I didn't see this guy on Fox News but saw a bit of their coverage yesterday afternoon. Jaw dropping but not just about UK it has to be said. Thing is they are talking to a very insular US audience. The fact that we can see them doing it helps explain why some US opinions are as they are. Hannity had a studio audience show the night before. Frightenly bonkers.
Would you expect most immigrants to support UKIP??
Total rubbish. UKIP only does well where there's no immigration because people's fears of immigration are far far worse than the reality. Might need to put your fingers in your ears, or over your eyes as here's my proof:
I didn't see this guy on Fox News but saw a bit of their coverage yesterday afternoon. Jaw dropping but not just about UK it has to be said. Thing is they are talking to a very insular US audience. The fact that we can see them doing it helps explain why some US opinions are as they are. Hannity had a studio audience show the night before. Frightenly bonkers.
Cameron almost matched him with his own statement:
Cameron said: “He’s started with an apology. That’s not a bad start. But what he should actually do is actually look at Birmingham and see what a fantastic example it is of bringing people together of different faiths, different backgrounds and actually building a world-class, brilliant city with a great and strong economy.”
Change the record, Cameron. Fewer and fewer people are falling for it.
The overall stats about how many immigrants there are in England doesn't necessarily mean English people Know Better. Stats have shown that Ukip support and dislike for immigration are both highest in the areas with lowest immigration - and some of them have REALLY low immigration. Rochester & Strood has under 3%, and that includes all immigrants, not just "Muslims".
Perhaps in those areas, they're voting to keep them as they are, or think they are anyway. Perhaps they travel through other areas with higher levels of immigration and don't like what they see, so vote UKIP in some vain hope of maintaining what they do like about their own areas.
Total rubbish. UKIP only does well where there's no immigration because people's fears of immigration are far far worse than the reality. Might need to put your fingers in your ears, or over your eyes as here's my proof:
Perhaps in those areas, they're voting to keep them as they are, or think they are anyway. Perhaps they travel through other areas with higher levels of immigration and don't like what they see, so vote UKIP in some vain hope of maintaining what they do like about their own areas.
Well, obviously. They drive through other areas and don't like seeing brown people.
Well, obviously. They drive through other areas and don't like seeing brown people.
Can we assume therefore that one of the reason so many ethnic 'minorities' live together is because they do like seeing other 'brown faces'? Or is this 'I want to live with other people like me' attitude limited to whites only?
I think atheism and the rest is growing faster. But I don't know how to get that into a fancy word. Atheisification?
I've not seen any evidence of this with regard to the Muslim community, if anything they are becoming more traditional in their dress/behaviour and beliefs from what I've seen.
How does any of that negate my claim that immigrants aren't likely to vote for UKIP?
Oops, more replying to the views expressed by you and others that UKIP does poorly in mixed ethnicity area only because the ethnic vote stops them. So i stand by my proof that an 82% white area that has experienced enough immigration to affect it had a paltry 2% support of UKIP.
But to answer your specific question wasn't that UKIP woman with the dodgy claim affair an immigrant? (or was she 2nd generation). And the man who's no longer on gogglebox because he's a UKIP candidate is an immigrant. I've seen plenty of immigrants supporting UKIP.
He claimed that Birmingham is a no-go city for non-Muslims, and in his apology he also claimed that Birmingham is a beautiful city.
Is it very bad that the first thing i though is that this comment makes him even sound even more stupidly ignorant? (like if that was even possible).:D:D
All very intellectualised. I note the total absence of the possibility that they simply prefer to live amongst people of the same culture. I detect an elephant in the room.
That white Brits who live in areas with significant immigrant populations do not tend to vote UKIP is hardly surprising. Those who chose to live there (which will be the majority) will have done so fully in the knowledge of the demographic. Those existing residents who haven't liked the change will have moved out, and to places like Clacton. I moved to a very densely immigrant populated area with the best of intentions, and at that time wouldn't have dreamed of voting UKIP (had they existed). I left the area because I did not like the prevailing culture, and now I'm very likely to.
Of the 8.17 million people in London, one million are Muslim, with the majority of them young families. That is not, in reality, a great number. But because so many Muslims increasingly insist on emphasising their separateness, it feels as if they have taken over; my female neighbours flap past in full niqab, some so heavily veiled that I can’t see their eyes. I’ve made an effort to communicate by smiling deliberately at the ones I thought I was seeing out and about regularly, but this didn’t lead to conversation because they never look me in the face.
All very intellectualised. I note the total absence of the possibility that they simply prefer to live amongst people of the same culture. I detect an elephant in the room.
That white Brits who live in areas with significant immigrant populations do not tend to vote UKIP is hardly surprising. Those who chose to live there (which will be the majority) will have done so fully in the knowledge of the demographic. Those existing residents who haven't liked the change will have moved out, and to places like Clacton. I moved to a very densely immigrant populated area with the best of intentions, and at that time wouldn't have dreamed of voting UKIP (had they existed). I left the area because I did not like the prevailing culture, and now I'm very likely to.
All quite logical, really.
Indeed. The link referred to a wiki article based on a sociological idea, a concept, a theory. I looked in vain for anything that connected the contents with the real world.
Tell you what come to Birmingham and I'll show you the reality not theory , the people who live in Saltley Alum Rock Sparkbrook and other areas here have no intention of integrating into our society but every intention of staying in the ghettoes and living the way that they did back in their homeland
You cannot possibly state that. You are making assumptions as much as anyone else.
You've obviously never been to the apartheid towns of the north. Please don't tell me they colonise whole areas of these places so they can network! I'll need a change of underwear.
Why are there virtually 100% Muslim schools, and 100% white British schools in close proximity in some places?
The main reason being they don't want to integrate
The problem is that there's not even any need for them to integrate. They can move to very large urban areas where everyone speaks their language and everyone follows the same religion and where they can shop in their own stores selling their own products. The outside world might as well not even exist.
Also, despite what most of you on this thread seem to think, Sharia law isn't one list of laws that all Muslims must follow. It's a way of making law - the different "Sharia countries" all have differences in their laws. So talking about "Sharia law taking over" or "X happens in countries with Sharia law" is just showing off your ignorance.
This is a cannard on your part. Most everyone who discusses it knows there is more than one school of Islamic law.. Even if every Muslim majority country in the world implemented Sharia to the same extent as Saudi (the closest to a "pure" Sharia state in existance), no one is suggesting they would all implement it exactly the same way every time, or that there would be perfect uniformity across the board. One would expect differences of implementation even within a single madhhab.
To then imply that because Sharia is subject to the same vagaries of implementation and interpretation as all other systems of law - as though the draconian, discriminatory principles of Sharia shared by all schools of fiqh were "neutralised" by the very process of application, or the differences therein - is simply disingenuous.
Perhaps most of the people on this thread are not quite as "ignorant" as you claim, eh ?
Comments
He claimed that Birmingham is a no-go city for non-Muslims, and in his apology he also claimed that Birmingham is a beautiful city.
Total rubbish. UKIP only does well where there's no immigration because people's fears of immigration are far far worse than the reality. Might need to put your fingers in your ears, or over your eyes as here's my proof:
Yardley, Birmingham 2010 election result:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/birminghamyardley/
Note UKIP got a huge 2.9% of the vote.
Yardely working age population: 82% white, 6.3% pakistani, 3.7% indian, 3.3% black-caribbean. So a 18% non-white constituency got no UKIP support. Surely this is the perfect mix for UKIP if multi-culturism was so terrible?
(Source of Working Age Popn, page 6 of this dull pdf: http://birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1223499077913&ssbinary=true&blobheadervalue1=attachment%3B+filename%3D601671Constituency_Profile_yardley.pdf )
Cameron almost matched him with his own statement:
Change the record, Cameron. Fewer and fewer people are falling for it.
Perhaps in those areas, they're voting to keep them as they are, or think they are anyway. Perhaps they travel through other areas with higher levels of immigration and don't like what they see, so vote UKIP in some vain hope of maintaining what they do like about their own areas.
And Hindu flight ! an Indian friend of mine was forced out of Alum Rock by those peaceful Muslims we hear so much about
.
How does any of that negate my claim that immigrants aren't likely to vote for UKIP?
Can we assume therefore that one of the reason so many ethnic 'minorities' live together is because they do like seeing other 'brown faces'? Or is this 'I want to live with other people like me' attitude limited to whites only?
Why don't you try answering the question?
(There are varied and complex reasons that immigrant communities tend to cluster in the same areas - if you're really interested, google will help.)
Edit: Here's a start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_enclave
I've not seen any evidence of this with regard to the Muslim community, if anything they are becoming more traditional in their dress/behaviour and beliefs from what I've seen.
Oops, more replying to the views expressed by you and others that UKIP does poorly in mixed ethnicity area only because the ethnic vote stops them. So i stand by my proof that an 82% white area that has experienced enough immigration to affect it had a paltry 2% support of UKIP.
But to answer your specific question wasn't that UKIP woman with the dodgy claim affair an immigrant? (or was she 2nd generation). And the man who's no longer on gogglebox because he's a UKIP candidate is an immigrant. I've seen plenty of immigrants supporting UKIP.
The main reason being they don't want to integrate
All very intellectualised. I note the total absence of the possibility that they simply prefer to live amongst people of the same culture. I detect an elephant in the room.
That white Brits who live in areas with significant immigrant populations do not tend to vote UKIP is hardly surprising. Those who chose to live there (which will be the majority) will have done so fully in the knowledge of the demographic. Those existing residents who haven't liked the change will have moved out, and to places like Clacton. I moved to a very densely immigrant populated area with the best of intentions, and at that time wouldn't have dreamed of voting UKIP (had they existed). I left the area because I did not like the prevailing culture, and now I'm very likely to.
All quite logical, really.
Since we're swapping links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9831912/I-feel-like-a-stranger-where-I-live.html
Indeed. The link referred to a wiki article based on a sociological idea, a concept, a theory. I looked in vain for anything that connected the contents with the real world.
Tell you what come to Birmingham and I'll show you the reality not theory , the people who live in Saltley Alum Rock Sparkbrook and other areas here have no intention of integrating into our society but every intention of staying in the ghettoes and living the way that they did back in their homeland
You cannot possibly state that. You are making assumptions as much as anyone else.
You've obviously never been to the apartheid towns of the north. Please don't tell me they colonise whole areas of these places so they can network! I'll need a change of underwear.
Why are there virtually 100% Muslim schools, and 100% white British schools in close proximity in some places?
The problem is that there's not even any need for them to integrate. They can move to very large urban areas where everyone speaks their language and everyone follows the same religion and where they can shop in their own stores selling their own products. The outside world might as well not even exist.
This is a cannard on your part. Most everyone who discusses it knows there is more than one school of Islamic law.. Even if every Muslim majority country in the world implemented Sharia to the same extent as Saudi (the closest to a "pure" Sharia state in existance), no one is suggesting they would all implement it exactly the same way every time, or that there would be perfect uniformity across the board. One would expect differences of implementation even within a single madhhab.
To then imply that because Sharia is subject to the same vagaries of implementation and interpretation as all other systems of law - as though the draconian, discriminatory principles of Sharia shared by all schools of fiqh were "neutralised" by the very process of application, or the differences therein - is simply disingenuous.
Perhaps most of the people on this thread are not quite as "ignorant" as you claim, eh ?