Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

The UK's first female Asian peer has used a debate in the Lords to criticise Pakistani and Bangladeshi families for having too many children.

Baroness Flather suggested people in some minority communities had a large number of children in order to be able to claim more benefits.

The peer, born in Lahore before the partition of India, said the issue did not apply to families of Indian origin.


The cross-bencher said benefit cuts could help to discourage extra births.

Baroness Flather, speaking during a debate on the government's welfare changes, said: "The minority communities in this country, particularly the Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis have a very large number of children and the attraction is the large number of benefits that follow the child.

"Nobody likes to accept that, nobody likes to talk about it because it is supposed to be very politically incorrect."

The 67-year-old said that immigrant families must stop having lots of children "as a means of improving the amount of money they receive or getting a bigger house."

Indians are 'different'

The former Tory peer also claimed Indian families had a different mentality to Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities in the UK.

"Indians have fallen into the pattern here," she told peers. "They do not have large families because they are like the Jews of old. They want their children to be educated.

This is the other problem - there is no emphasis on education in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi families."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14909062

What is thought by the majority of the English people is now being aknowledged by Asians themselves.

just a question, where have you been while UK was colonizing these countries? to understand ( understanding means you will have to use your brain, sorry ... ) what exactly is happening and even more to find a solution rather than keep crying, read and understand history, may be 1 generation before you, you aren't 70 yet, are you auntie?

BUt who cares what she says right ? After all she is a, as wind bag put it a "foreigner" herself, just like Baroness Warsi. She's not British, why should anyone listen to Flathers ?

Exactly! Who cares about her at all. - - She's desperate to express her hatred and racism.
Or else, just a wind bag

We have the similar problem in Russia but it was resolved in rather effective way. To support demography Russian government gives some subsidy to families only for the second and the third kid but for the next kids nothing because European (Slavic) families rarely have more than 2 kids. In contrast, some minorities like Chechens follow opposite pattern with 10-12 kids in the average family and they also are not very keen in education.

Mahmoud04 wrote:just a question, where have you been while UK was colonizing these countries? to understand ( understanding means you will have to use your brain, sorry ... ) what exactly is happening and even more to find a solution rather than keep crying, read and understand history, may be 1 generation before you, you aren't 70 yet, are you auntie?

I'm just posting what the Asian MP said Mahmoud. Don't shoot the messanger.

-- Tue Sep 20, 2011 8:52 pm --

Red Chief wrote:We have the similar problem in Russia but it was resolved in rather effective way. To support demography Russian government gives some subsidy to families only for the second and the third kid but for the next kids nothing because European (Slavic) families rarely have more than 2 kids. In contrast, some minorities like Chechens follow opposite pattern with 10-12 kids in the average family and they also are not very keen in education.

That's a very good idea RC. I think it would be most beneficial to our economy if we adopted the same stance.
I'm not a big believer in the Child Benefit system we have in the UK. We are given £80 a month for each child, regardless of your income, although that will change next year and withdrawn from a family if one wage earner earns over £45,000pa.
The Income Support system pays families based on the number of children they have, so it stands to reason that some will see having a large family as a means to an end.
Families on income support living in central London can claim up to £100,000pa in housing benefit to pay rent on a property they would never be able to afford to live in, in a million years, if they worked. So, esentially, they are in a benefit trap.
Universal Credits will change all this when introduced in the next couple of years, limiting the amount of benefit a family can claim to £26,000, which is the average yearly income for a family in the UK.
Of course if they have loads of kids then they will be still be paid extra, so the Government still hasn't got it quite right.
Benefits should only be paid for a perod of time, IMO, to help families who genuinely fall on hard times, and never for the long term.

-- Tue Sep 20, 2011 8:56 pm --

symmetric wrote:Exactly! Who cares about her at all. - - She's desperate to express her hatred and racism.
Or else, just a wind bag

Sweet Sym! are you refering to me or the Asian MP who says that Asian families have too many kids. They can have as many kids as they want if they pay for them themselves. I don't think she's a wind bag, I think she has a very valid point. Could you see Sheikh Mohammed shelling out for all the taxi drivers kids and leaving you having to work for a living? No? I didn't think so!

I can still you're desperate looking for attention

Baroness Flather (who isn't an MP as BM claimed, but a life peer - ) is entitled to her view - the old dear.

She comes from an extended Indian family herself, but perhaps she has conveniently forgotten this fact in her 'strongly expressed views' (aka 'rant') against Pakistani and Bangladeshi families.

But hey, let's assume the old lady is right - that Pakistanis and Bangladeshi immigrants have higher numbers of children than other communities. I'm sure the census or other stats will be able to show the family sizes of other groups - say Catholics immigrants, African Immigrants etc - and also the family sizes of those 'feral underclass' who ARE living off benefits.

Another statistic would be the numbers of immigrants living off benefits as a proportion of the whole.

But, logically speaking, if the old dear is correct - you'd be able to show that Immigrants to the UK have more children in the UK than they would in Pakistan or Bangladesh - for there they do not have Child Benefit, but in the UK they do. That would test the theory that the REASON people have more children is for the benefit.

If the stats show that Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants have fewer children in the UK than those back in Pakistan/Bangladesh, then we can conclude that the windbag is quoting a windbag and therefore this thread is windbag to the square!

Show me the stats. I've seen the racist hype.

Cheers,
Shafique

Now are UK's inner cities an agricultural based society where having more children means more hands to work the fields or are they a welfare based society where having more children means more free money from the government?

Stats is what I asked for eh, not a poor excuse for why the stats won't support the theory that immigrants have larger families BECAUSE of benefits. Cause and effect.

Back when there were 'No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs' signs in the UK - the average Irish family was larger than usual - but this was due to the fact they were Catholic.

Anyway - if you really want to help out your BNP supporting 'I have a Pakistani friend, dontyaknow' friend - perhaps you can analyse the following for her:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uplo ... nities.pdf

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Pub ... tables.pdf
(Stats include urban vs rural populations)

Cheers,
Shafique

Very interesting. The Baroness becomes a life peer, and forthwith blames Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the House of Lords for the only thing she feels will differentiate them from the Indians, in her maiden speech. High birth rates! I noticed from the BBC write up that the Labour spokesperson was not happy about this at all. Playing to the gallery? Of course; several galleries! The increasingly race based Politics of not so Great Britain expects this sort of vitriol against Muslims and Pakis from a lackey that they have made a life peer. India, a big trading partner for cash strapped England (sinking into economic despair) including some major Defence deals, will get even happier at this Paki bashing. A good round for all concerned, except of course, the victims of this drama.
Lord Freud and Lord McKenzie appeared not to give too much importance to Flathers words in their replies.

shafique wrote: But hey, let's assume the old lady is right - that Pakistanis and Bangladeshi immigrants have higher numbers of children than other communities. I'm sure the census or other stats will be able to show the family sizes of other groups - say Catholics immigrants, African Immigrants etc - and also the family sizes of those 'feral underclass' who ARE living off benefits.

I don't know why even think about that. Ban all excess mouths - 4 kids and no benefits, no municipal flats at all. By the way I don't think that Pakistani and Bangla families have 10 kids due to 80 pounds per month per child subsidy but only owing to their own stupidity. They follow the same pattern in own countries as well even living in the cities without any benefits.

RC the question is whether the Baroness is right about WHY some choose to have children - her argument is that they do it for the benefits.

If they are 'following the same pattern in own countries' then it is not because of benefits. I'm not sure they'll agree with you that it is 'stupid' to have more than a couple of children - but each is entitled their own opinion.

I am still interested to see whether there is any basis for the Baroness' view - but I rather suspect it is as valid as eh's beliefs in talking donkey's!

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: I'm not sure they'll agree with you that it is 'stupid' to have more than a couple of children - but each is entitled their own opinion.

If you could breed and educate more than 10 kids, you would do it with or without benefit. It's exactly what dustman cannot do at his wage. Such a way he only reproduce poverty and take money from the pockets of taxpayers.

2-3 kids is enough for reproduction of population, which is responsibility of government in my view. Anyway they are adult people and can have as many children as they want but why are others going to pay for that "smart" choice?

shafique wrote:Baroness Flather (who isn't an MP as BM claimed, but a life peer - ) is entitled to her view - the old dear.

She comes from an extended Indian family herself, but perhaps she has conveniently forgotten this fact in her 'strongly expressed views' (aka 'rant') against Pakistani and Bangladeshi families.

Show me the stats. I've seen the racist hype.

Cheers,
Shafique

I do apologise sunshine. A slip of the tongue! Did I promote or demote her? I'm not sure and I don't really care, you know I don't put much store on foreigners in my country anyways.
I notice you didn't claim she was English. Why was that? Didn't you say that Warsi woman was? What's the criterea for being English nowadays?
Now who is being racist? Is it me for posting the story? I'm just repeating it. I thought she said it was ok to repeat if you didn't say it first, as in the white feral underclass.
Is it the BBC for refering to her as an Asian, or is it the lady herself for stating her views?
Is it you for stating that she's from an Indian family?
Let's face it sunshine, everyone here is a racist or a bigot of some discription

Will you join me in condemning Asians for having extended families which they can't afford?

BTW, Child Benefit of £320 paid into your bank account on the first Monday of each month is a nice little earner isn't it? That will keep you in flip flops for the rest of your life

RC - I'm not sure how many dustmen (or Bangladeshis or Pakistanis) have 10 children and subsist on only benefits. I've heard of a few English people in the press who have loads of kids and exist only on benefits - but these aren't typical.

The point is whether the Baroness is correct in her view that the REASON 'immigrants' have children is for the benefits. It appears to be a view that can be tested - and I'm happy to review the evidence that this is actually the case.

If it isn't the reason, then cutting benefits won't reduce the number of children they have.

The irony is, though, that rational people understand that the UK does actually benefit by children being born - they are actually an investment and not a burden. Indeed, the need for immigration is due is partly due to a reduction in birth rates in general.

Now, if you care to look at the stats - ( I gave two links above ) - you'll see who makes up the immigrants in the UK. Indians are number 1, Poles and Pakistanis aren't that far apart in numbers - which is interesting.

BM - the Baroness talked about Pakistani/Bangladeshi and contrasted that with Indians - I pointed out that she came from the latter and that it was an 'extended family'. Why would stating this fact be in anyway inappropriate?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I rather suspect it is as valid as eh's beliefs in talking donkey's!

Shafique, why would not you follow Mahmood advice and make this tiresome sentence as your signature. What's is the sence to type it in your every single post? It must be so exhausting work to do.

BM - the Baroness talked about Pakistani/Bangladeshi and contrasted that with Indians - I pointed out that she came from the latter and that it was an 'extended family'. Why would stating this fact be in anyway inappropriate?

I don't see any relevance. Do you also think that Chechen cannot be a hero?

I guess I will tire of referring to eh's belief in talking donkeys eventually - but until then, trust me, it is no effort.

As for whether my stating the fact that the Baroness herself comes from an Indian extended family is relevant in a thread about her statement on the size of families of Pakistani vs Indian immigrants, I'm at a loss at anyone who thinks it is not relevant. But, I didn't ask whether it was relevant - but whether it was inappropriate in anyway to state this fact.

As for the premise that it is because of Benefits that immigrants have children - I guess no one wants to examine the evidence for this belief. So be it.

Cheers,
Shafique

BM - the Baroness talked about Pakistani/Bangladeshi and contrasted that with Indians - I pointed out that she came from the latter and that it was an 'extended family'. Why would stating this fact be in anyway inappropriate?

Who said it was inappropriate sunshine? You can say what you like on this forum, the same as I can. What I pointed out was that it was a racist comment, which we all make at one time or another. Don't you agree?
Probably a daft question, that, as I will never get you to agree that you are in the least bit racist or bigotted, even though you'd have to be blind not to see it.

Why must everything be supported by publicised stats? Can't you accept the word of an Asian woman critising immigrants for having multiple children in order to claim benefits?

I'm in the zone with this repeat thing! Good work BM

What was racist - the Baroness distinguishing between Pakistani and Indian, or my statement that she came from an extended family from within the one she said didn't have the 'problem'?

Why must everything be supported by statistics, you ask? Well, not everything - but things that can be verified by stats or evidence, I think should be. Especially when they are contentious views.

I have no problem with people just stating their beliefs - eg the world is flat, donkeys can talk etc - but when they try and convince me that the world is flat and donkeys can talk, I DO ask for evidence (after a chuckle, sometimes).

And yes, I can accept that an old lady is criticising another community - I'm just asking whether the criticism is actually based on anything other than a quaint belief. Strange that you didn't pick up this point from my earlier posts. Happy to repeat it until you understand.

Cheers,
Shafique

does UK look like a mega-UAE version? seems that expats (indians/pakistanis) will soon outnumber the locals judging from this thread

Happy to repeat it until you understand.

You repeat yourself whether people understand or not.

-- Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:52 pm --

xero_ wrote:does UK look like a mega-UAE version? seems that expats (indians/pakistanis) will soon outnumber the locals judging from this thread

Not all of the UK xero. There are still some very nice places to live. Funnily enough I was talking to my daughter and her friend about non whites at their school when we were having tea the other night. They have (approx) 1500 kids at their secondary school and they could name the non whites, there are 5 in total, and that includes the ones that are brown (their words not mine).
They all seem to get on very well. I think the problems begin when the incomers (as we refer to anyone non local) try to take over.

shafique wrote: Now, if you care to look at the stats - ( I gave two links above ) - you'll see who makes up the immigrants in the UK. Indians are number 1, Poles and Pakistanis aren't that far apart in numbers - which is interesting.

I'm begging you for mercy that I did not read your references just after you had given them because I thought that the big family of your brothers in faith is not required any proof for any reasonable and informed person. Anyway I did it a little bit later. It's from the research you had given reference on but probably have not read in full yet.

A number of factors account for the over-representation as social tenants of
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Jamaica and Somalia-born populations. These include:
• Lower household income, thus an inability to purchase property
(for Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Somalia-born populations).
• Larger family size, with many families being unable to afford suitable
properties (for Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Somalia-born populations).•
A preference for settlement in London, where property prices are higher
and greater proportions of all country-of-birth groups are social tenants
(for all four groups and UK-born populations).
• High proportions of new arrivals among the population, with new
arrivals least likely to have accumulated the savings needed to
purchase property (for Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Somalia-born
populations).

Thus for each foreign-born group, a number of factors cause particular patterns of
housing tenure. Three examples are given below.
• The India-born population has a low uptake of social housing.
It is predominantly a long-settled community in the UK, whose average
income is higher than the UK mean (ippr, 2007a). Newer arrivals are
largely highly-skilled work visa holders or students who have no
entitlement to social housing. The factors that account for a low uptake
of social housing are high-income levels and immigration status.
• The Polish-born population has a low uptake of social housing.
Most of the community has migrated since 2002 and its average
income is lower than the UK mean (ibid ). Poland-born migrants are
largely childless and many Poles aspire to return home

^RC, I'm glad you eventually did look at the evidence. I did read it, and it showed that there is no basis for the Baroness' view that Immigrants have larger families BECAUSE of benefits. I don't see that.

The vast majority of benefit recipients are not Immigrants.

'Over representation' means that there are disproportionately more Somalis, Jamicans etc than other classes - but you should also look at the overall proportions. The vast majority of those in social housing are not immigrants - and the vast majority of those living off benefits are also not immigrants.

When you factor in social class, you'll see that this is a greater factor than skin colour or nationality. Poor whites and poor immigrants have more in common. Education is a correlating factor. Note that Jamaicans are listed - and there are few Jamaican Muslims to my knowledge.

What the quotation also shows is that the REASON for certain immigrants having larger families is NOT because they will get more benefits.

Happy to move goalposts - but I was challenging the premise in the thread title and stating my view that the evidence does not support this belief. Should you uncover evidence that disproves this (so far you haven't) let me know.

Cheers,
Shafique

Read comprehension problems or usual lame excuses? It's research of your own source, not Christian or Indian promo.

Once more:

• Larger family size, with many families being unable to afford suitable
properties (for Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Somalia-born populations).

All these people are kind Muslims, whom Baroness was talking about, and quantity of mouths influences directly on opportunity on receiving social housing and it costs taxpayers much more than 80 pounds per month. You know the cost of rent in London, do you? It's a burden, not benefits on the body of UK society.

The inf. about Indians is also confirms that they are not receiver of the benefits including social housing but rather donors.

The vast majority of benefit recipients are not Immigrants.

There is also no information that they are whites as well. Those teenagers, who looted stores, set fire on residential buildings and public transport and threw stones to ambulances and police officers in Tot-nam were predominatly citizens of the UK and occupiers of social housing as well as violant Asian youth in the East London, who threw stones to the bus of protesters.

What part of 'the vast majority of those on social housing are not immigrants' confused you?

And how does the 'over representation' in social housing of Jamaicans etc reflect on the thread title - that Immigrants have larger families BECAUSE of benefits?

Look back at my earlier post where I stated 'cause and effect'. Richer classes don't claim benefits, poorer classes do. Education is linked to social class.

When looking at social housing - why not look at the proportion of immigrants who get social housing, and the absolute numbers?

(About 10 million live in social housing and about 90% are UK born - a higher proportion of UK born are living in social housing than immigrants - 17% vs 11% - in the report I linked to. You can also look up how many of the 10 million are whites - to test out your theory that they may not be 'whites'.)

Cheers,
Shafique

The Baroness didn't speak about all immigrants at all but only Bangla+Pakistani vs. Indians. The research is confirmed her statement.

Her statement was specifically that they had children for benefits and then that:

The cross-bencher said benefit cuts could help to discourage extra births.

No evidence has been produced to support this belief.

You have not addressed this point. Whilst some communities may have larger families - the specific point I'm challenging is the REASON why they have larger families and whether reducing benefits will therefore reduce family size.

I'm not disputing that some communities have larger family sizes.

(I am separately disputing the proportions of immigrants on benefits - but that is a different issue, and one that statistics can enlighten us on).

Edit: About 90% of those in Social housing in England are white, and over 60% in London are white:
http://www.google.mu/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=30&ved=0CF0QFjAJOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.lse.ac.uk%2FgeographyAndEnvironment%2Fresearch%2Flondon%2Fevents%2FlondonDevWorkshops%2Flselondondevelopmentworkshops2%2FtheRoleofSocialHousingInTheLondonEconomy%2FSocialHousingLondonSeminar%2FsocialHousingsCurrentRoleinLondon.pdf&rct=j&q=whites%20on%20social%20housing%20UK&ei=JbN6TvK0KZGT0QW47LmjAw&usg=AFQjCNGJnURs_NYR1jjmTayH5r0Ij8OILA

Cheers,
Shafique

Don't they have large families because they get more benefits?

^There's no evidence that this is the case. That's just a belief that the Baroness put out, and doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence.

shafique wrote:The point is whether the Baroness is correct in her view that the REASON 'immigrants' have children is for the benefits. It appears to be a view that can be tested - and I'm happy to review the evidence that this is actually the case.

If it isn't the reason, then cutting benefits won't reduce the number of children they have.

Cheers,
Shafique