Britain First

[MUSC4EVER]

So I was waiting for the Graham Norton show to come on when a Part Political Broadcast from Britain First came on for the Euro elections a while ago and I gave it a watch and I was just speechless watching it, they want to stop Britain from becoming an Islam country which the Daily Mail claim will happen by 2050, they also put up some newspaper headlines backing it up most of those had 'source Daily Mail' underneath them....so to me they are like a Daily Mail political Party..

 

[Carbonox]

So I was waiting for the Graham Norton show to come on when a Part Political Broadcast from Britain First came on for the Euro elections a while ago and I gave it a watch and I was just speechless watching it, they want to stop Britain from becoming an Islam country which the Daily Mail claim will happen by 2050, they also put up some newspaper headlines backing it up most of those had 'source Daily Mail' underneath them....so to me they are like a Daily Mail political Party..

How about non-Daily Mail then?

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3770/the_islamic_future_of_britain

Birth rates tell the story, I'm afraid.

 

[DK]

When you say "win" do you mean you play pigeon chess with them, or do you actually out-argue them? I'm not convinced yet.

When you're dealing with the drooling morons of Britain First, I don't think they even know what chess is. The thought of black pieces possibly winning against whites makes them crap themselves.

 

[Carbonox]

When you're dealing with the drooling morons of Britain First, I don't think they even know what chess is. The thought of black pieces possibly winning against whites makes them crap themselves.

We weren't talking about Britain First members here, but merely people who shared them on Facebook. I doubt many of those people are even their voters.

 

[TenEightyOne]

How about non-Daily Mail then?

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3770/the_islamic_future_of_britain

Birth rates tell the story, I'm afraid.

Even worse than the Daily Mail. His base data is wrong to start with, he then uses the UK figures that he quotes* to apply to Britain, given that Northern Island has the fewest Muslims out of the Union's four constituent countries I'd say he's missed a sitter and exposed a streak of some density.

He finishes by lauding Enoch Powell, claiming that the last 40 years have vindicated him. I sense that there might be an agenda there.

So, he claims that there's a growth rate of 6.7%pa, that would seem at odds with the 1.5% global figure.

For the sake of argument, lets say that the rate in the UK (not Britain, there are no individual figures for her three countries) is double that, or 3%. Let's start from a known figure for Muslims in the UK in 2014, which is 4.4% of the population.

When we get to 2050 the article tells us that we should have 50% Muslimicisation** (actually he'd have said 60% if he'd done his own sum properly, which he didn't).

Using real figures we'll only have 13%





* Pulls out of his ass
**I'm claiming this word

 

[mirial]

Here's a link with what Muslims think of the UK together with a compilation of additional links.

I get the impression that many on the left are quite happy with this consensus whilst those on the right would have the right to feel alarmed.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/danielpycock/danpycock/956/what-do-british-muslims-think-of-the-uk/

 

[KSaiyu]

Even worse than the Daily Mail. His base data is wrong to start with, he then uses the UK figures that he quotes* to apply to Britain, given that Northern Island has the fewest Muslims out of the Union's four constituent countries I'd say he's missed a sitter and exposed a streak of some density.

He finishes by lauding Enoch Powell, claiming that the last 40 years have vindicated him. I sense that there might be an agenda there.

So, he claims that there's a growth rate of 6.7%pa, that would seem at odds with the 1.5% global figure.

For the sake of argument, lets say that the rate in the UK (not Britain, there are no individual figures for her three countries) is double that, or 3%. Let's start from a known figure for Muslims in the UK in 2014, which is 4.4% of the population.

When we get to 2050 the article tells us that we should have 50% Muslimicisation** (actually he'd have said 60% if he'd done his own sum properly, which he didn't).

Using real figures we'll only have 13%





* Pulls out of his ass
**I'm claiming this word

Where is the base data wrong? I'm not defending his mathematics - in fact I want to know where his figures came from in the first place.

P.S. Don't let Britain First find out what the first non-wikipedia entry for "Britain" is on google....

 

[TenEightyOne]

Where is the base data wrong? I'm not defending his mathematics - in fact I want to know where his figures came from in the first place.

P.S. Don't let Britain First find out what the first non-wikipedia entry for "Britain" is on google....

In his article he gives a rate of growth and says that you end up at 4% in 2008. Extrapolating from his figures doesn't at any point put you anywhere near the correct figures (which I linked for you).

He says you reach 50% Muslamicisation in 2050 with his figures, in fact it's 60%... but with the real figures you don't get anywhere near that.

The obvious fault in these figures is that the rate of Muslamicisationality needs to remain constant until 2050, but that's a presumption that he makes in his figures so I matched it

...So, he claims that there's a growth rate of 6.7%pa, that would seem at odds with the 1.5% global figure.

For the sake of argument, lets say that the rate in the UK (not Britain, there are no individual figures for her three countries) is double that, or 3%. Let's start from a known figure for Muslims in the UK in 2014, which is 4.4% of the population.

When we get to 2050 the article tells us that we should have 50% Muslimicisation** (actually he'd have said 60% if he'd done his own sum properly, which he didn't).

Using real figures we'll only have 13%

 

[BHRxRacer]

I think you guys should be grateful it's only a political organization, and not a government.

 

[Scaff]

I think you guys should be grateful it's only a political organization, and not a government.

Only a political organisation?

A comment that pretty much sums up a rather significant lack of understanding, how many organisations that are in the political mainstream actively set out to incite violence on the grounds of religious differences?

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that even if they were only a political organisation the main aim of political organisations is to govern (regardless of the level) and given that they have resorted to illegal means to try and further than aim, your statement even at face value makes no sense at all.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for freedom of speech, but I'm also a big fan of people accepting the consequences of using that freedom.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Only a political organisation?

A comment that pretty much sums up a rather significant lack of understanding, how many organisations that are in the political mainstream actively set out to incite violence on the grounds of religious differences?

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that even if they were only a political organisation the main aim of political organisations is to govern (regardless of the level) and given that they have resorted to illegal means to try and further than aim, your statement even at face value makes no sense at all.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for freedom of speech, but I'm also a big fan of people accepting the consequences of using that freedom.

I'm not in any way defending them, nor am I trying to stop you from criticizing them. I was just trying to say it could be worse, that those people could be the government itself. As is the case with other countries that shall remain nameless.

Perhaps it was a bit foolish of me to think someone would get the reference. I apologize.

 

[Scaff]

I'm not in any way defending them, nor am I trying to stop you from criticizing them.

I don't believe I either said or implied that you have done either of these things. I said that you have shown a significant lack of understanding, which is a quite different thing, that you take that to be an implication of tacit support only further underlines that.

I was just trying to say it could be worse, that those people could be the government itself. As is the case with other countries that shall remain nameless.

Why should they remain nameless?

Perhaps it was a bit foolish of me to think someone would get the reference. I apologize.

I got the reference, that doesn't stop it being a massive over simplification of the situation.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I don't believe I either said or implied that you have done either of these things. I said that you have shown a significant lack of understanding, which is a quite different thing, that you take that to be an implication of tacit support only further underlines that.


Why should they remain nameless?



I got the reference, that doesn't stop it being a massive over simplification of the situation.

They'll remain nameless for nameless reasons. Let's leave it at that.

Out of curiosity, care to tell me what you think the reference is? I'm not going to confirm or deny though

 

[Scaff]

They'll remain nameless for nameless reasons. Let's leave it at that.

Then why even bring it up?

And no I don't intent to 'leave it at that', you opened the door not me; why should 'they' and your 'reasons' remain nameless?

Out of curiosity, care to tell me what you think the reference is? I'm not going to confirm or deny though

If you have no intention of confirming or denying anything then why exactly should I bother?

Quite frankly your adding nothing at all to this discussion and are now heading into borderline trolling and noise, neither of which are good ways of participating to GT Planet.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Then why even bring it up?

And no I don't intent to 'leave it at that', you opened the door not me; why should 'they' and your 'reasons' remain nameless?



If you have no intention of confirming or denying anything then why exactly should I bother?

Quite frankly your adding nothing at all to this discussion and are now heading into borderline trolling and noise, neither of which are good ways of participating to GT Planet.

I apologized for making the reference and said I should've thought better of it. You're insisting I name the nameless countries. Let's move on.

 

[Scaff]

I apologized for making the reference and said I should've thought better of it.

You did? Can you show me where?

You're insisting I name the nameless countries.

I'm asking you too.

Let's move on.

Why? You opened the door and I'm now rather curious.

 

[kennylmao]

I was just trying to say it could be worse, that those people could be the government itself.

Or the government could be using people like these to create chaos to remain in control.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I wonder how many of the Muslims polled actually have the balls to go through with their beliefs.

@kennylmao: It's the CIA. It's always the CIA.

 

[Carbonox]

I wonder how many of the Muslims polled actually have the balls to go through with their beliefs.

Plenty, because tolerance.

 

[BHRxRacer]

You did? Can you show me where?

Here

Perhaps it was a bit foolish of me to think someone would get the reference. I apologize.

Now shh.

 

[Scaff]

Here



Now shh.

I think your grasp of English may be the issue here, but that's doesn't come across as an apology on your part, but as apologizing for other people not getting it (i.e. as rather condescending).

Oh and tell me (or anyone) to shush again and you will be taking a holiday from GT Planet, you don't have the mandate to tell others what to do and overall need to rein in your attitude.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I think your grasp of English may be the issue here, but that's doesn't come across as an apology on your part, but as apologizing for other people not getting it (i.e. as rather condescending).

Oh and tell me (or anyone) to shush again and you will be taking a holiday from GT Planet, you don't have the mandate to tell others what to do and overall need to rein in your attitude.

And you don't have the right to keep insisting on getting a reply from me here. I made a mistake posting in this thread and apologized. Move on.

My apology was a Brian apology, I'll give you that. I apologize for posting here. Clear?

 

[Scaff]

And you don't have the right to keep insisting on getting a reply from me here.

I'ven ot done so. You seem to be mistaking me commenting on your posts (which I am perfectly entitled to do so) with a demand for a reply.

I made a mistake posting in this thread and apologized. Move on.

My apology was a Brian apology, I'll give you that. I apologize for posting here. Clear?

For the last time stop trying to tell people what to do, your not a member of staff and don't have a mandate to do so, if people wish to comment on your posts, as long as they stick to the AUP then they are free to do so. If you don't want people to comment on your posts then don't post.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I'ven ot done so. You seem to be mistaking me commenting on your posts (which I am perfectly entitled to do so) with a demand for a reply.



For the last time stop trying to tell people what to do, your not a member of staff and don't have a mandate to do so, if people wish to comment on your posts, as long as they stick to the AUP then they are free to do so. If you don't want people to comment on your posts then don't post.

"They'll remain nameless for nameless reasons. Let's leave it at that."

You decided not to leave it at that, and asked me to name them. Isn't that you trying to tell me what to do? I'm confused because you seem to be genuinely upset.

edit

Really, what was I supposed to do when you asked me to name them despite me saying I don't want to? Should I have just ignored your post? If so, I'll start doing that. I personally think it's rude (or weak) to ignore people, that's why I just quote/respond.

 

[Scaff]

"They'll remain nameless for nameless reasons. Let's leave it at that."

You decided not to leave it at that, and asked me to name them. Isn't that you trying to tell me what to do? I'm confused because you seem to be genuinely upset.

edit

Really, what was I supposed to do when you asked me to name them despite me saying I don't want to? Should I have just ignored your post? If so, I'll start doing that. I personally think it's rude (or weak) to ignore people, that's why I just quote/respond.

You seem to be having a problem understanding how a discussion forum works. Just because you declare a topic ended doesn't make it so (only the staff have that mandate). You can state that you don't want to name things (in which case why did you raise them in the first place) as much as you want, that at no point means that other members have to stop asking you about them.

If you wish to simply post your view and close out any form of questions, debate or discussions then your in the wrong place, you need to go start a blog.

This has nothing to do with me being upset (a rather poor reading on your part in that regard) and more an utter failure by yourself to comprehend how a discussion forum works.

 

[BHRxRacer]

(in which case why did you raise them in the first place)

I wanted to see if someone on this forum would get it.

Anyway, point taken. No more opinion harvesting on this forum without a will to discuss them.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I wanted to see if someone on this forum would get it.

Anyway, point taken. No more opinion harvesting on this forum without a will to discuss them.

We're all so stupid, it's like being visited by some greater, cleverer being that disguises itself as a troll and just flails around in inexplicable arguments, harvesting as it goes.