Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

I think the white Brits are already a minority in London itself (city proper).

The only comfort I can offer the white Brits, is that we, white yanks, will be outnumbered much sooner than them. As soon as 10 years from today!!!!!

A fast changing world ....., isn't it!!???


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -2066.html

I read this earlier. It's absolutely shocking! They really, really have to put a major cap on immigration.

Drat - our (non-white Brits) cunning plan has been exposed.

We were lulling our white compatriots into a sense of complacency by getting you to eat curries and foods that actually have some taste (whilst all the while having pizzas, fish and chips etc ourselves) .. and we were hoping you wouldn't notice we were engineering the take-over of Britain to the point where in 50 years time there will be 'only' 40 million white Brits and slightly more non-white Brits!

(But to do that, we have to rely on white Brits going to Dubai etc... if that doesn't happen, we have to wait for 90 years for our goals to be achieved!).

Mountains, molehills folks - mountains and molehills.



Cheers,
Shafique

At least one of them has a good sense of humour. Its just a pity you can't join me for a pint in the local Shaf.

LOL well let's face it, the entire nationa is going to end up brown anyway. Bit isn't this exactly what Enoch Powell warned against?

shafique wrote:Drat - our (non-white Brits) cunning plan has been exposed.

We were lulling our white compatriots into a sense of complacency by getting you to eat curries and foods that actually have some taste (whilst all the while having pizzas, fish and chips etc ourselves) .. and we were hoping you wouldn't notice we were engineering the take-over of Britain to the point where in 50 years time there will be 'only' 40 million white Brits and slightly more non-white Brits!

(But to do that, we have to rely on white Brits going to Dubai etc... if that doesn't happen, we have to wait for 90 years for our goals to be achieved!).

Mountains, molehills folks - mountains and molehills.



Cheers,
Shafique

Aah so that’s your plan!!, reminds me of a low budget film from the 70’s East is East set around an Immigrant Pakistani who owned a Fish and Chip Shop in Salford, Manchester, featuring Om Puri, Linda Bassett and Archie Panjabi, a brilliant film and a cult classic today, I believe the sequel is to be released later in the Year, West is West.

From IMDb, In 1971 Salford fish-and-chip shop owner George Khan expects his family to follow his strict Pakistani Muslim ways. But his children, with an English mother and having been born and brought up in Britain, increasingly see themselves as British and start to reject their father's rules on dress, food, religion, and living in general.

But, and back on topic, the article in question isn’t just about Black Mooslims is it? There are White Mooslims too!

Benwj - I've spent many a session in pubs with mates and each time my non-drinking habits have been reinforced! (But I do object to the cost of non-Alcoholic drinks.. but that's another issue!)

Chocs - Powell predicted that:

In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man

Not sure that the Blacks have achieved this status yet... what do you think?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Drat - our (non-white Brits) cunning plan has been exposed.

We were lulling our white compatriots into a sense of complacency by getting you to eat curries and foods that actually have some taste (whilst all the while having pizzas, fish and chips etc ourselves) .. and we were hoping you wouldn't notice we were engineering the take-over of Britain to the point where in 50 years time there will be 'only' 40 million white Brits and slightly more non-white Brits!

(But to do that, we have to rely on white Brits going to Dubai etc... if that doesn't happen, we have to wait for 90 years for our goals to be achieved!).

Mountains, molehills folks - mountains and molehills.



Cheers,
Shafique

What are you a multicultural activist now? Why on earth has this argument caught ur fancy Shafique?

What's the difference? From a non-racist point of view.

MCL - I'm surprised you're surprised that I'd take an interest in this.

I can think of a few reasons, off the top of my head:

1. I'm British
2. I'm non-white
3. I'm an actuary (I deal with demographics and stats)
4. I can read and interpret facts
5. I realise that 2066 less 2010 is 56 years
6. I routinely point out scare-mongering stories for what they are.
7. There's a pretty good chance that the loons won't be able to spin this story and blame Islam ...(but never underestimate the power of spin!)
...

LOL

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Benwj - I've spent many a session in pubs with mates and each time my non-drinking habits have been reinforced! (But I do object to the cost of non-Alcoholic drinks.. but that's another issue!)
Chocs - Powell predicted that:

In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man

Not sure that the Blacks have achieved this status yet... what do you think?
Cheers,
Shafique

I object to the cost of any drink in a pub these days!

Shaf, Powell also predicted, and from the same speech, that;

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.
There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

I'm pretty damn sure they've achieved these figures, what do you think?

Regards

Dillon - yes, the non-white immigrants have indeed exceeded the forecasts Powell cited.

However his fears of the Blackman holding a whip etc (and at the time, there was fear of the West Indian immigration remember), and the rivers of blood etc haven't come true.

No one was having an issue with Powell's forecasts - just his predictions that it would cause friction/rivers of blood.

As for the prediction that in over half a century the whites may be of equal numbers to the non-white Brits - I refer you to my point about mountains and molehills. The erosion of British values has more to fear from the growing feral underclass (single parents, out of work, benefit-sponging whites who don't know anyone who have ever worked etc) - than they have of the descendants of non-white immigrants. I mean most of the non-whites will be 4th or 5th generation by then and there will be a large 'brown' contingent of mixed race!

Just my HO though - happy to hear your views.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:The erosion of British values has more to fear from the growing feral underclass (single parents, out of work, benefit-sponging whites who don't know anyone who have ever worked etc) - than they have of the descendants of non-white immigrants.

feral underclass, classic!

shafique wrote:Dillon - yes, the non-white immigrants have indeed exceeded the forecasts Powell cited.
However his fears of the Blackman holding a whip etc (and at the time, there was fear of the West Indian immigration remember), and the rivers of blood etc haven't come true.
No one was having an issue with Powell's forecasts - just his predictions that it would cause friction/rivers of blood.
As for the prediction that in over half a century the whites may be of equal numbers to the non-white Brits - I refer you to my point about mountains and molehills. The erosion of British values has more to fear from the growing feral underclass (single parents, out of work, benefit-sponging whites who don't know anyone who have ever worked etc) - than they have of the descendants of non-white immigrants. I mean most of the non-whites will be 4th or 5th generation by then and there will be a large 'brown' contingent of mixed race!
Just my HO though - happy to hear your views.
Cheers,
Shafique

Well, the Powell quote I referred to, was about Commonwealth Immigrants of which there are many different colours, including white ones.

Powell’s quote of ‘In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.’ literally speaking I would agree with you that this isn’t the case, but metaphorically speaking, which I believe was his intention, I would agree with him and I believe it was the Race Relations Act that was consequently passed as an act of parliament later that Year in 1968, which provided ‘the whip hand’, The act of course was the subject matter of his speech.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood.

The speech became known as ‘The Rivers of Blood’ speech and he was widely misquoted in the National and International press as claiming ‘Britain’s streets will flow with Rivers of Blood’ etc, what he said was again metaphoric.

As for your comments regarding the OP article, the article references White Brits against the Immigrant population and not, Non-White Brits, as you stated, all Immigrants aren’t necessarily ‘Non-White’. And while it appears some forum members find racist comment ‘classic’ I take exception to your comment of ‘single parents, out of work, benefit-sponging whites who don't know anyone who have ever worked etc)’ surely you don’t believe this to be an exclusively ‘White’ profession?

With regard to mountains and molehills, I suggest you practice what you preach and look past the dross in the OP article from another sleazy British Tabloid and see the article for exactly what it is.

Regards

The OP and the Sun Article all refer to 'white Britons' :

The expert went on: "On those assumptions the 'white British' population would decline to 45 million (59 per cent of the total) by 2051.

"Were the assumptions to hold, the 'white British' population of Britain would become the minority after about 2066. It's a milestone that would be passed much earlier in younger age-groups."

I'm pretty sure that Michael Portillo or Michael Howard and their descendants will be viewed as 'white British' whilst the descendants of Dianne Abbot will be not be classed as 'white British' (Portillo is of Spanish stock and Howard's father was Romanian - Abbot's parents are West Indian originally)

So, in 50 years time (if 'white Brits' keep emigrating) the numbers of white Brits will be exceeded by the non-white Brits. I see nothing in the article or quotes that suggests he isn't talking about race when using the term 'white British'. If he mean't 'culturally British' or something else - he did a good job in hiding this fact.

As for the 'feral underclass' - I'm afraid it is the right wing press in the UK that has it in for these people - and yes, they are primarily white. The label 'assylum seeker' or such like is reserved for the non-white poor in the UK.

And yes, I am aware of Powell's classical reference being commonly misquoted. We'll have to agree to disagree as to what he might have meant in the speech in 1968 (and indeed, looking back at it again - the 'whip reference' was actually a quote from someone he met, not his prediction).

I really do hope I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill by pointing out that it is a molehill (the prediction that in 56 or 90 years time the 'white British' may be as numerous as non-white British)!

Cheers,
Shafique

Dillon wrote:[And while it appears some forum members find racist comment ‘classic’ I take exception to your comment of ‘single parents, out of work, benefit-sponging whites who don't know anyone who have ever worked etc)’ surely you don’t believe this to be an exclusively ‘White’ profession?

I was going to say that luckily we are in dubai where there are no feral underclass to cry discrimination, but obvioulsy I was wrong.

Shaf's comment may have been racist, which is why I didn't include the reference to whites, but i agree that this is a major problem that the UK needs to deal with.

So, TWO racist bigot's on the forum then?

I live in Dubai and Im not white any more except parts that the sun dont reach.

Where do I stand in this democracy?

Dillon wrote:So, TWO racist bigot's on the forum then?

You haven't visited the politics forum recently, have you?

The 'feral underclass' is what the right-wing press call the white poor British segment of society that they look down their noses at. Rednecks and trailer trash are the equivalent terms over the pond. Both are indeed stereotypes and are indeed racial.

I'd still argue that the projected increase of this underclass is a greater cause of concern to 'British values' than the descendants on non-Caucasian immigrants to the UK. Indeed, I'd also argue that Britishness itself is changing - but again, that's straying from the OP which was talking about the proportion of 'White British' people within the population in 56 years time.

Cheers,
Shafique

Dillon wrote:So, TWO racist bigot's on the forum then?

Thats right.
But I'm am planning on converting to a feral underclass, just as soon as I return to the UK with no money .

shafique wrote:

Dillon wrote:So, TWO racist bigot's on the forum then?

You haven't visited the politics forum recently, have you?

The 'feral underclass' is what the right-wing press call the white poor British segment of society that they look down their noses at. Rednecks and trailer trash are the equivalent terms over the pond. Both are indeed stereotypes and are indeed racial.

I'd still argue that the projected increase of this underclass is a greater cause of concern to 'British values' than the descendants on non-Caucasian immigrants to the UK. Indeed, I'd also argue that Britishness itself is changing - but again, that's straying from the OP which was talking about the proportion of 'White British' people within the population in 56 years time.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique, your efforts as a cunning linguist are diminishing your credibility, you are selective in what you choose to respond to, and as usual, have taken the discussion off topic and on to your own preferred theoretical scenarios.

The OP article was about British Whites and the Immigrant Population and not British Non-Whites as you would like to think, The racist comment of ‘single parents, out of work, benefit-sponging whites who don't know anyone who have ever worked’ was posted by you, not a right wing publication.

Hole, dig, stop?

Hole, dig, stop? LMAO!!!

I am reminded of a story:

A white South African immigrant gets a job working as a conductor on a London double decker bus. One day he is forced upstairs by the sound of a heated argument at the front of the bus.

He finds a typical white British businessman in pin-striped suit, briefcase and rolled umbrella, having a huge row with a black dreadlocked Rastafarian guy about the last available seat. Trying to calm down the situation he steps between them and gets both of the ranting passengers to take a deep breath and tell him what the problem is.

The businessman says "I have been riding this bus for the last 10 years and I always sit in this seat, as a naturally born Englishman its my right to sit here, but this damn nig-nog took my place!"
The Rasta takes a swing at him but is restrained by the conductor and says "Listen blahd clat, ah wuz born 'ere, I pays mah taxes 'ere an no damn honky is goin' teh trow me outta dis heah seat!"

The Saarfie sighs and stands the two protagonists apart saying "Listen, I come from a country where apartheit used to segregate human beings purely by dint of skin colour. I came to terms with this and have a simple solution: I see everyone as green."

The black and the white guys stop and think about this for a while and realise that their argument is purely racially based. Hanging their heads in shame, they agree to shake hands and let the conductor settle the argument.

"Thats better!" he says, "Now....









Light greens at the front....dark greens at the back!!!"



Knight

Love it!! This is what is missing on DF - humor!!! Thanks for that DK.

People shouldn't bring up skin color in these types of stories, it's good material for the loons to run interference with as any objection to Britain's current immigration policies is simply a 'racist' matter as already demonstrated by the loon on this thread.

Because the UK does not have the history of immigration that the US does, I think the British people should be able to decide who they want coming into their country.

Britain has gone out of its way to assimilate immigrants probably better than any other European nation, but I don't think most British citizens are satisfied with the way a sizable amount of immigrants have behaved since they've arrived.

Since the British did give open immigration and multiculturalism a chance, I think enough time has passed for them to decide to continue on this route or change course and follow a sensible policy where immigration is restricted, not all countries, and therefore immigrants, are 'equal', and immigrants are expected to play their own role in joining British society, rather than have Britain and British citizens bend over backwards for them.

lol brits are always complaining

event horizon wrote:Because the UK does not have the history of immigration that the US does, I think the British people should be able to decide who they want coming into their country.

Since the British did give open immigration and multiculturalism a chance, I think enough time has passed for them to decide to continue on this route or change course and follow a sensible policy where immigration is restricted, not all countries, and therefore immigrants, are 'equal', and immigrants are expected to play their own role in joining British society, rather than have Britain and British citizens bend over backwards for them.

I can't and won't speak for the UK, but since your brought up the US I will have a say.

What you see below is the oath that everyone takes upon given citizenship.

I hereby declare, on oath,

•that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

•that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

•that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

•that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law;

•that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;

•that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;

•and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

Then they stand on the ground of the very country that has welcomed them and declare their own war against the US, denounce the US, demonstrate against the US, all for the country that they left and think the US should make things better - so that they can go "home" to a better life.

Many do jobs where it is a cash=flow business, where they claim the least amount possible on their income tax returns, if they file any.

The don't volunteer for military service.

They qualify for every subsidiary that the government created for them - not American-born citizens.

They send money "home". Home is the US, not where they came from.

The US lets them retain the passports of the country they came from, giving them dual citizenship.

Then there are the 20 million illegal immigrants, who by virtue of being illegal should not have "rights", but the US gives them rights. First thing on the agenda: have a baby. Baby is a US citizen. US lets illegal parents live in the US because the baby is a citizen. Baby receives government benefits from the day it is born. There was talk about having illegals decide to leave their child(ren) behind and return to their country, or take their child(ren) with them and leave. The immigrants didn't like that option and those that proposed were seen as being bad people for even suggesting a choice.

Let's not forget those that are inbetween who hold "Permanent Residency Cards", once known as the "Green Card". 50,000 PRCs are issued every year for people - around the world - who were the lucky winners in the US green card lottery. This is issued for 10 years and they don't have to be in the US to get it, they just need to send in an application, which is selected randomly. And here's the bonus: the winner gets to bring their families to the US to live, work (sure they do) and study in the US. How easy is that???

Every so often, because of the the government having lost control of the illegal immigration problem, they give away citizenship. Yup, live in the US illegally, don't pay taxes, abuse the medical system - because you can - and wait until the the US announces the "Big Giveaway". What they are giving away is the United States!!!

Dubai Knight wrote:Light greens at the front....dark greens at the back!!!"



Knight

LOL. welcome back DK. Things have been getting a bit heated in your absence man.

^DK - nice, LOL.


Dillon: If I'm alive in 56 years time, and say Dianne Abbot is alive - will we be termed 'white British' or not? We are both English born. The OP used the term 'White Britons' - I presumed that the contrast was with the non-white Britons and other non-Britons that would possibly make Britain in 50 years time.

I used the term feral underclass as it is used in the press (just google it) - i.e. to describe the white underclass that is wild and displays un-British behaviour. These guys and their descendants will be part of the 'White British' group of the OP. I'm describing a particular group of society that happens to be white and making the point that they pose a greater risk to 'Britishness' than 3rd or 4th generation immigrants who tend to be more British than the British - IMHO.

And just before I put down my spade - I wasn't saying that the characteristics of the 'feral underclass' aren't to be found in other racial groups. They are - but they are called 'asylum seekers' in the press (or just 'Morrocans' if they live in Holland). But for the purposes of my argument, and in the context of the OP which was talking about 'White Britons' and Britishness etc - I stand by my example.


Now.. don't get me started on the subject of Chavs!


Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf, now you're just repeating yourself, nothing has changed from my last post;

Your efforts as a cunning linguist are diminishing your credibility, you are selective in what you choose to respond to, and as usual, have taken the discussion off topic and on to your own preferred theoretical scenarios.

The OP article was about British Whites and the Immigrant Population and not British Non-Whites as you would like to think, The racist comment of ‘single parents, out of work, benefit-sponging whites who don't know anyone who have ever worked’ was posted by you, not a right wing publication.

Hole, dig, stop? too late