Warning: this is very long. It is a response to a blogger on MyT, who quoted some statistics.
If you are remotely interested in responses thereon, here is the post.
It was intended to explain a little more about the use and misuse of statistics, and how demographic projections are produced and their validity.
Some observations from the Pew Report.
All the statistics and quotations, unless otherwise attributed are from this report entitled “The Future of the Global Muslim Population -Projections for 2010-2030” and from here “Faith on the Move-The Religious Affiliation of International Migrants”
But before I begin, I would remind you of a particularly misleading video clip which has been doing the rounds for quite some time. This is one of the many examples of how statistics, and these particular numbers are wildly inaccurate, are used in an alarmist way.
The figures and conclusions have been debunked by many on the internet, but here is one example.
I am not an expert on either demographics or statistics, but I am aware, like most of us, that the former is an inexact science and the latter can often be manipulated by the media, and are frequently misleading.
Firstly:
” This report makes demographic projections. Projections are not the same as predictions. Rather, they are estimates built on current population data and assumptions about demographic trends; they are what will happen if the current data are accurate and the trends play out as expected. But many things – immigration laws, economic conditions, natural disasters, armed conflicts, scientific discoveries, social movements and political upheavals, to name just a few – can shift demographic trends in unforeseen ways, which is why this report adheres to a modest time frame, looking just 20 years down the road. Even so, there is no guarantee that Muslim populations will grow at precisely the rates anticipated in this report and not be affected by unforeseen events, such as political decisions on immigration quotas or national campaigns to encourage larger or smaller families”.
So, “current data population”, this again is an estimate. Not all countries collect these statistics and those that have been doing so, have not until recently had any cause to collect them on the religious persuasions of their populations until very recently.
This data is then entered into a highly complex piece of computer software which then produces the projections. If one thinks of the current debate over AGW climate model predictions, these can be the cause of a certain amount of controversy, as to the accuracy of the data and the veracity of the results.
Some popular beliefs about Muslim population expansion do not seem to be substantiated by this report. Muslim birthrates are falling worldwide, and this trend seems set to continue. The population growth of non-Muslims is falling too, which is a result of economic and social factors which are increasingly affecting Muslims too. So, yes there is an increase but hardly as alarming as some make out. With regard to the birthrate of immigrants in the West, demographers agree that in two generations the immigrant rate of reproduction drops to that of the indigenous population, and any changes to the percentage are minimal compared to the effects of a continued influx of new immigrants.
“The growth of the global Muslim population, however, should not obscure another important demographic trend: the rate of growth among Muslims has been slowing in recent decades and is likely to continue to decline over the next 20 years, as the graph below shows. From 1990 to 2000, the Muslim population grew at an average annual rate of 2.3%. The growth rate dipped to 2.1% from 2000 to 2010, and it is projected to drop to 1.7% from 2010 to 2020 and 1.4% from 2020 to 2030 (or 1.5% annually over the 20-year period from 2010 to 2030, as previously noted).”
Specifics regarding Europe are interesting. Many of the misleading headlines about the numbers of Muslims in Europe, are in part due to statistics which include established Muslim populations in areas such as Russia, Kosovo, Georgia, Bulgaria and Macedonia.
So yes, at first glance alarming figures, but if you look at these figures, bearing in mind that these projections with regard to the UK and Europe and projections based on immigration rates continuing at the levels of the past ten years, then factor in all the probables and imagine that throughout Europe and indeed the Western world, we have already started to attempt, quite rightly, to restrict immigration. If we continue to do so, over the next ten years or so, then the projections would look very different.
Even if we do nothing this is the projection:
“The number of Muslims in Europe has grown from 29.6 million in 1990 to 44.1 million in 2010. Europe’s Muslim population is projected to exceed 58 million by 2030. Muslims today account for about 6% of Europe’s total population, up from 4.1% in 1990. By 2030, Muslims are expected to make up 8% ofEurope’s population. Although Europe’s Muslim population is growing, Europe’s share of the global Muslim population will remain quite small. Less than 3% of the world’s Muslims are expected to be living in Europe in 2030, about the same portion as in 2010 (2.7%).”
Finally, I make no apologies for the length of this post, but will leave you with this comment by GMT on Sabina’s recent post:
“As far as immigration and related matters are concerned, we are and have been far too tolerant. Governments are probably the main reason, but the British electorate must carry some of the can for letting them get away with it for so long. One of the results of our collective liberalism has been the rise of the likes of the BNP and UKIP.”
I see no concerted plot by Muslims to “take over Europe”, no “Eurabia” scenario at all!
Boadicea's Chariot 
Germany has recently seen a spike in the indigenous birthrate. Not quite a “baby boom”, but a notable increase. I believe it has gone from 1.36 to 1.72. The statistis that you provice, while going some way to dispell the hysteria surrounding demographics, do not include this factor.
Furthermore, this “Eurabia” bit relies on the notion that Muslims somehow are united in a common goal.
Pakistanis and Bangadeshis loathe each other. Even Indonesians and Malaysians, people with very similar cultures and languages, cannot stand each other. Persians and Arabs disdain each other. Were it not for a shared religion (which really is no more united than Christianity) there would be no common thread at all.
The most important thing that we need to do in the West is to drop political correctness, to stop our collective self-hatred. The excesses of Muslim nutters in our midst can be kept in check not by demanding that all Muslims answer for each other, but by making it clear that we will not tolerate such nonsense in our midst.
As for that lovely video, the BBC did quite a good job debunking it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8189231.stm
Hi Christopher.
Blimey that was a quick response!
Brilliant, and thank you for the additional link, which I had misplaced somewhere in my archive.
Regarding the German baby boom, a similar thing occurred here. New Labour, in an attempt to alleviate child poverty, increased the subsidy to some families. The unintended consequences of such, made it more financially beneficial for the women to give up working and have more babies!
There was intense puzzlement about why this happened but then it was decided that this was the only “variable”.
Bother, I have just noticed that I haven’t used the blockquote facility, which is not available or doesn’t work on MyT.
Sorry, I’ll try to sort in out later. 😦
Oddly enough, I read an article last week, which showed that birth rates are dropping just about everywhere. They are still higher in most Muslim countries than in Western countries – Australia being the notable exception. Perhaps, that had something to do with a massive increase in the ‘baby bonus’… 🙂
Like Christopher, I think it is time to drop the political correctness. In many ways it has exacerbated the natural distrust of indigenous populations for foreigners and new-comers, and encouraged immigrants to become separate communities rather than to integrate within their chosen country of residence.
Hello Boadicea.
Yes, I think you are right. I do believe that in the case of the UK and Europe, we should not be quite so generous as in the past with our immigration policies. We should restrict entry to genuine cases who seek asylum. Other than those cases it should be driven by our requirement for those who have skills we need.
Other countries do this, I cannot see why, particularly in times of economic downturn, we cannot do the same.
Yes, the birthrate is still higher in Muslim countries but the projections suggest that the gap is narrowing. This is attributed to urbanization, greater economic prosperity, education and contraception. Makes sense to me.
I’m not sure why we have to accept asylum seekers either – there are plenty of countries who don’t feel obliged to take in anyone who knocks on their door claiming that they are being persecuted!
I think we should, Boadicea.
There are genuine cases, although many are bogus. I would hate to think we cannot provide a safe haven for those who need it.
I’ve just found the UK baby boom link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13809280
1. As you know, I have no dog in this race, no longer any progeny to reproduce so I don’t give a rat’s arse.
2. Most of you have!
3. If you believe that only 6% of the UK is muslim then you are blind, stupid, daft or live in a very sheltered white environment and do not emerge to anywhere very much.
4. They breed like flies.
5. 40 % plus of all births in the UK are to mothers from other countries.
6. All the bleating in the world will not stop what is coming, how many times must history repeat itself?
7. Repatriation on a massive scale or killing them will become the only answer in due course.
8. Why did you bother to breed yourselves to have your children/grandchildren denied their patrimony?
9. If you had any sense you would be beating down the doors of Whitehall!
10. There is no point reproducing if your seed do not survive.
It is called basic survival biology.
Do you seriously think that any of them are going to call the shots as they really are?
Minty: perhaps some of the hysteria is inevitable. One woman in a burqa is infinitely more noticeable than 200 in Western dress. A large Pakistani in London family is vastly more visible than a large English family.
While in Seoul I saw an African man. Even in a city of over 20 million I remember him because he stood out, even more than I did. In Hiroshima the handful of white Australians I saw were vastly more visible than the sea of Japanese. Thus, when 4 or 5 pc of the total population is a visible minority they are naturally much more noticeable. Most of my friends on the continent are not that bothered by this hysteria, something which seems to be more the preserve of paranoid loons and/or those who are surrounded by inbred Yanks.
Boadicea: the pernicious cultural self-loathing especially needs to be dropped. For the most part the world has moved past the “sins” of the past. The Chinese, while not necessarily pleased about the Anglo-Chinese wars, are over it. They don’t think about it that much and when speaking of the UK they are more likely to talk about the red post boxes and the Queen than about something that happened in 1842. Indians don’t worry too much about the worst excesses of the Raj. In fact, the people most wrapped up about these things are self-hating Westerners.
CO, we are fortunate to have Arrers as an antidote to your bigotry.
The table below shows the most recent census data (2001) regarding religion:
Religion Number %
Christian 42,079,000 71.6%
No religion 9,104,000 15.5%
Muslim 1,591,000 2.7%
Hindu 559,000 1.0%
Sikh 336,000 0.6%
Jewish 267,000 0.5%
Buddhist 152,000 0.3%
Other religion 179,000 0.3%
Not stated 4,289,000 7.3%
Total religious 45,163,000 76.8%
Even if the ‘not stated’ group somehow obscures a huge silent population of muslims, it is hard to see how they could be as dominant as the doommongers maintain.
Janus: Muslims rarely lie about their religion. In fact, it’s prohibited for most. (Shi’a Islam permits it in case ones life is in danger, but most Muslims — especially in the UK — are not Shi’ite) When people are insecure, when the world doesn’t make sense, people look for scape-goats, for “solutions” that promise a return to an idealised nostalgic view of the past, a romantic illusion for a life that never was. In the past it was Jews, now it is Muslims. It’s also easier to blame Muslims for everything that is going wrong than to accept responsibility for letting our own standards slip. If we do not value our own traditions how can we expect others, especially those who strongly value their own, to respect them?
Adding together the percentages of Buddhists, Jews, Sikhs and Hindus on Janus’s table from the last Census, they come to roughly the same total as Muslims, by my arithmetic. And yet it is the latter group that has created its own ghettos, in some instances even trying to forbid native Brits from entering, demanded special treatment and made no attempt to integrate in many instances. So it is easy to see why they are so disliked. I realise that this may be because the majority of Muslim immigrants are from uneducated, peasant stock who cling to their backward traditions and try to force them on their children, who are more prepared to integrate into the society in which they live.
Morning Tina.
Given my warnings about the difficulties in producing accurate figures, I have no reason to doubt that they are pretty accurate, although they are two years old, so the actual numbers are probably higher. Could you produce any more recent figures, or are you more inclined to believe those in the video clip?
No they don’t “ breed like flies”. Did you read the post? Again could you produce any evidence to support your belief?
40% of all births in the UK.
Another statistic, one which I have read, and I believe was quoted widely out of context. I don’t have time to check that out, but again, perhaps you could let us have a source. It’s interesting that you doubt the figures here but expect me to accept yours.
As to your opinions are to how you believe we should deal with this situation if we, as you do, regard every Muslim immigrant is incapable of integration and a threat to our culture or our survival, I would say they are a tad draconian, and not exactly helpful!
Hi Janus.
I’m back on the case, but it can be an uphill battle. 😉
Janus.
Your 2001 census figures are interesting. They demonstrate the difficulties of producing up to date accurate information.
In the Pew Report, which purely deals with immigration statistics, from memory, the percentage of Muslim immigrants to the UK in 2010, was just 38%. The perception seems to be that the majority of immigrants here are Muslims, but this seems not to be the case.
Christopher, regarding your comment #11.
Yes, it has a lot to do with perception and visibly.
Years ago, I had a GP friend who described it as the “white mini syndrome”. You don’t notice how many of these cars are white, until you buy one, and then they are everywhere, taking over the highways and byways!
From the ONS
Births in England and Wales by parents’ country of birth, 2010
A quarter of births (25.1%) in 2010 were to mothers born outside the UK
The total fertility rates have risen to 1.88 for UK born women and 2.45 for non-UK born women
Poland became the most common country of origin for non-UK born mothers
Pakistan remains the most common country of origin for non-UK born fathers
Newham was the local authority with the highest proportion of births to non-UK born women (76.4%)
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/parents–country-of-birth–england-and-wales/2010/births-in-england-and-wales-by-parents–country-of-birth–2010.html
Hello Sheona.
Regarding your comment #15.
I don’t think that your statement is quite accurate, but I see what you mean. Groups of immigrants, for reasons that Boadicea explained very well on a post some time ago, naturally flock together. This has always been the case with all the nationalities you mention, I believe.
I think in the case of Muslims, it’s the numbers over the last ten years, which cause us to believe that they do not integrate. Muslim immigration has been going on for a much longer period but the numbers were much smaller, and many of those did integrate, prospered and moved out of the urban centres. We did not identify them by their religion.
Thanks Sipu.
I’ll take a look.
PS. I suspect that the figures reflect the age profile of immigrants; the majority are young, and therefore have families earlier than the rest of the indigenous population.
Re #21
I think one of the biggest problems with Muslims in Western Society has been Western Governments. I’m sure you will agree, Araminta, that in earlier eras Governments expected immigrants to fit in with the indigenous population – and immigrants did their best to do just that!
I don’t think anyone would have complained to earlier monarchs that taxing ‘aliens’ at a higher rate was unfair! But, it seems to many people (me included) that ‘aliens’ often receive more consideration than natives.
Governments no longer expect immigrants to integrate – they expect the natives to change their way of life. I can’t honestly blame anyone for taking advantage of what’s on offer – if there is an opportunity to exploit a situation people will exploit it…
Quite apart from getting rid of the PC that actually encourages people to continue living their ‘culture’ in someone else’s country – I really think it is about time that we stopped defining people by one aspect of their personality – be it religion, gender preference, race, colour, or whatever.
The emphasis on ‘differences’ incites everyone to concentrate on those things that divide people and does not encourage them to think about the things that they have in common.
I really think it’s time to put Religion back into the cupboard in which I think it belongs – a matter of Private Choice with no special privileges. Then it will not matter one fig if one is a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew or an Atheist.
Spot on, Boadicea. We do need to get rid of this stupid PC bending over backwards to accept odd customs. There are two items in today’s Sunday Times which give cause for concern. A report has shown that certain communities, even second and third generation born in the UK, do not speak English well enough to take advantage of educational opportunities or to be unemployable. This is ludicrous. The British taxpayer has to pay for this insistence on children being able to “speak to their grandparents”.
The other item is on the front page, where it appears that Baroness Warsi has joined the list of Muslim peers who carry on their traditional practice of corruption, though they are not the only ones, just the majority in the group.
I suggest you forget the statistics, most of them appear to be lies.
Just go to any wog ridden city and count!
Go to Reading, Slough and High Wycombe, all near enough to you, walk into the general hospital and start counting!
Try it.
Of course no one has the balls to start deporting them that is why it will end up in civil war and plain old murder, all of it was quite avoidable but no one had the guts to deal with it initially in a non violent manner.
Just occasionally, Tina, I do wonder about which planet you think I inhabit. I live in Henley on Thames for goodness sake, not freaking Mars, but I do read the newspapers, I do watch television occasionally, and I do travel beyond South Oxfordshire. I have visited all the places you mention within the last two years. I shop in Reading about once a month.
So yes, I do try it, and my view remains unchanged. You can forget the statistics if you so desire, but don’t try to impose your own narrow view of life, or your prejudices on me.
This is an attempt to look at the actual realities of the situation rather than perceptions which are not in fact backed up with reality. Now if you wish to continue this discussion or expect me to take your views into serious consideration, I suggest you produce some factual objective evidence to back them up.
PS. I’m becoming just slightly irritated by your frequent use of “wog” on this post, and this site. It is obviously used pejoratively; probably intended to shock. It doesn’t. Now no one else on this site feels the need to use this term. Yes, we all know it, you use it to show your disdain of foreigners. My dislike of the term is nothing to do with political correctness; rather more to do with good manners and appropriate language. Are you familiar with the term linguistic register? If not, you might want to look it up.
Boadicea.
Thanks for your comment #23.
Yes of course I agree with your first paragraph, and you speak a great deal of sense. We, or our elected representatives, for reasons unknown, allowed this situation to happen. Absolutely agree with your penultimate paragraph and your final sentence.
Very constructive as usual.
“The other item is on the front page, where it appears that Baroness Warsi has joined the list of Muslim peers who carry on their traditional practice of corruption, though they are not the only ones, just the majority in the group.”
Sheona
You agreed that Boadicea’s comment was spot on, and so did I.
I perhaps we should do as Boadicea suggests:
” I really think it is about time that we stopped defining people by one aspect of their personality – be it religion, gender preference, race, colour, or whatever.”
I do not think you will find any ‘reality’ in statistics, most of them are government derived and it is not in their interest allowing the natives to know the true extent of the situation.
Apart from that, illegals lie and are hidden by their legal relatives but never show either as employees or on census forms. But they turn up in hospitals, schools and for any handout that are available.
The only reality is your own eyes that you stubbornly refuse to use. I suggest should you do a count on Reading High St, you will be able to count a damned sight more than 6%!
I do not think your adherence to perceived good manners will be of much use at the end of the day. That is precisely what ‘they’ rely on, that you ‘reasonable’ natives will do nothing to ensure your own kind’s survival.
Shall we leave it that we both have mutual contempt for each other’s views?
Tina.
Thank you for your prompt response. You may have contempt for my view despite the fact that I live in this country, and indeed in a place you know well. You may continue to do so.
My visits to Reading and other places do not accord with your perceptions. Simply a different perspective, and believe me, I have done a count on Reading “High Street”, and I suspect, rather more recently than you.
I attempt to respect the point of view of others, so no to your final sentence, and I will continue to do so, but you do occasionally make it quite difficult. You, of course may continue to view things as you will.
Survival I doubt is the issue here, Tina, although you may believe so.
I’m not sure which of my statements is “not quite accurate”, Araminta.
In the case of Muslims and numbers, it is a sad fact that the percentage of Muslims in prison is vastly greater than the percentage of Muslims in the population. Again as regards numbers, I have only found one example of Christina using the word “wog” on this post, but of course I could be wrong. It is also a sad fact that in the list of peers found to have falsified their expenses claims, Muslims are again in the majority. These statistics cannot be denied. Why should they be?
Sheona.
You are quite right, Tina has only uses the term “wog” once on this post, but she has frequently used this term on this site.
Sorry, could you point me to my “not quite accurate” statement? Which comment number? I’m now confused as well. 😦
Got it, Sheona. I will respond when I have eaten.
Sheona.
My response to your comment #15 is explained in my comment #21.
“And yet it is the latter group that has created its own ghettos,”
I responded to this, and explained that this is not just a Muslim problem; it is common to all immigrant groups.
I am tempted to say, ‘Chick fight, chick fight. Woo hoo!’ But I won’t.
Oddly, perhaps, I find myself seeing some validity in each of Ara’s, Boadicea’s, Sheona’s and CO’s comments. But I also have some disagreements. My overriding observation comes in two parts.
1) In any given community, multiculturalism cannot work. Immigrants must conform, to a very large extent, or leave. I am not saying that countries cannot, or should not, benefit from the customs of immigrants, but those customs must be accepted willingly and not be forced on the natives.
2) Religion is not only not as damaging as many insist, it is almost essential for a stable society. But, religion is a fundamental part of culture and since too many people need believe in something, whether we (sophisticated members of the Chariot) like it or not, it is important that the members of a community/nation share the same beliefs, or at least purport to share the same beliefs. For Britain to remain ‘British’, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Astrology (my goodness it is stunning how many people believe in that crap) and all other faiths must be kept very much in the background. Either that or, everybody adopts one of those faiths. As it stands, Christianity, is not a bad option. You may not believe, and indeed I myself do not, but it is important for citizens to lend their general support to the national faith. I submit.
Sipu.
Your submission is accepted, with grateful thanks.
Yes, one can disagree, but respecting the opinion of others is surely what this site is all about, or so I believe.
Religion, whether you believe or not has formed the basis of our society. It’s an ethos and is the keystone of our culture.
Re your 2 paragraph, Sipu.
While acknowledging that Christianity has formed the basis of Western Society, I don’t think that it is necessary for everyone to accept the whole Christian Package – giving general support, as you put it, is another matter – and there, you might be surprised to know, I agree with you.
In general, Christianity (now!) promotes the idea of everyone being of Equal Value, I find it quite intolerable that a set of beliefs that actively promulgate the opposite point of view should be deemed acceptable and must be ‘respected’.
As you say in 1 – immigrants should be prepared to conform to the culture of the country in which they choose to live and if that means that they must modify some of their religious beliefs – so be it.
Boa, true believers can’t modify their beliefs! They can adjust their behaviour to conform with local norms, yes.
Choosing to live near others of your own ethnic or religious group is one thing, Araminta. Actually trying to force your own religious restrictions on others in a particular area, such as Tower Hamlets, or attempting to prevent native Brits from entering that area, as in some northern cities, is quite another.
CO, the extent of your extremism is demonstrated by “I do not think you will find any ‘reality’ in statistics, most of them are government derived and it is not in their interest allowing the natives to know the true extent of the situation”.
Sheona: yes, you are right. It’s also quite another thing to demand that the entire moral code of the country be ignored. The Pakistani rape gangs, the importation of the of female circumcision by Somali Muslims, honour killings, allowing patients to die rather than stop praying, refusing to properly sterilise ones hands and arms prior to surgery on religious grounds, etc. Those Muslim immigrants who try to integrate, work, and become members fo British society (or German, to keep with my own citizenship) should not be stigmatised by the behaviour of those who refuse to do the same. This behaviour can only go on when the host society refuses to enforce its own values, when it does not show proper respect for its own traditions. Were the UK to refuse to tolerate such behaviour the worst of it would sort itself out. Some would integrate, some would leave.
Morning, Sheona.
I agree, we read reports in the press about such incidents, from time to time. I don’t know what percentage of the inhabitants of Tower Hamlets attempt to do this on a regular basis I have also read reports that refute such suggestions of “no go” areas areas in other urban centres with a large Muslim population.
I really do not know how much of this is perception, or reality. It may well be that others have experienced this on a regular basis. There have always been areas in large urban centres here, and abroad, which are best avoided.
One daughter, for example, worked in Slough for about six years until she changed jobs and now works in Hammersmith. She has never once felt threatened or aware of any invasion of Muslim culture in either place. She also regularly visits Reading. When I asked her the question, a few months ago, I received a very typical “what are you on about, now” look. She feels she’s rather more in danger from young white males in gangs than those of any other ethnic group.
There are similar reports of no go areas, so called sink estates, but I doubt this much to do with religion, but certainly the ethos, if one can call it that, of gang mentality and antisocial behaviour.
There are a number of issues addressed in my post:
The dangers of using statistics to “prove” a point of view, as shown in the video clip, which were shown to be wildly inaccurate and alarmist. The difficulties involved in collection of data, the variables which cannot be taken into account in projections based on these figures.
The Pew report was intended to track immigration worldwide and look at the patterns with respect to the major religious groups, and based on figures from 1990 and 2010 with due warning that variables cannot be factored in projected the likely figures over the next twenty years, provide all levels of immigration remained the same as those in 1990 to 2010.
The data, as the Pew Report states quite clearly, is an estimate, but with In my opinion, no intention to deceive.
You can reject these statistics, but then we are back to opinion, our own based on experience, media reports and so forth. I used this report because this was the report referenced by the person on the opposing side of the debate, so we would not spend hours on a “my source is more authoritative than your source” discussion.
This post was written as a response to opinions which agree with the Eurabia concept, that is Europe will be taken over by Muslims; it is a planned and hostile invasion by followers of Islam. This is a gross oversimplification of the concept. I haven’t read the book ! This is also similar to the message outlined in the video clip.
As some may recall, I lived in Brixton some long time ago. There were large numbers of Jamaicans, and one could be forgiven for thinking that ‘they’ were ‘taking over’ the country. There were ‘no go’ areas and the education system certainly favoured those from ‘foreign parts’! The official statistics regarding the numbers of immigrants in the schools were certainly skewed to present a less than realistic and accurate picture. So it is hardly surprising that so many people have scant respect for Government Statistics…
One hardly saw a black face in, say, Brighton at that time, and, naturally, Brightonians did not understand what the people in Brixton were complaining about.
It seems to me that whether one is of an ‘optimistic’ or ‘pessimistic’ stance about the numbers of Muslim immigrants – both agree that all immigrants should integrate, should not expect special consideration for their beliefs and culture, and should not attempt to change the culture of their host country….
… why, oh why do those idiots in Government not see what the rest of us see so clearly?
Thanks, Boadicea.
You make some good points, and yes, it does seem obvious to us but surely they keep on eye of the media to gauge popular opinion, but they don’t seem to react to it.
I do understand the reactions of those who live in areas with a high immigrant population, as in your thoughts on Jamaicans in Brixton.
Unfortunately, Araminta, most MPs do not live in overcrowded areas with poor facilities. They do not send their children to schools where more than half of the children do not have English as a first language – if they even have any English. at all. Quite simply, they do not experience the frustrations that so many ‘ordinary’ people suffer.
I recall Boris Johnson saying that MPs should get out of their private, chauffeur-driven limos and travel on the London Underground with their noses stuck in some smelly passenger’s armpit to fully appreciate the frustrations of travellers! How right he was!
One can be very idealistic and noble from the heights of Castle Parliament – not so idealistic from the area around the cess-pit! Another clear case of people trying to foist their opinions and beliefs on the rest of the population 🙂