Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

shafique wrote:As for you thinking that kids from larger families can't understand English and can't watch TV - that's really funny. But it does show that you've run out of cogent arguments now.

I wrote not about kids but about their immigrant parents, who have lack of entertainment, what disproportionaly enlarge their families.

How are larger families damaging the nation? I didn't see that in the statistics?

Don't put your words in my mouth. I said that definite minorities attract more benefits due to larger families and people from another ethnic groups don't want to pay their tax-money for that. That's why they reised the question. Do they have this right as tax-payers?

So now your latest theory is that lack of adequate TV programmes leads to large families. Nice one. (At least it is different from the Baroness saying it was about benefits! LOL )

As for whether recipients of benefits are entitled to benefits - to my knowledge, the UK system only pays out to those entitled to benefits. If you are there illegally or have applied for asylum, you do not get the same benefits as those legally in the UK. BM can perhaps clarify on the details.

(Your theory about TV programmes is a good one though - - and cutting benefits won't help IF your theory is right.)

Cheers,
Shafique

Sunshine, it's not only about spending time with children nowadays, unfortunately. Muslim women tend to sit at home on their backsides so more than likely these large families only have one income. How do they finance large families without the help of the taxpayer? I find it's the less well educated Muslim families who have the largest families. Doctors and the like appear to limit their children to two or three.
You say there is a need to have more children in the world. I tend to disagree. When they are churning out these kids, do they think about the future? How does the average family finance shed loads of kids through University with fees amounting to £9000 pa for some courses?

On slow news days we are subjected to pictures of children in Somalia with flies in their eyes. Why do they churn out kids and subject them to that life?

It's quality, not quantity.

BTW Illlegals cannot claim benefits, it's not so clear for asylum seekers. There are many rules and regulations covering this, but it's not out of the realms of possibility.

I agree it is not ONLY about spending time with kids these days - and I completely agree that quality and quantity is important. Just being in the house isn't enough.

I know many families who have more than 3 kids in the UK who are raising them well and not having to rely on benefits/handouts. A good number of them are sending their kids to private schools and all aspire to send the kids on to uni.

And yes, I do think that 'when they are churning out these kids' they are indeed thinking about the future.

I keep coming back to the wider issue that the UK does need more children and that overall the birth rate is falling.

The bigger issue is a reduction in working age population in the future, not the hype over the minority of the population that choose to have a larger family.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I know many families ...

And yes, I do think that ...

I keep coming back to the wider issue...

These set expressions do describe someone's belief, not proofs. I also can say that I know one family of immigrants from Armenia, whose kids (my son's classmates) don't speak Russian well because their mother is very keen in teaching them her "homeland" language and transfer the responsibility to learning Russian to school. Ironically it's the school with extended teaching of English. That's why those kids cannot learn neither English nor Russia together with Math and Science.

Anyway, I am glad that after losing any knowledge in Math and common sence at least your sence of humour remains intact. May be there is some hope.

You seem confused RC.

Are you arguing that presenting the examples of families in the UK than I know of is not relevant in this discussion? I don't recall saying that this was proof of any theory - indeed, I've been asking for evidence for the Baroness' theory and said I'd review the evidence if presented.

I HAVE presented links which show the extent of the imagined problem - and do know what I'm talking about when it comes to the so-called 'demographic timebomb' (it is my day-job).

I think it is good that you share your beliefs with us - they are indeed valid beliefs. It is interesting to hear what you say happens in Russia.

(Education of second generation immigrants is a slightly different topic - and I refer you to your previous comments about changing topics 'like eh' - and I suspect I may agree with many of your points... but would be interested again in seeing how big an issue it is in the context here. Remember in the UK we have had waves of immigrants - I know of vietnamese refugees for example and know how they fared after coming here, as well as Pakistani, East African Asians and indeed Mauritians etc etc. )

However, I've been specifically disputing the accusations and theory made in the OP. Thus far, no evidence has been produced to show she is basing her beliefs on anything rooted in reality.

The evidence actually shows that only a small minority of families in the UK have large numbers of children and that making a fuss over this seems irrelevant. Show me that there is a problem in reality (produce the evidence) rather than hypotheticals - and perhaps you'll have a valid argument.

I'm presenting my views based on my actual experience and awaiting evidence to support the Baroness' beliefs.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:You seem confused RC.

Are you arguing that presenting the examples of families in the UK than I know of is not relevant in this discussion? I don't recall saying that this was proof of any theory - indeed, I've been asking for evidence for the Baroness' theory and said I'd review the evidence if presented.

I HAVE presented links which show the extent of the imagined problem - and do know what I'm talking about when it comes to the so-called 'demographic timebomb' (it is my day-job).

I think it is good that you share your beliefs with us - they are indeed valid beliefs. It is interesting to hear what you say happens in Russia.

(Education of second generation immigrants is a slightly different topic - and I refer you to your previous comments about changing topics 'like eh' - and I suspect I may agree with many of your points... but would be interested again in seeing how big an issue it is in the context here. Remember in the UK we have had waves of immigrants - I know of vietnamese refugees for example and know how they fared after coming here, as well as Pakistani, East African Asians and indeed Mauritians etc etc. )

However, I've been specifically disputing the accusations and theory made in the OP. Thus far, no evidence has been produced to show she is basing her beliefs on anything rooted in reality.

The evidence actually shows that only a small minority of families in the UK have large numbers of children and that making a fuss over this seems irrelevant. Show me that there is a problem in reality (produce the evidence) rather than hypotheticals - and perhaps you'll have a valid argument.

I'm presenting my views based on my actual experience and awaiting evidence to support the Baroness' beliefs.

Cheers,
Shafique

Not everything is about YOUR grandios self!

Another failure of comprehension FD?

Did you want me to present someone else's views based on an imagined experience... ooops, isn't that something that others do when the preach about what others are imagined to believe?

But let me repeat - is there ANY evidence to back up the Baroness' belief that cutting benefits will reduce family sizes (or 'extra births' as she puts it)?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I know many families who have more than 3 kids in the UK who are raising them well and not having to rely on benefits/handouts. A good number of them are sending their kids to private schools and all aspire to send the kids on to uni.

And yes, I do think that 'when they are churning out these kids' they are indeed thinking about the future.

Cheers,
Shafique

I thought you said we had to stick to the real world sunshine?
A good number of your friends are sending their 3+ children to private schools? I remember when I used to send my elder daughters to a private school. It was around £3k plus per term then and that was years ago, plus there was the cost of all their uniforms and sports gear.Thankfully it was part of my ex husbands package that half the cost was met for us.
It's more likely to be around double that now for a decent senior school. All that X 3? You're looking at a cost of in excess of £30k a year to educate 3 children privately.
The average wage in the UK is supposed to be £26k pa.
Can I ask what your friends do for a living?

I'll give you the details of my Muslim friends in the UK (all either children of immigrants or first generation immigrants - and many come from large families themselves, as well has having larger families):

Those sending kids to private schools are professionals in banking, IT, law etc - those who aren't sending their kids to private schools are working but less well off financially. I can't see examples where children or society are being disadvantaged.

(But note, my circle of friends does include a couple of polo players and indeed on member of the House of Lords - and a fair number of us go shooting etc. )

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: Those sending kids to private schools are professionals in banking, IT, law etc

Bangladeshi?

Shafique, you are absolutely insane. Those people don't need any benefits to reise their children, as you said. The barroness spoke about another families, who use the benefits to make end meets. Your friends can send their kids to the boarding school like BM did and that institution would made from them respectable members of society even without any participation from parents.

He-he... and about blowing cheeks I do agree with FD. They could burst.

LOL - what is it with the hypotheticals and fantasies. Now you're speculating about whether the kids could be sent to boarding school etc. I can't see how that helps your argument - given that they aren't going to boarding school!

And what's with the stereotyping of Bangladeshis? Do you think they are all poor first generation immigrants? Here's a handy list - you'll see that there is a Baroness, a number of millionaires and even a Blue Peter presenter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Br ... ngladeshis
(You see, the above is what constitutes 'evidence' - you can ask BM about Blue Peter)

As I said though, if you do come across some real evidence to support the Baroness' view - let me know. I've read enough speculation and theorising in this thread to last a very long time.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I'll give you the details of my Muslim friends in the UK (all either children of immigrants or first generation immigrants - and many come from large families themselves, as well has having larger families):

Those sending kids to private schools are professionals in banking, IT, law etc - those who aren't sending their kids to private schools are working but less well off financially. I can't see examples where children or society are being disadvantaged.

(But note, my circle of friends does include a couple of polo players and indeed on member of the House of Lords - and a fair number of us go shooting etc. )

Cheers,
Shafique

Tally ho! LOL Well let's face it sunshine, I don't think the Peer was talking about your upper class (smirk) friends was she? She was talking about the likes who live in Salford not Surrey. You have lost all sense of reaon now.
I don't think anyone has a problem with people churning out loads of kids if they can self finance them, the OP was about people having kids and expecting the State to finance them via the benefit system.
No matter how much you would have us believe it doesn't happen, it does.

(What an interesting bunch of mates you have! I bet they're an absolute hoot to go down to the jolly old pub with, what?)

PMSL
Cheers
BM

You don't understand BM. Sir Shafique wrote that senceless post with the only goal to present us his powerfull and well-off friends from his "circle". It doesn't matter whether they are real or imaginary.

I'm not a doctor but it looks like superiority complex.

BM - did you speak to the Baroness or are you just sharing your opinion with us?

But I'm glad that my message is getting through. I made the point that having large families is not a recipe for depravation - and gave the examples above to illustrate that. RC was arguing that larger families leads to worse outcomes for the family - education wise etc.

The fact that many of these well off people themselves came from large families is further evidence that the theory doesn't stand scrutiny. (We should be all able to agree that these people who can afford private education are NOT having children because of benefits. My argument is that why isn't this also the case for those who are not as well off?)

As I keep requesting - I'd like to see what evidence there is out there to support the Baroness' view that cutting benefits will reduce the 'extra births'.

Speculating over whether RC's theories are valid or not is not helping anyone. I seem to have burst his bubble about 'bangladeshis' though - either that or he's trying to come up with another stereotype.

But that said, at least we are now narrowing down what you guys think the problem population is - it is those lower classes who need benefits to survive, I presume. The Child Benefit is payable to all - and as you say, those who can afford to look after their kids aren't a problem.

The OP said that the number of children was linked to Benefits - that hasn't been proven in any way though.

Dare I mention the feral underclass? Aren't they the ones you have a problem with too?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: But I'm glad that my message is getting through. I made the point that having large families is not a recipe for depravation - and gave the examples above to illustrate that. RC was arguing that larger families leads to worse outcomes for the family - education wise etc.

Shafique, you can speak any bull$hit but plaese don't put your words in my mouth. I was talking about larger families with lower than average income and have always emphasized on it. Don't play the full and drag one sentence and forget about other. Your post about the mates from your sandpit was way out.

Did you miss the part where I said that the well to do families came from larger families - and that many of them were large families of first-generation immigrants?

I understand your theory, I'm just asking for evidence that there is substance behind it. Larger families by themselves does not mean worse outcomes for the children or society, whether it is from low income families or otherwise. What is more significant is the interest (and perhaps sacrifices) the parents choose to make. That's my view.

But that's still not the point of the OP - what I'm challenging is her theory that immigrants are having children FOR benefits, and that reducing benefits will cut 'extra births'. So far, no evidence for this belief.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:BM - did you speak to the Baroness or are you just sharing your opinion with us?

Cheers,
Shafique

Have you been hit on the head by a coconut or something? The Baroness was talking about large Muslim families claiming benefits not your merchant banker friends.

So the Baroness is only having a go at poor Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants - the ones that are better off and have larger families - these immigrants are ok and aren't having kids for the benefits.

Hmm. You know, I re-read the OP and I couldn't quite see where she specified this. But, if it is the case - then the issue is even smaller than I first thought - given that she's now apparently only talking about a sub-section of the immigrants - those who have large families and are poor.

(My point is that the kids from these families may grow up to be the merchant bankers etc referred to - and we all seem to agree that there is nothing wrong with these fine, upstanding Muslim citizens and nothing wrong with them having large families either.)

Still, I'd like to see any evidence that cutting the benefits will reduce the 'extra births'.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:(My point is that the kids from these families may grow up to be the merchant bankers etc referred to - and we all seem to agree that there is nothing wrong with these fine, upstanding Muslim citizens and nothing wrong with them having large families either.)

Do you have any stat that there are more merchant bankers etc coming from Bangla larger families than from Indian smaller ones? As far as I understand you treat the child benefit as an direct or indirect investment to the future.

Are we now moving on to a new discussion?

The evidence I asked for was:

I'd like to see any evidence that cutting the benefits will reduce the 'extra births'.

If there isn't any - then we can indeed move on to the proportions of professionals coming from larger families. I note, again, that the Baroness in the OP is an Indian immigrant and herself comes from a large extended family - so coming from a large family didn't disadvantage her.

Given your obsession with Bangladeshis - did you look at the link I gave earlier listing rich and famous British Bangladeshis? Doesn't that show that your stereotype needs adjusting?

And yes, I do believe that benefits for children in the UK constitutes an investment for the future. What is the alternative - that it is a bad thing?

Edit: But don't say that I don't provide evidence when requested. The following shows that the Bangladeshi immigrants to the UK are following similar patterns to earlier immigrants in their social progression. Note particularly the better than average educational achievement. Previous waves of immigrants - from Hugenots, Jews, Irish, Pakistanis/East African Asians, Vietnamese and now the Bangladeshi immigrants followed similar patterns:

The younger generation who are receiving better education in comparison with their ancestors, are not very influenced by the business of the curry. Many of these people are now looking to have professional types of careers in the mainstream of British business. In the third and fourth generation of British Bangladeshis, are also to be involved with politics, increasing numbers of people are barristers. Also many are, doctors, IT and management specialists, teachers and working in the business. Notable British Bangladeshis in professional careers include, Iftekharul Islam - Citigroup macro-strategy managing director, Sham Ahmed - Mathworks managing director, Asif Ahmed - director of Asia International Group of UK Trade and Investment and many more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... ngladeshis

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:So the Baroness is only having a go at poor Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants - the ones that are better off and have larger families - these immigrants are ok and aren't having kids for the benefits.

Hmm. You know, I re-read the OP and I couldn't quite see where she specified this. But, if it is the case - then the issue is even smaller than I first thought - given that she's now apparently only talking about a sub-section of the immigrants - those who have large families and are poor.

(My point is that the kids from these families may grow up to be the merchant bankers etc referred to - and we all seem to agree that there is nothing wrong with these fine, upstanding Muslim citizens and nothing wrong with them having large families either.)

Still, I'd like to see any evidence that cutting the benefits will reduce the 'extra births'.

Cheers,
Shafique

Now I know you've lost the plot! She didn't mean child benefit! Numpty! She was refering to Income Support, a totally different benefit that average wage earning average sized families wouldn't qualify for.
She's refering to all the Pakistani and other families that continue to have large families when they can't afford it!
Get off your high horse for once! Who bloody cares about the others who knock kids out on piece but pay for them themselves.
Why ever a woman should want to have children every year till she's knackered is quite beyond me. It's no wonder most muslim women sit at home. They haven't got the energy, nor the brains, it would appear to limit their child bearing activities.

Why not be a man and take a bit of criticism dished out by one of your own?

Shafique, you told us that your day job is stats. Why wouldn't you give a couple of digits instead of a lot of blah blah blah...?

Red Chief wrote:Shafique, you told us that your day job is stats. Why wouldn't you give a couple of digits instead of a lot of blah blah blah...?

Exactly ! I've read through five pages of posts from windbag and you and yet to see anything the coroborates what the baroness has said in the OP. The Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrant families are having larger families ONLY because of extra dole they might recieve.

Remember neither your opinion or the baroness's counts as fact, no matter how many times it is repeated it does not morph into fact, it still stays just an opinion.

Like the time when shafique thought he could use statistics to show levels of Antisemitism in Europe, stats, logic, common sense and reason don't mix will for him.

Zonkers words keep echoing in my mind, you really are a shameless individual arn't you. LOL

patience wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041244/Polygamy-Investigation-Muslim-men-exploit-UK-benefits-system.html

Can't wait to hear how the white feral class is also guilty of collecting benefits.

I guess that the white feral class is entitled to collect benefits.

patience wrote:I guess that the white feral class is entitled to collect benefits.

And we will hear how those referenced in the article and discussed in this thread are entitled to the benefits as well. Enter Shaf..............

The difference is those white feral class aren't Muslims and are limited in how they can manipulate the system, if at all.