at 12:43 pm  

    The only way we’ll find out for sure is to look at school photos in 5-10 years time. They never lie.
    I well remember Hackney in the 70s. The schools invariably put the black faces in the front of the picture.
    Recently I’ve noticed they’ve put the few remaining white faces in the front instead.
    I don’t know why teachers do this.
    Probably think it makes the kids feel special.

  90. damon — on 1st September, 2009 at 1:35 pm  

    I do wonder exactly how much impact the government, local authorities and charities can really have though.
    The issue of dislocation seems to be a major problem in newly arrived adults from Somalia.
    What should the state do? More social workers, more mental health care, more social provision for youth?
    More care in where people fleeing wars zones are housed? … as many Somali’s seem to be ending up in areas that already have their share of issues (like in Harlesden in NW London where I was early on saturday evening. It’s so diverse it even makes me wide eyed sometimes. How it looked to the rugby league fans of Warrington and Huddersfield who were packed inside and outside some pubs there after their match at nearby Wembley, you can only guess.)

    When Somalis first arrived in significant numbers in the early 90′s I think that some of the young lads found this coarse inner-city youth culture a bit difficult to deal with. I heard anecdotally that there were issues of bullying as they looked different to most African orign young people already here, and so some of them had to learn pretty quickly how it was to get by in a tough neighbourhood.

    I do wonder about that Rageh Omaar documentary though. Is it a poor tabloid attempt? Does he have to exaggerate how bad can be in order for it to get made and noticed?

    This report looks interesting: ”Traumatic events, migration characteristics and psychiatric symptoms among Somali refugees”.
    http://www.researchasylum.org.uk/?lid=442

    And Douglas Clark, I’m sure you don’t actually have one, but pretend you had a Daily Mail hat as well, and wore it while reading the bit about the psychotic effects of khat use in the Somail community.

    ”A greater percentage of people using qat as compared to those not using qat had some suicidal ideas [66.1% versus 33.9%]. Suicidal ideas were also found to be higher in longer-term residents, which may reflect difficulties with resettlement in the UK.”

  91. douglas clark — on 1st September, 2009 at 1:57 pm  

    Damon,

    I don’t think we disagree too much. I have always liked your contributions on here. But, and there is always a but isn’t there? We have a responsibility, you, me, the charities, the local authorities, and the bloody government to pre-plan.

    By which I mean it is all very well to accept folk who are running away from potential massacre, but it seems reasonable to me that adaptation to a country that gives them succour, ought to be at the top of our agenda.

    My entire expertise on this subject is based on ‘Black Hawk Down’.

    So, not a lot.

  92. Dalbir — on 1st September, 2009 at 4:21 pm  

    Okay, I have to ask. What the hell is qat?

  93. Don — on 1st September, 2009 at 4:36 pm  
  94. Dalbir — on 1st September, 2009 at 4:59 pm  

    Thanks for that. Eye opening! Now to go and find me some.

    Just kidding.

  95. Jai — on 1st September, 2009 at 6:15 pm  

    Don,

    Very quick off-topic note — I finally bought “Guns, Germs & Steel” recently as per your recommendation a while back. I haven’t read all of it yet but I’m aware of the basic premise and the general arguments that Professor Diamond has made (Wikipedia also gives a very good overview of the book’s contents — see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel — along with links to the major analyses & critiques by other parties).

    His basic point is sound, although there are a couple of areas I disagree with, especially where some of the subcontinent’s history is concerned.

    I found the following two critiques to be particularly good, especially the first one:

    http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/34.2/mcneill.html

    http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/diamond.html

    They’re generally highly positive but (like myself) politely disagree with a few areas. Nevertheless, as long as they’re read in conjunction with the book and with the “clarifying counterarguments” kept in mind, I think Professor Diamond’s overall hypothesis and worldview is excellent. He fully deserves the Pulitzer Prize he was awarded for his book.

  96. Don — on 1st September, 2009 at 6:51 pm  

    Thanks, Jai.

    I found that the book opened a valuable perspective, and I’m sure Diamond would welcome well considered disagreement and clarification. That’s what science does.

  97. Jai — on 1st September, 2009 at 7:04 pm  

    Don,

    You’ll love the following article from the current edition of The New Statesman — it’s basically a synopsis of a book called “The Next 100 Years” which is apparently going to be published shortly.

    The article is quite long but stick with it, it’s worth it. Fascinating reading. It might be a big coincidence, but given the author’s repeated remarks about geography impacting the level of power and influence a nation has — especially some of the specific terminology he uses — I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s familiar with Diamond’s work too.

    (Rumbold, if you’re reading this, you’ll find this article extremely interesting too).

    http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2009/08/power-china-world-
    japan-poland

    ….followed by a detail Q&A with the author about his predictions: http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/08/united-states-power-china

  98. damon — on 1st September, 2009 at 7:05 pm  

    Yes Douglas, there often is a but. I hope it doesn’t seem too crass.
    I think I feel there are short cuts and spinning done whenever things like this are discussed by left and right.
    So we have Amanda Platell and such people going ”OMG, the communities that need most support and who have some difficult issues to overcome are just going on and multiplying themselves regardless … when all us middle class career women find it such a struggle to fit in one or two children, if any”.
    I can completely understand that people like that would think like that. (Call them racists if you want to).

    I was reading up on Britain’s Somali community today.
    I didn’t know that (perhaps) a majority of those now living in Leicester are actually EU citizens of Holland, Denmark and Sweden. They have moved in large numbers because there were things they were unhappy about in those countries. If you google the right words, most of the articles who mention this are right wingers like Mark Steyn and VDare.

    Also, I’d never heard of the P-3 immigration programme for family members to be re-united with those already in the United States. Thousands of Somali’s had gone to the States on that programme. But it was suspended when they did DNA checks on applicants and found a majority of the claims were fraudulant. The people weren’t the close blood relatives they said they were, and that all the certificates and documentation needed to prove the claim were openly sold in places like Nairobi.

    Again, most of the google links are to anti-immigration sites, but this one in The Washington Post seems to verify it.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/12/10/ST2008121003553.html

    I also didn’t know that The St Mathew’s estate in Leicester, which is a center of the new Somali community there,(according to something on wikipedia) is ”the most income deprived neighbourhood in England”.
    But maybe that would make sense if it was heavily Somali and many still have restrictions on the right to work.

    Anyway, I was just making the point in my last post that I can’t see that government, local authority and charity services could really increase dramatically to cover the special needs of so many people.
    You hear of social services (like in the baby P case) being overstretched already.

  99. chairwoman — on 1st September, 2009 at 7:12 pm  

    “Thanks for that. Eye opening! Now to go and find me some.”

    I here the small covered market off Wembley High Road is the place on a Saturday afternoon :)

  100. Jai — on 1st September, 2009 at 7:18 pm  

    Re: 98

    Apologies Don & Rumbold, the URL for the first link didn’t appear correctly. Copy & paste the whole thing (including the part which isn’t in blue) and you should be able to access the article.

  101. Dalbir — on 1st September, 2009 at 8:14 pm  

    From the wikipedia article Don kindly referenced:

    Khat consumption induces mild euphoria and excitement. A meta-analysis in The Lancet has stated that khat creates a pleasuring effect to the same degree as ecstasy.

    Chairwomen@100

    Do they look like they are “e-ing” off their nut in Wembley? I think The Lancet must have got it wrong, for if it were true, you would expect a lot more friendly behaviour from Somalian community…plus dancing…..lots of dancing.

  102. Edwina Egg — on 1st September, 2009 at 11:11 pm  

    Of all immigrant communities in the UK, Somalis have the highest rate of occupancy of publicly-funded social housing and the highest benefit dependency.

    They are well over-represented in the crime statistics.

    The only bright spot is that they have a high suicide rate.

  103. Edwina Egg — on 1st September, 2009 at 11:14 pm  

    Try looking for ‘Somali crime’ on a ‘net web search.

    Amusing stuff!

    MORE SOMALIS!

    YES!

    BRITAIN NEEDS MORE SOMALIS! AND AFGHANS! AND KURDS! AND CONGOLESE! AND ERITREANS!

  104. Edwina Egg — on 1st September, 2009 at 11:20 pm  

    Somalis have certainly made their presence felt in chilly Finland, clocking up well over ten times their fair share of crimes of larceny and violence BUT it was not Somalis, but some other Noble Africans – Sudanese – who enlivened a straightforward rape of a Finnish girl by performing FGM on her with the nail scissors from her purse.

    WE NEED MORE AFRICAN IMMIGANTS NOW!

  105. Don — on 2nd September, 2009 at 12:41 am  

    Edwina,suspect sources. Links?

  106. chairwoman — on 2nd September, 2009 at 10:26 am  

    Dalbir @ 102 – Very laid back actually. Not that I’ve been there for some time I must admit.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.