Well, the second generation are by far the largest group.

They contain by far the largest number of young men 18 to 30.

Thirdly the number in percentage terms that are radicalized is small.....But because the number of Muslims now in the country is now one in twenty (due to immigration and birth rates) the radicalization problem is significant and costly.

Mmmmm.....But this propaganda also comes from Islamic extremists themselves.

Also there were 1.6 million Muslims in England and Wales in 2001, or 3 per cent of the population....That's according to the census.

By 2011 the Muslim population had grown to 2.7 million people or 4.8 per cent of the population.

By 2050 the Islamic population will....immigration rates being equal, continued rate of emigration by non Muslims being equal......probably be between 15% and 20%.

As usual many on the left won't address the obvious problems......They don't speak out.....partly because of the ridiculous culture of name calling.

Being an agnostic myself I'm not a fan of such large scale religious growth......I want a secular state with rationality at its core.

All I see ahead is more polarization.

Mores the pity. The older I get the more I start to think this might very well be a necessity. Ever since I watched 'Utopia' I've become somewhat swung by the argument that the unethical decision to restrict reproduction might be necessity for human survival as a species.

Ultimately, you'd hope it would be voluntary, but the idea presented of allowing a random selection of the population to be fertile seems the least 'cruel' outcome for future generations.

Good luck with that one my good man.......It's about as likely to happen as my musing on restricting the immigration of religious types.

Still, you're right to highlight this issue as it's a coming time bomb that no one wants to face.

Tis a debating point for me though legal.

Precisely,a debating topic,but not pertinent to this particular topic.

First generation immigration integration is a problem....The issue is that with large constant immigration intakes it's a problem that remains.

Second generation integration is far easier for obvious reasons but with some cultures for unfortunate isolationary and racial reasons that integration is less uneven.....For example an excellent English born student with Indian parents that I taught always thought of himself as British and not English....Even though he himself was English by birthright.....Certain cultural inputs pushed against his acceptance....He was essentially accepting the BNP racial view of nationality.

I think it's too easy to get carried away here with 'integration'...Like most things it's a reality that can be plotted on a scale.....On that large scale, lets not fool ourselves that populations (with a choice) are falling over themselves to live outside of their own self identified communities.....When that happens it's normally due to other reasons (economic and so on)....Though I recognise that a sub group are quite happy.

Unclear why whether a person thinks of themselves as English or British has any relevance to the issue here.

Here legal I think you're ignoring the many cohesion issues dotted around the country.

It isn't just the nutters....It's ghettoization and isolation and a religion that many (not all by any means) practice as a barrier.

Doesn't invalidate what I wrote

Sod that.....There are no apologies for what a democratically elected government does.....They are British/English and have the right to as much non power as the rest of us sados.

I think "sod that" in terms of encapsulating your attitude rather sums up why we are poles apart on this one.

It sounds very much to me as if you feel that 'behaving correctly' is something that the Muslim community have to be encouraged to do.

To me there are no excuses for not doing the right thing.

3. relates as much to the Government being willing to take on Saudi-backed spreading of Wahhabi doctrine and the Government's unwillingness to upset the Saudis.

4.OK,lets offer no support whatsoever to any group in the country fighting against something we abhor, whether muslim "radicalism", female circumcision, racism, or fascism. Very good plan of action, Sterling. And then when those groups find it more of an uphill struggle, you will be perfectly placed to criticise them even more.

I can truly say I totally and utterly disagree with the point here. No single group in this country should affect the decision making of our parliament.....You are suggesting that the fear of radical Muslims should dictate policy decisions.

That isn't a country I believe in.

You lump 5 and 6 together. They are separate points. You disagree with 5?!

RE 6,It is perfectly valid as a general principle for governments to take into account domestic factors when considering foreign policy. You are an admirer of the USA? It, for example, does so all the time... Far from suggesting "radical muslims" dictate foreign policy, I suggest a little more thought about the domestic implications is not only in keeping with the attributes of a liberal democracy, but might also marginalise the very "radical muslims" you refer to.

Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Oct 2014 12.27pm)

I can truly say I totally and utterly disagree with the point here. No single group in this country should affect the decision making of our parliament.....You are suggesting that the fear of radical Muslims should dictate policy decisions.

@Stirling......
But it has, just as it has in the US. The powers that be 'create fear'. This artificial fear (The War On Terror, really?) is a trump card when pushing through yet more ridiculous laws to 'control us' under the weak guise of 'protection'.
You refer to a 'single group' but which 'single group' has done more damage and has had the greater effect?
Tony Blair is still a free man, and an extremely wealthy one at that

Edited by TUX (06 Oct 2014 7.24pm)