Oxboy – I just don’t know where to start after your last post.

Virtually all of us are descended from immigrants. they are not swamping the country, they are not a drain on our taxes. All facts

The BNP are closely involved in inciting racial hatred, holocaust denial. Are allied to various unspeakable racists and are a very nasty bunch of fascist thugs

fiddlesticks – double post

The only problems with immigrants is the sheer number, this little island cant take it.

rich

are you not aware that as we have stopped having so many children that our welfare state will collapse, without inviting immigrants in at a working age

the island is plenty big enough, you just have to learn to share, its a basic human concept we learn as children

fiddlesticks – double post

Because the original didn’t show up (as it was the first post on a new page and there was no link to the new page)? If so, I’m glad I’m not the only one getting that – was told I was imagining it when I commented!

kimbers – no dis mate but that’s just tosh. With population growth at current levels we resemble a plague of locusts as opposed to a model for future sustainability….

aracer – Member

> fiddlesticks – double post

Because the original didn’t show up (as it was the first post on a new page and there was no link to the new page)? If so, I’m glad I’m not the only one getting that – was told I was imagining it when I commented!

Yep – seen that one too.

Aracer – thats exactly what happened

Kimbers is correct in that we need the immigrant workers to sustain our economy as we do not have enough workers of our own

Tnakslapper is also right but restricting immigration would mean no retirement for folk or shooting everyone over the age of 70.

A sustainable population of these islands would be far lower than is current

Population density of England 392 per sq km (according to Wiki) – that’s quite a lot.

France is 110

Pop density

When the immigrants who have looked after us in our decrepitude are old – what then – more immigrants to look after them. Is that the future a never ending population spiral to look after us as we’re “rich”?

What is the population density of the low countries?

Sorry can’t be arsed to read the whole thing but has anyone posted this yet?

Much of the BNP’s recent success has been down to its ability to shake off the patina of far-right extremism that has alienated most voters since its inception. But this month the veneer slipped when it emerged that a Salford-based BNP candidate in the European elections had set his Facebook status to read “Wogs go home”. Eddy O’Sullivan, 49, wrote: “They are nice people – oh yeah – but can they not be nice people in the **** Congo or… bongo land or whatever?” O’Sullivan, who also joined an internet group called “**** Islam”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/31/bnp-european-elections-facebook-expose

Tnakslapper is also right but restricting immigration would mean no retirement for folk or shooting everyone over the age of 70.

An interesting question though – given increasing longevity, is it sustainable to have retirement age set such that 50% of population (the supposed target for those going to university) work for less than half their lives?

What is the population density of the low countries?

395

All foreigners should go home!

That’s:

Celts
Saxons
Franks
Angles
French
Irish
etc
etc

Would that just leave the Picts or are they foreign too? 😉

When the immigrants who have looked after us in our decrepitude are old – what then – more immigrants to look after them. Is that the future a never ending population spiral to look after us as we’re “rich”?

yep it is, do you have a better suggestion?

yep it is, do you have a better suggestion?

Yes, a sustainable population with the same numbers entering and leaving. 😉

yep it is, do you have a better suggestion

Yup, managed population decline.

I think “Make Room! Make Room!” warped me when I read it as a teen

tj/tankslapper what is a sustainable population?

how many millions of people would you have to forcibly eject to reach sutainability?

or alternatively we could just raise taxes massively build all the power stations we need and all become vegetarian (this require 7 times less land than being a meat eater)

we could all live in a perfect unchanging world our gene pool becoming ever shallower, everyone could have the mandatory 2 children per couple (infertile parents would have to be ejected too) and we could get back to our cultural roots, morris dancing anyone?

how many millions of people would you have to forcibly eject to reach sutainability?

None – this would be a long term exercise in population remodelling – here is what Jonathan Porrit has to say on the matter (BTW I’m not his biggest supporter)

So let’s just start all over again – here’s the logic, in 12 easy steps.

1. The more human beings there are on the planet, the bigger our collective impact. There were about 3 billion of us in 1950, and there will be about 9 billion by 2050 – if we just carry on as usual. That’s an extra 6 billion in 100 years!

2. Our impact is felt in many different ways – in terms of soil erosion, over-fishing, deforestation, water shortages, loss of species and habitats, and so on. Most particularly, it’s felt in terms of the rising emissions of C02 and other greenhouse gases that we’re putting into the atmosphere, with the prospect of horrendous consequences by the end of the century if we can’t turn this around.

3. Each individual is responsible for their own carbon footprint. Here in the UK, it’s about 12 tonnes per person per annum. In China, it’s about 4 tonnes per person per annum. It soon mounts up. Were it not for China’s ‘one child family’ policy (which is certainly very controversial), there would be as many as 400 million additional Chinese alive today – with a combined annual carbon footprint of around 1.6 billion tonnes of C02!

4. Population and environmental impact are therefore inextricably intertwined. New technology (around energy efficiency and renewables) can do a lot to help reduce that impact. But at the moment, the efficiency gains it gives us are not even keeping up with the combined increase in human numbers and economic growth.

5. Here in the UK, we have adopted some extremely ambitious targets to reduce emissions of C02 and other greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050. On a per capita basis, that means going from around 12 tonnes per person per annum today to around 2.5 tonnes per person per annum by 2050 – if our population remains the same in 2050.

6. But it’s not going to! Current projections indicate that our population is going to grow from 61 million today to 77 million by 2050. Logically, that means there’s a lot less C02 to go round (in terms of our per capita allocation), making it all the harder to achieve that 80% target. (A target, incidentally, which many scientists now see as the absolute minimum which will be required in rich countries like ours).

7. It also means a lot more overcrowding, a lot more pressure on housing, on water supplies, on our trains, on our already congested roads and so on.

8. If you accept that this is a not very attractive proposition, and that it would be better to aim for a lower, rather than a higher population, there are two things that have to happen here in the UK.

9. The first is to allow into our country no more people than leave it on an annual basis. That’s called “net zero immigration”. This is not xenophobic, let alone racist. It’s just common sense.

10. The second is to see if we might persuade (please note, persuade, not coerce!) the 26% of women in the UK who are currently expected to have more than two children to ‘stop at two’. (The other 74% already do stop at two, or have one child or none.) If we did this, we would be able to cut our forecast population by around 7 million people.

11. Combine both policies (neither of which, I think you’ll agree, are that extreme, let alone threatening, let alone totalitarian!), and the consequences are enormous: instead of a population of 77 million, we’d have a population of around 55 million – 6 million fewer than we have today.

12. Amazingly, if we then applied ourselves to doing more or less the same for women the world over, during the course of the next 20 years or so, by the tried and tested means of improving education for all (but particularly for girls), including healthcare for all (but particularly for women), and ensuring a choice of contraception for all women so that they are free to manage their own fertility, without fear of oppressive religious and male-dominated constraints, then we might just be able to stabilise world population to something closer to 7.8 billion instead of 9.2 billion. And just work out what that means for climate change, the planet and all future generations.

So that’s the logic. Of course, it isn’t as easy as that. The barriers are still huge.
Many religious people still think the use of any contraception other than abstinence or the ‘natural method’ runs counter to the will of God. Many economists still think that a declining population will create an increasingly problematic imbalance between those at the end of their working lives and those whose taxes will be needed to support them.

But there seems to be little reason, on either count, to declare that population must remain for ever a taboo subject, beyond rational discourse, worthy only of the rantings of Daily Mail columnists and religious extremists.

So I shall stick to my guns on this one! As a Patron of the Optimum Population Trust, I shall be keenly supporting their ‘Stick at Two’ campaign. And as an environmentalist with a bit of a track record, I shall continue to point out to many of my colleagues that their continuing silence on the links between population, climate change and social justice is actually a betrayal of everything that they stand for – however ‘politically correct’ they may imagine it to be.

The question of over population (the world over) and how to deal with it is common sense – you can’t long term ecologically damage from over population.

In this country we are far too good at compartmentalising everything – people live here – animals live there (SSSIs, National Parks, AONB’s and all the other designations) etc etc Government policies in line with the Kyoto Treaty has pushed us all into everything from saving water and conserving energy sources to recycling yet the morons in power talk of building more houses in the Thames basin (John Prescott 2005 ‘£850 million to improve quality of life, provide 120,000 new homes and create around 180,000 new jobs.’) In short they’re talking out their backsides! They want us to save water so they can build more houses – where are your veggies now?

This is all part of the expansionist capitalist system which depends on growth, whatever the cost.

The bald fact is sustainable growth will only be achieved through the creation of a stable population model.

If there is a party out there that preaches this message and encourages people to participate regardless of faith, colour, class or creed then I’m interested.

If not then I’m going to waste my vote on those sheep shaggers in Plaid!

**** me slaps, all the time I’ve known you, I thought you were an uneducated, coarse, tick, Irish barsteward, and all that time there was a knowledgable, well informed, caring environmentalist inside bursting to get out! 😉

Well said

Cheers you southern softee shandy drinking mate that you are!

I vote for peace, brotherly love and even people from Ipswich! You hang out there in the sunshine mate, I don’t care what anyone says – I think you special! 😆

so you are going to ‘persuade’ women to limit the number of children they have
and that is not totalitarian?

logical as this may seem you would also have to ‘persuade’ people to have children earlier in their life, instead of leaving it progressively later

also as medical technology improves people are living for longer so would you advocate just killing them at a certain age?

kimbers mate, it’s not up to me now is it?

Yep, those were the arguments used on the Chinese, as they slowed their rate of poulation growth and the rest of the worlds carried on expanding exponentially.

Bit like an argument that its your personal freedom to guarantee the end of humanity though isn’t it?

PS: southern softee shandy drinking mate ??? Shandy drinking???? I may well wet the bed, but I never, ever drink shandy, never, never, ever!!!

Oxboy, you daft racist muppet. You still haven’t answered my question : how should non-white or non-British born forum users vote ?

You’re obviously very keen to share your political acumen with this forum, so come on, be a sweetie don’t be shy, give some advise to non-white and non-British born forum users too 8)

And whilst you’re at it, also tell me how do you feel about going on a bike ride with non-white or non-British born mtbers ….. bearing in mind that you don’t think they should be in this country in the first place ? I’m guessing that you wouldn’t be very happy ?

Also tell me that if you were posting details of a bike ride on here, whether you would mention ‘only British born whites welcomed’ ? Or would you wait until the bike ride and then, make it clear that they weren’t welcomed ?
.

Now I’ll answer a question which you keep asking. You don’t seem to understand why people can’t be scared into voting BNP.

Well let me explain it to you. I would rather have a family of respectable devote muslims as neighbours, than have a family of grunting knuckle-dragging musclehead neanderthal half-brains, living next door to me.
Any minute of the week. And I suspect, most people would agree with me.

It’s your choice that’s the scary one mate.

And for those who still think that the BNP is a respectable party which is simply the victim of an unfair slur campaign, here is a short video (less than 2 mins long) where Nick Griffin tells an audience of Ku Klux Klan member in the US that the BNP fully intends to lie to the British people. Note he clearly states that, ‘BNP ideas are the same as KKK ideas’

Among the ‘good ideas’ which the KKK has, are burning ‘****’ alive.

I did have another video of a BNP organiser saying “Hitler will live forever”, but unfortunately the BNP appear to be getting very good at removing stuff off the internet which exposes the truth about them.

Shame, because it’s worth remembering how 65 years ago on D Day, countess young men laid down their lives to defeat an ideology based on hate. We owe it to them.

.

BTW, how did this thread get bogged down in talking about immigration ? It’s not about immigration. The BNP might be very happy that everyone’s talking about immigration, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that the BNP is a very nasty, racist and fascist party. Immigration is a different issue all together.

You are playing right into their hands

It’s all going a bit Logans Run here.

your average bnp voter would never do for minimum wage or below,

And how would you feel about having your £5.73 per hour undercut?

(assuming you are over 22)

And how would you feel about having your £5.73 per hour undercut?

Not p155ed off enough to vote nazi.

But pissed off all the same. Just reading comments singing the praises of a government policy that results in lower wages for the already badly paid tends to stick in the craw don’t you think?

Nick Griffin’s constituency is the one where i live, Thurrock, Essex.

Which is most unfortunate.

I study politics at A level, and find it surprising that more people aren’t following the Labour party considering Obama’s recent success in America. However, given recent events is easy to see why they aren’t ha.

But should anyone ask where i’m from, i’d say thurrock which will be linked to Nick Griffin who inevitably will do quite well ..

Which is slightly embarrassing.

Nevermind ..

I study politics at A level, and find it surprising that more people aren’t following the Labour party considering Obama’s recent success in America.

What’s the connection?

omfg…………………………………………. 🙄

Ton – lights blue touch paper and retires to safe distance (I SAID SAFE DISTANCE!) 😆

From a foreigner’s viewpoint – when you kick me out of UK, some 12 people (all white, English, well-educated) will go on benefits as I provide them with work and pay their wages. Any more bright ideas?
Besides, who will sell you The Sun at 6 o’cliock if all the Indians and Pakistanis are removed? Who will run a Chinease chippy if “the yellow people” get a boot? Who’s going to serve a pint at The Weatherspoons once you banned all the Eastern Europeans who wait and serve there?
Next step will be you, the Brits, getting banned from going to those places. Who will you blame then? BNP? Labour? Torries? Lib-Dems?
No more French au-pairs, Italian cooks, Spanish senioritas in tapas bars, Brasilian bums on the beach…

So the answer is to have cheap labour imported as “our” lifestyle is unsustainable if we pay a decent wage? What happens when those who have moved here desire the same standard of living as those born here? Surely as human beings they are entitled to that?

Who sold us papers, worked in restaurants, and provided nanny services to the wealthy before EU enlargement?

No more blonde (36-24-36) Swedish au pair twins?!!!!

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Hairychested – you make me sad. 😐

Thank FUG this thread is now done cos the voting is over 😀 😀

Now shut the fug up and see how the population of this country votes it is a democracy after all 🙄

Nah! See new thread – the pain continues!!! 🙄

Ernies got the hump! 😆

One comment you made
‘Shame, because it’s worth remembering how 65 years ago on D Day, countess young men laid down their lives to defeat an ideology based on hate. We owe it to them.’
I see the Labour Party our government felt so strongly about it they werent going to bother celebrating it until they were pressured and of course its now a half arsed cock up. Same as St Georges day they really make a big deal of that day dont they?

Next
‘Well let me explain it to you. I would rather have a family of respectable devote muslims as neighbours, than have a family of grunting knuckle-dragging musclehead neanderthal half-brains, living next door to me. Any minute of the week. And I suspect, most people would agree with me.’
mmmm. I dont fancy either thanks, where do you live where you only get those two options? so thats one person who doesnt agree for a start.
Next
‘Oxboy, you daft racist muppet. You still haven’t answered my question : how should non-white or non-British born forum users vote ?’
Of course you should vote for what you believe in if you qualify. Thats the way we do it here! Daft racist muppet?? Ernie I expected better from you! (I didnt!)
Next
‘BTW, how did this thread get bogged down in talking about immigration ? It’s not about immigration. The BNP might be very happy that everyone’s talking about immigration, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that the BNP is a very nasty, racist and fascist party. Immigration is a different issue all together.’
WTF Immigration is part of the issue of course it is, the reason why the BNP is happy about people talking about immigration is because we do have a problem, people are worried. The BNP are up front and open about their thoughts on this, are any of the main stream parties? I think not thats the problem. You daft muppet!! (your phrase) 😆

And finally because I am now getting bored
‘You are playing right into their hands’
I think not I think its the other way round, if the Labour party had thought about what they were doing then the BNP would have gone out of business, the reason the BNP is gaining in popularity is because of the Labour government and their policies end of.

Ernie to be honest I dont care if you think I am a racist to be honest that label doesnt bother me in the slightest. I dont like what is happening to my Country and I will vote against it, thats it.