Interesting that those who comment on types of crime being perpetrated by certain racial groups are branded racist just for pointing out any correlation. And a person who points out that those who repress those who point these facts out... are themselves racist!

Also intriguing the way this has been done on this very thread by the usual posters from their perceived moral high ground with such a casual waive of the hand. Symptomatic of the fact that this is a problem that the political elite will refuse to address. The very person who critiqued the OPs book by saying it is EDF with better words is the very person who would say that it is racist reporting to refer to ethnicity and/or the religion of those who have committed the terrorist atrocities of recent years. It's bonkers really, isn't it?

Like it or not, if someone is seeking to scam your mum through some computer fraud, the voice on the end of the line will doubtless be from the Indian sub-continent. An e-mail urging you to allow a foreign "prince" to deposit large sums of money into your bank account will probably be from a person of Nigerian origin. Child trafficking, identity theft and credit card and tax fraud are all crimes where a preponderance of the offenders hail from certain groups.

Solution: target those groups to ensure better education and prevention.

Reality: bury head in sand as to so target is to be "racist".

I have worried for some time that there will be a populist back-lash from the vast majority of people who live in the West. It is already happening. And as our relative dominance in the world dwindles this is likely to get worse; and place multiculturalism in grave peril.

Time to wake up?

I'm afraid it is you that is mistaken and need to face the facts; the actual boom (or more accurately booms) in births in the UK actually occurred both pre and post war and again throughout the 60s. The birth rate fell in the late 70s and throughout the 80s.

The reason that immigrants were encouraged in the 50s and 60s was that there was virtually full employment
(less than 500,000 unemployed until the mid 70s) and some jobs were difficult to fill, such as public transport, nursing etc. Nothing to do with declining births, quite the opposite in fact. Many of these baby boom children couldn't yet fill vacancies, of course, we were still being educated. And if the immigrants you refer to were having more babies as you say, how come the birth rate fell from 74/75 onwards until recent years, when it has increased again?

You really do try to twist facts to suit your argument, rather like the so called "author" of the book in question.

Pointedly, what cannot be disputed is that the baby boom generations are living longer, therefore the percentage of Muslims in the general population will not increase by any appreciable margin for many decades, however much it doesn't suit your agenda!

I used to be immortal

I very much do understand how it works, perhaps you may have not understood (or chosen not to understand) my point?

As an example; if one million people are born in the UK in a year and one million die, the population numbers are stable (discounting any immigration/emigration).

If one million are born the next year but there are only 500,000 deaths, the population increases by 500,000.

So, by older non-Muslims not dying in far greater number than there are Muslim children being born each year, the percentage of Muslims to non Muslims is quite likely to slightly fall even if the Muslim birthrate is higher than the non-Muslim rate.

I used to be immortal

Yep. As I predicted. The changing the argument bit.

Now pay attention.

One more time.

The population of Britain would have begun to fall without mass immigration and its effect on birthrate even though the population was still rising slowly.

It is a delayed but inevitable reaction to a consistantly falling birthrate. 'White' people are still not having enough kids to sustain the population.

Jesus.

Forget the book. This is accepted fact. Old people don't have kids. Therefore, living longer does not impact much on population increase in the long term. The overriding factor is the birth rate. No births, no people. Without new people replacing old ones the population drops over time. Think about it please.

Do you understand now?