davidg Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Contrary to the spin in a press release by the UK govt that claims Oliver and Jack are the most popular names in 2014 in England and Wales both those are trumped by Mohammed (and its 2 variations) which score 7240 registrations. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_413707.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33959140 Total spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Well that's not very diverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 So out of 695,252 live births (ONS data link in OP) 7240 babies were named all the variants of Mohammed. In % terms 1% of all babies born were called one of the variants of Mohammed which presumably means 99% of babies born last year weren't called one of the variants of Mohammed. What point is the OP trying to make exactly? 99% of babies aren't called Mohammed? Why is that worthy of a thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share Posted August 17, 2015 So out of 695,252 live births (ONS data link in OP) 7240 babies were named all the variants of Mohammed. In % terms 1% of all babies born were called one of the variants of Mohammed which presumably means 99% of babies born last year weren't called one of the variants of Mohammed. What point is the OP trying to make exactly? 99% of babies aren't called Mohammed? Why is that worthy of a thread? The point is the ONS, and I notice Guardian, don't report this interesting fact about the changing face of Britain and its ethnic diversity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 So out of 695,252 live births (ONS data link in OP) 7240 babies were named all the variants of Mohammed. In % terms 1% of all babies born were called one of the variants of Mohammed which presumably means 99% of babies born last year weren't called one of the variants of Mohammed. What point is the OP trying to make exactly? 99% of babies aren't called Mohammed? Why is that worthy of a thread? Have you bothered to take the 50% off to negate female babies ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_northshore_* Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 What about all the Adams, Eves, Marys, Josephs and baby Jesuses? Their parents are often just as bonkers to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I'll stick my head out and guess that Mohammed is the name chosen for a much higher proportion of Muslim babies than any individual non-Muslim name is for non-Muslim babies, which will distort the impression somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sPinwheel Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Mohammed Corbyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 If they stopped blowing everybody up all the time then yes, but they won't so It will be eternal death and strife for 1000's of years. Great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turned Out Nice Again Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33959140 Total spin. Yes, talk about Orwellian. Mohammed is clearly the top boy's name. However this isn't referred-to in the body of the piece except for the disclaimer at the end: "Spelling variations of the same name are counted separately in the data from the ONS. When considering name variations in the top 100, the Muslim name Mohammed totals 7,240, compared with the top boys' name Oliver at 6,649." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debtlessmanc Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 There is an element of concentration in Moslem/Muslim (sic) names too. I should imagine quite a high proportion call their sons after the prophet. But there's also no doubt that in our lifetimes the growth has been exponential and I fully expect that to continue. What are you going to do about it? I would suggest just let it go, it is simply not worth your life getting upset by something that 'the powers that be' have decided they want to happen. I would guess that destroying nations based on race is all part of the Plan to maintain peace in the wake of the second world war just as much as building the European Union. We have been re-cast in the image of America....their idea of the Perfect Country with the Perfect Democratic System that needs to be planted globally, by force if necessary. Edit: I should add for clarity that I can see very good reasons for destroying racially pure states after what we witnessed with various global European Empires including ours and ending with the warping of Darwin by the Germans. So instead of wars based on race, we have them based on versions of religion or the lack of it? My ex wife did her teacher training (biology) in a school in Bradford, her class was essentially 100% Pakistani British. The national curriculum told her to teach genetics by emphasising differences in eye/hair colour the ability to roll tongues etc. Things that are strait forward in most UK schools. In this class there was no variation in any genetic trait... not that it really mattered, none of them believed in evolution anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Have you bothered to take the 50% off to negate female babies ...... Mo, Mo, Mo, Mo, Mo, Mo Mo, Mo, Mo, Mo Mo, Mo, theres no women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CunningPlan Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Yes, talk about Orwellian. Mohammed is clearly the top boy's name. However this isn't referred-to in the body of the piece except for the disclaimer at the end: "Spelling variations of the same name are counted separately in the data from the ONS. When considering name variations in the top 100, the Muslim name Mohammed totals 7,240, compared with the top boys' name Oliver at 6,649." I've known a few parents of 'Olivers'. Give me a nice down to earth Mohammed every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Have you bothered to take the 50% off to negate female babies ...... Are you saying you're incapable of working that out for yourself? Jesus Chr*st. Ok, I'll help you out:- 98% of male babies born in 2014 were not called one of the variants (I counted 3 in the table) of Mohammed. 97 out of the top 100 boys were not named one of the 3 variants of Mohammed, or 99 out of 100 if you include them all together as the OP (and ONS link) has done. i.e. the 7240 = all variants. Is that clear enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Are you saying you're incapable of working that out for yourself? Jesus Chr*st. Ok, I'll help you out:- 98% of male babies born in 2014 were not called one of the variants (I counted 3 in the table) of Mohammed. 97 out of the top 100 boys were not named one of the 3 variants of Mohammed, or 99 out of 100 if you include them all together as the OP (and ONS link) has done. i.e. the 7240 = all variants. Is that clear enough for you? I was simply pointing out if you are going to use statistics to make a point - at least get them correct !! Coming up with a % based on 100% of a population - when it really only applies to ~50% of the population - is a pretty massive error. Anyway - the point of this story ? Well I imagine if someone told us the most popular boys name this year in Saudi Arabia was 'Dave' it would be worthy of discussion - no ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail the Tripod Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Press stories are either about our "Dickensian austerity" or the (oh so unislamic) Islamic State terrorsits. Is it any wonder all the kids are called either Oliver or Mohammed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 It's only a matter of time before the top 3 names are Mohammed. I don't know how they are going to spin that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sPinwheel Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 When every boy is named Mohammed there will be peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Sexist, why can't a girl be called Mohammed .... Sam, Hilary, Jo and lots of other names can be either so why not Mohammed ... you are not suggesting that in some way girls are second class citizens are you?? in this gender-neutral world of utopian equality, the terms "boys" and "girls" no longer exist. everybody is to be addressed with the prefix "citizen" so girls called mohammed,bryan and trevor,are perfectly acceptable. in fact, even family surnames have been done away with, and your last name will be the street name where the childbearing mother resided at birth. blame david and victoria beckham..they started it with brooklyn....I pity the poor folks who ended up as bognor and skegness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 So instead of wars based on race, we have them based on versions of religion or the lack of it? My ex wife did her teacher training (biology) in a school in Bradford, her class was essentially 100% Pakistani British. The national curriculum told her to teach genetics by emphasising differences in eye/hair colour the ability to roll tongues etc. Things that are strait forward in most UK schools. In this class there was no variation in any genetic trait... not that it really mattered, none of them believed in evolution anyway... she could have taught them about incest,and how having kids too closely rlated genetically produces deformities. ok everybody, hands up...who's got rickets?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 she could have taught them about incest,and how having kids too closely rlated genetically produces deformities. ok everybody, hands up...who's got rickets?? Rickets is caused by lack of sunlight, and is not genetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debtlessmanc Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Richard Dawkins visited UK funded Muslim school, its on YouTube School of girls. He asked what they wanted to do, loads of budding doctors, lawyers etc. when he asked who accepted evolution no one put their hand up. He then asked any questions. A girl asked "why if we are descended from Monkeys why are there still monkeys. He said that is the most common question I am asked, the answer is common descent. It's part of the national curriculum so your teacher can answer this - he turned to her and she refused to answer the question. There is the problem.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 But dark skin (can I say that?) is. Palies (can I say that) are more 'efficient' at absorbing the limited amount of light in this country but don't fare so well on the Costa del Vitamin D. Yes well if you are a bit dark, and go to live in Scotland, it's best not to put a bag over your head all year, as would be popular in deserts nearer the equator, where I am quite happy to wear a big hat. Silliest thing I ever saw was a red haired gentleman sunbathing at midday with shirt off, in a desert region, with the sun right overhead. He went very pink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 Yes well if you are a bit dark, and go to live in Scotland, it's best not to put a bag over your head all year, as would be popular in deserts nearer the equator, where I am quite happy to wear a big hat. Silliest thing I ever saw was a red haired gentleman sunbathing at midday with shirt off, in a desert region, with the sun right overhead. He went very pink. Makes perfect sense if only for 15-20 mins. That's what I do. Avoid sun tan lotion as full of chemicals - and still get some rays to feel better. No need to be burnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.