...and judging by all the couples walking through Croydon on a Saturday i would say there are a lot of illegal men entering South London Country.

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

What a strange comment.

You are aware the Home Office is based here?

In English a queue doesn’t have a gender. I have never stood and watched the people in the queue. Why do you and what is your finding? May I borrow your click counter to do my own check?

I don’t understand the point so not really

If a part of the point is Croydon is chock full of male illegal immigrants that would surprise me. It’s the last place I would choose were I one. Right under the noses of the immigration officers.

Lefties have never bothered to allow the truth to cloud an argument.

If the cohort of people living in the UK aged 18-40 is only skewed 52% male to 48% female, that is a catastrophe.

What are you witnessing in the couples walking past you everyday ? How often have you seen a local bloke with a new-arrival woman from places like Syria ? About as rare as a Hen's tooth ?

And how about the other way around ?

Edited by PalazioVecchio (04 Jan 2019 1.14pm)

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Yeah, but those differences aren't related to any of this Maple.

On average from the statistics I've seen, when not interfered with, there are 105 males for every 100 females born.

This is nature compensating for the differences in general male/female behaviour where the male takes more risks resulting in more early death.

Essentially as a set generation ages this difference equalises out.

However, in many non western countries there is also a deliberate cultural intervention in favour of males over females which leads to a higher proportion of men.....In China I think this misbalance goes as high as 12 percent.....and it obviously creates problems for the next generation which China has been struggling with for a long time.

However, none of this is related to the realities of young males being significantly over representated in economic migrants.

Whether or not someone has a prejudice or not is neither here nor there. What matters is....as in all things...what is the end result. How close to the truth is someone's 'prejudice' as opposed to someone else's.....because everybody has them.

For example, you made claims about IQ tests and how a certain group had possibly slanted them. How accurate is that? Personally I don't think the claim holds water, because not all IQ tests are the same but the results on who scores better correlate to expectations on intelligence ....but if I wanted to be proof certain I'd look into it again with an open mind.

If you have an honest actor....because that honesty is central....an honest actor can use statistics and honest logical deductions on the data to justify a position or not....and still understand and be honest over statistics not being the perfect conveyor of reality depending upon what questions you are asking.

However, all this also requires an individual to be honest about what they are claiming.....as it also requires anyone paraphrasing that person to be honest about their claims.

Unfortunately the number of honest actors are severely limited.....Not necessarily because we lack a number of conscientious people....but because honesty and policy have rarely been connected and hence required.

People are less interested in the truth if it doesn't support their positions. They are interested in their agenda or political tribe winning.

In a sense, that's neither a good nor bad thing because essentially much of what is 'better' comes down to worldview and what matters more to an individual is personal....but it doesn't get you nearer to any underlying truths....that's for sure.

Edited by Stirlingsays (05 Jan 2019 6.05am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)