English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The over simplifiers who will dismiss the link as "Daily Mail" should have more respect for the professor who did the calculations. The Daily Mail simply report what the professor has found

2007-10-21 22:59:16 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Immigration

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=488938&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

2007-10-21 22:59:52 · update #1

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/dmsearch/overture.html?in_page_id=711&in_overture_ua=cat&in_start_number=0&in_restriction=byline&in_query=james%20slack&in_name=on&in_order_by=relevance+date

2007-10-21 23:02:46 · update #2

http://www.migrationwatch.org/

Have similar projections from scientific sources, these projections cannot be drowned out by the "BNP" "BNP"" Daily Mail Daily Mail "mantra. Please check the reports and discuss this in a civilised way

2007-10-22 01:31:48 · update #3

Professor Coleman makes a similar projection in this link. He has nothing to do with the BNP or Daily Mail:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20071021/tuk-uk-population-to-go-up-15-million-6323e80_1.html

2007-10-22 01:39:06 · update #4

16 answers

It's all very well saying that immigrants have raised £6 billion towards the UK in taxes, but when the country is paying out £8.8 billion to accomodate them you have to ask is Labour's ill-thought out 'open door' policy really worth the price the British public is paying. On a purely economic basis, I would a deficit of £2.8 billion to the British tax payer due to immigration would suggest not never mind the strain it is putting on local services.

It was funny to hear another answerer stating that this would not be the case as immigration predictions tend to be wrong, and he is quite right. In 2004 Labour predicted no more than 13,000 eastern European workers would enter the UK when the EU expanded, which was little bit off the mark considering that we ended up with 600,000+ and growing.

I would tend to believe the professor's calculations over Labour's any day of the week!

2007-10-22 00:25:32 · answer #1 · answered by slıɐuǝoʇ 6 · 7 5

The world population quadrupled in the 20th century, from 1.5Bn to 6.0Bn. Since the year 2000 the world population has increased another 800 million (up to 2006). Over population is a world wide problem and nobody is doing a thing about it.
There will be increasing competition for resources and increasing strife. It will be left to starvation, disease, war and crime to bring the population back into balance with the environment, if we don't find an equitable political solution first.

2007-10-22 09:45:36 · answer #2 · answered by mick t 5 · 3 1

remembered some thing i read in the late 70s early 80s yesterday, and on looking at the situation born of the last ten years of new labour what i read is starting to make frightening sense. it was an article accusing the then! EEC ( i think they were called) of having discussed the idea of eventually turning Briton into a huge industrial island for the good of the whole of Europe. thus keeping the most dangerous industries. ie chemical and nuclear etc, out of harms way. it was passed off as ludicrous at the time. but i must say that after ten years of lies and deception from the most traitorous government this country has ever had. coupled with the fact that we seem to be flooding our country with the biggest work force in Europe to the extent that we cannot cope. add that to the fact that these millions of immigrants have a vote and will very soon out number the indigenous population, the whole thing is looking a bit suspect......i mean look at it this way. Briton 'ten years ago' was desperate to get its pollution levels down. it had too many cars on the road (governments words not mine) and we had a huge housing shortage....our NHS was in a bad state. and our infrastructure over all was said 'THEN' to be in danger of collapse. so ask your self...looking at that sittuation at the time. would your lodgical answer have been to bring millions more people into the allready over all failing sittuation?? that answere would simply double all of the problems we were then! consirned with. so why??? is it perhaps, that the only way to get the British people to surrender their country is to gradualy swamp it with people that have no love or loyalty to it. make it racist to question the sittuation and let the whole thing eat away at the indigenouse population untill so battered and worn down! they would 'on the whole' no longer care?.....strangely that is where we appear to be now!!......just a thought.

2007-10-22 09:32:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5 4

Their is a good chance that we have more than 80million now.Our roads are grinding to meltdown,our schools are full,Houses are short and ridiculously expensive to name a few of the penalties we have to endure.It is time we had a government that listened to its people but then the British are so gullible they tend to beleive everything they are told.

2007-10-22 20:44:48 · answer #4 · answered by realdolby 5 · 1 1

Whilst I have respect for any learned people, it is just one source, and the fact that you preempt people dismissing the 'Daily Mail' indicates that even you are aware of that newspapers bias in the area of immigration. In the past they campaigned against Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution being admitted to Britain.
They have taken one opinion because it fits their agenda.

Thumbs down for what? Stating facts? You can look it up easily on the internet about the Daily Mail and the Jews.

2007-10-22 06:14:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 5

It is one man's opinion.

It is also the case that as the population increases, so does the tax paid. We have an ageing population in this country with more people drawing pensions and fewer working and paying tax contributions.

Immigrants, as in a Times Report last week, pay tax, have a better work ethics and take fewre days off sick.

Is the population ncreases, the servcies will need to be increased paid for from the taxes of these immigrants.

2007-10-22 06:04:58 · answer #6 · answered by Marky 6 · 5 6

Nope, I'm off to Vancover!

It would seem that, in time, our society will fall and no doubt become the next Africa, where over-population, among other things, will cripple our economy. And perhaps if we survive that, further down the line we will become the next Asia; acting as the central hub for slave labour and cheaply made goods to be exported throughout the globe.

As they say, history repeats itself, and it isn't hard to realise what has happened to every great society...

2007-10-22 06:05:07 · answer #7 · answered by AlexanderTheAverage 2 · 4 4

I can't see how you can predit this over 50 years into the future. There will be epidemics, wars and other catastrophes in that time, not to mention emigration.

2007-10-22 06:05:36 · answer #8 · answered by Johnny 7 · 5 3

Don't worry about that, because long before then there will no longer be a United Kingdom.

2007-10-22 09:31:43 · answer #9 · answered by The Questioner 5 · 3 2

I'm sure New Labour have plans to knock down our churches and build mosques. They have been trashing the farmers, so they'll probably build new towns on the nations green fields. But God help us in the future, we don't grow enough to feed ourselves now, but when it all turns pear shaped, I imagine New Liebour Traitors will have left with their undeserved pensions to somewhere 'nice'.

2007-10-22 08:31:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6 5

fedest.com, questions and answers