This post has been merged from a topic called 'BBC fake news - Tommy Robinson' by Midlands Eagle

Maybe, but as it was a very long time ago I doubt whether anyone really knows. Apocryphal stories are like that. The point remains whatever version is true.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

This post has been merged from a topic called 'BBC fake news - Tommy Robinson' by Midlands Eagle

Where on earth do you get that idea? That the world's population is expected to go on increasing it is forecast to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 up by 2 billion from today's level. So although significant it an increase of around 25% in 30 years from now and not the more than doubling in the near future than you claim. After that, whilst no-one obviously really knows, it is generally expected to level out. With proper co-operation and planning the world can handle those numbers through the use of technology and greater efficiency. This, for me anyway, is not the biggest worry. Climate change is of more concern combined with a growing shortage of water in certain regions.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

This post has been merged from a topic called 'BBC fake news - Tommy Robinson' by Midlands Eagle

From the UN, that's where! Where are you getting your doubled suggestions from?

[Link]

They also forecast that by 2100 growth will have slowed markedly, peak at around 11 million and then stabilise.

No country which claims to be a functioning, caring democracy could show it's face to the world if it refused to accept it's share of refugees. Would you seriously turn away people seeking refuge from war or famine?

Would you also deny the entry of spouses of British citizens, or their children, just because they happened to hold a foreign passport? The international ramifications of such a policy doesn't bear thinking about. That would exclude everybody who meets and marries someone abroad from bringing their family back here. Splitting families is not a healthy idea.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

This post has been merged from a topic called 'BBC fake news - Tommy Robinson' by Midlands Eagle

2050 is only 30 years. The global population will climb well after that. Your figure is not the leveling out point.

I would most certainly refuse to accept refugees. The flow will be never ending and increasing in number. You are a fool if you think we can keep taking refugees and maintain our living standards and essential resources into the future.

The whole world cannot exist at the level of the West. The world will not sustain itself as it is now. The only choices are to reduce the World population drastically before it reaches critical levels or allow all our living standards to drop to the level of the poorest.

This post has been merged from a topic called 'BBC fake news - Tommy Robinson' by Midlands Eagle

You do post some rubbish!

We can agree that 2050 is only 30 years away. That's obvious. You claim was that the world population would increase to 15 to 20 million in a few years, which is double what the UN say will happen by 2050. You then say it will "climb well above that" because 2050 isn't the "levelling point". It might not be but if it will only reach 10.7 billion in another 50 years it means the rate of growth will markedly decline. I asked you where you got your figures so we can see if they are more authoritative than the UN. An answer has not been given.

So if we refuse to accept refugees who else will take our share? How do you think they will feel about that? Would they want to do business with such a country? Or do you plan to let the innocent, including many women and children, face death from war or starvation because you refused to help?

The whole world does not want to exist at the same standard as the west. Some do, but some just want enough food, water and security to live their own lives, in their own ways.

The world can certainly sustain itself as it does now. By harnessing change rather than fighting it and harvesting all it's benefits we can use it to provide all we need. Science and technology will provide the answers. The use of such things as GM to produce drought resistant crops, higher yields and disease resistance will ensure we get much more from the land and oceans. We must do that whilst combating climate change which more certainly has been impacted by man whose contribution to it must be curtailed. This can only be done on a global scale and countries like the UK need to be at the forefront as the leaders, both in making the argument and taking the necessary action.

Scare mongering about the future level of the world population being the reason why we need to limit immigration now is disingenuous nonsense. We need to ensure we manage immigration and ensure we develop the necessary resources to make sure no-one is disadvantaged. We need to ensure that all new immigrants intend to respect British culture and not seek to interfere with it. They need to understand that British law applies to all without any exceptions.

Exactly how do you think we should reduce the world population, which is, as I have shown, unnecessary anyway?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

This post has been merged from a topic called 'BBC fake news - Tommy Robinson' by Midlands Eagle

It basically says we should all be equal.
Now there isnt enough to make us equally rich.
So they would like to make us equally poor.
Re. Venezuela and socialist ideals.
Cosmic really; but just for the young antifa and politically correct wallies floating around I would s****** once they realise the s*** coming to them.
Then realise they chose badly.