Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

There Are Now 2.5 Million People


Recommended Posts

Guest Charlie The Tramp
How about this then....... :unsure:

At my local hospital where the wife works, staff on long term sick with stress are unable to return to work as there is a backlog waiting to see the stress councillor.

Why can they not see her?

Yes you guessed it.........she's off sick with stress :lol:

It`s not funny you know, this is a serious situation.

:):D:P:lol::rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest pioneer31

For goodness sake, stop being so obtuse.

I'm not, it was a genuine question.

If there are 2.5m "on the sick" are you honestly claiming that the majority could be immigrants? Over 1.25m immigrants on the sick?

I don't know what the numbers are and neither do you, which is why I asked the 'obtuse' question.

Even the BNP wouldnt make such an absurd claim, surely?

Sometimes I despair....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pioneer31

Like I said I don't know how many scivers are immigrants but your sweeping statement and the one that preceded had a bit of a Brit bashing ring to it.

Not all immigrants are hard working and here to save the country from 'lazy indigenous Brits'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yonmon,

Slightly tongue in cheek comment from me - although two examples were true I believe. However it does expose the poetntial for abuse of the system. As for needing basic maths I'm not sure that is true, accurate data is required to calculate the benefit (or otherwise) and I don't think that exists.

COAB,

After all, anyone born today has a 1 in 3 chance of developing cancer during their lifetime

Isn't this partially a factir of lifespan - if you don't die of some other (now curable) disease you have longer to contract some other curable and non-curable diseases, cancer being one that has a higher chance of occurence later on in life?

I saw on TV a presenter saying that sharks do develop cancer - Just read a book on cancer at night (as well as persuing this forum by day) what a life!.

It is a total myth that any organism is invunerable to cancer. Cancer is caused by transcription errors in DNA caused by envriomental and genetic factors. The more cells divide the greater the risk of cancer in that organ with age.

Clearly we have high and abnormal rates of lung cancer due to enviroment - smoking, with each smoker having a 1 in 5 chance of developing this particular cancer over his lifetime.

However the cancers of non-smokers are concentrated in the organs that are exposed to the envrioment and which replace themselves rapidly. Skin (Radiation and chemicals), the digestive track and liver (food and toxins). Also genetic factors come into play like little timebombs.

One of the fastest places cell division occurs is the germlines. The tesis, ovaries, prostrate etc... and in later life, these are common areas for cancer to occur.

Few people get cancer of 'the leg' for example, muscles etc.. as these cells

(a) Are not exposed to the envrioment and (B) do not divide rapidly.

However, what is becoming clear also is that human beings had a genetic bottleneck in the recent past - we know this occured because of mDNA and because there is less genetic diversity between humans in genes that in other species. This leads to a higher concentration of recessive genes.

Further proof of this genetic concentration is the study of incest. In humans where incest occurs, the changes are 1 in 3 that the offspring will be retarded and suffer deformation. Where Incest occurs in other animals, like dogs, the expression of weaker traits being reenforced is much more remote.

In humans, because of this lack of diversity, where there are traditions of incest and intermarrage (Hapsburgs, etc..) What usually occurs in 1st degree relatives is an exageration of features, over about 5-7 generations, and total retardedness and sterility as weak genes are repeatedly reenforced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain

The consequences of this bottleneck as far as cancer and other diseases means that populations which have a tradition of intermarrage, marrying close relatives, have a far higher incidence of birth defects and cancer than those that do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Charlie The Tramp
After all, anyone born today has a 1 in 3 chance of developing cancer during their lifetime

Prior to the Chernobyl disaster I knew of very few people who died of cancer.

Since 1990 onwards it became edemic among friends and ex customers and I wondered why. For many years I have been a very heavy tea drinker always nice and strong and on my last visit to my GP he enquired how much tea I drank. Evidently medical researchers have discovered that tea has cancer preventive ingredients.

The best chance to remain healthy is to stop drinking coke, if you place a lump of steak in a bowl filled with coke it will dissolve in a couple of days. Rumour has it in the states they use it to clean diesel engines. It is very worrying when youngsters drink it morning, noon, and night. I have one of them in my family, never ever drank tea, always complains of guts ache, I tell him that`s not possible he has no guts left.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw on TV a presenter saying that sharks do develop cancer - Just read a book on cancer at night (as well as persuing this forum by day) what a life!.

It is a total myth that any organism is invunerable to cancer. Cancer is caused by transcription errors in DNA caused by envriomental and genetic factors. The more cells divide the greater the risk of cancer in that organ with age.

Clearly we have high and abnormal rates of lung cancer due to enviroment - smoking, with each smoker having a 1 in 5 chance of developing this particular cancer over his lifetime.

However the cancers of non-smokers are concentrated in the organs that are exposed to the envrioment and which replace themselves rapidly. Skin (Radiation and chemicals), the digestive track and liver (food and toxins). Also genetic factors come into play like little timebombs. 

One of the fastest places cell division occurs is the germlines. The tesis, ovaries, prostrate etc... and in later life, these are common areas for cancer to occur.

Few people get cancer of 'the leg' for example, muscles etc.. as these cells

(a) Are not exposed to the envrioment and (B) do not divide rapidly.

However, what is becoming clear also is that human beings had a genetic bottleneck in the recent past - we know this occured because of mDNA and because there is less genetic diversity between humans in genes that in other species. This leads to a higher concentration of recessive genes.

Further proof of this genetic concentration is the study of incest. In humans where incest occurs, the changes are 1 in 3 that the offspring will be retarded and suffer deformation. Where Incest occurs in other animals, like dogs, the expression of weaker traits being reenforced is much more remote.

In humans, because of this lack of diversity, where there are traditions of incest and intermarrage (Hapsburgs, etc..) What usually occurs in 1st degree relatives is an exageration of features, over about 5-7 generations, and total retardedness and sterility as weak genes are repeatedly reenforced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain

The consequences of this bottleneck as far as cancer and other diseases means that populations which have a tradition of intermarrage, marrying close relatives, have a far higher incidence of birth defects and cancer than those that do not.

So, if you're right, we should welcome immigrants as if immigrants breed with the existing population they diversify the gene pool and reduce cancer? :D:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said I don't know how many scivers are immigrants but your sweeping statement and the one that preceded had a bit of a Brit bashing ring to it.

Not all immigrants are hard working and here to save the country from 'lazy indigenous Brits'.

There are hard working people and skivers among both groups. My basic point was simply that the total number of skivers is greater among those born in the UK. If I came across as anti-British it was only as I wanted to give a bit of balance against a number of postings which seem to be relentlessly anti-immigrant/foreigner, and in some cases at least borderline racist.

I'll add a simple personal anecdote, which relates to the area I grew up in. It's one of the poorest and rundown area of a largely grim northern town, with huge numbers of "skivers". It has also, until recently been almost 100% white, and has seen ongoing economic decline, with most of the remaining shops/local businesses closing down in recent years. The main local businesses are now a Drive Through McDonalds and a Kwik-Save. You get the picture.

In the past few years a couple of derelict shops have been bought up by Indians, and they now run a handy takeaway and general store. None of the local "indigenous" population saw fit to put in the graft needed. Too much like hard work. Still, someone did find the time to spend part of their giro on spray paint so they could spray "****" on the wall of the general store. As the couple who run it are Indian Hindus that act summed up the total ignorance of many white chavscum. If I have to choose between that hard-working immigrant couple and the local chavscum, I'd side with the immigrants every time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are probably right , sadly the sterotypes too easily fit into the working class situation

White - Lazy chavs on dole, teenage pregnancies, single parents

Blacks - Drug dealers, criminals,

Asians - Work 24-7 in shops or takeaways

Polish/Russian - Mafia

Greeks/turkish - Kebab shops! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, if you're right, we should welcome immigrants as if immigrants breed with the existing population they diversify the gene pool and reduce cancer?  :D  :lol:

Most people have a 3% chance of having a child with a serious birth defect, mental retardation or genetic disease. If that child is from close relations like cousins marrying they have a 6%-7% chance. (The Journal of Genetic Counseling)

The rate of such seroius birth defects and genetic anolomys is double to three times in populations which allow close relations marrying, than in populations whose cultures forbid close relations marrying.

(A cultural situation currently exists in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia, where marriages between cousins are considered preferable)

To really understand this you have to get technical -

Inbreeding (which may occur through incestuous or non-incestuous relations) results in an increase in homozygocity, that is, the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair.

(Someone who has homozyocity has the same gene passed down from both parents at both nodes in thier chormozone pair and is certain to pass it to thier offspring)

This occurs because close relatives are more likely to share more alleles than nonrelated individuals.

(An allele is a variation of a gene - Red petals rather than white for the bossom gene for example. People with two diffrent alleles in thier inherited gene pair are heterozygous not homozygous.

They have a dominant and recessive gene. Brown eye colour dominants over blue for example - That is not to say that 'recessive' genes are bad in any way like the name recessive implies - they are simply a variation over some basic pattern for a gene that is more likely to be expressed)

If an individual has an allele linked to a congenital birth-defect, it is likely that close relatives also have this allele; a homozygote would express the congenital birth defect. If an individual does not have such an allele, a homozygote would be healthy.

In small populations this dynamic would lead to an initial increase in birth defects. But if health care is limited, it is likely that such children would not reproduce; consequently, the frequencies for the allele in question would go down. Ultimately the result would be a population with a large number of homozygotes and a small number of congenital birth defects.

In large populations with good health care, however, it is likely that there will be consistently high levels of heterozygosity despite periodic inbreeding. Consequently the alleles linked to congenital birth defects will survive and remain in the population, with a significant chance of a homozygote with the linked allele.

This increased chance of expression of these homozygotes in an otherwise hetrozygos population is why the rate of severe deformaties and genetic outcomes is increased when for cultural or whatever reasons close relatives marry.

Because humans are not very genetically diverse between populations, they have an added burden of carrying more homozygote expressions of genes anyway, unlike other animals which have more hetrozygotes expressed.

With immigration from cultures which encourage close relations, The frequency of these homozygote alleles will thus increase, and better healthcare will mean suvival for future occurance of these alleles and greater probability of carriers.

With small scale immigration it doesn't make much difference, but with large scale immigration it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prior to the Chernobyl disaster I knew of very few people who died of cancer.

Since 1990 onwards it became edemic among friends and ex customers and I wondered why. For many years I have been a very heavy tea drinker always nice and strong and on my last visit to my GP he enquired how much tea I drank. Evidently medical researchers have discovered that tea has cancer preventive ingredients.

The best chance to remain healthy is to stop drinking coke, if you place a lump of steak in a bowl filled with coke it will dissolve in a couple of days. Rumour has it in the states they use it to clean diesel engines. It is very worrying when youngsters drink it morning, noon, and night. I have one of them in my family, never ever drank tea, always complains of guts ache, I tell him that`s not possible he has no guts left.

"Phosphoric acid may be used by direct application to rusted iron or steel tools or surfaces to convert iron oxide (rust) to a water soluble phosphate compound. It is also used to acidify foods and beverages such as various colas, but not without controversy as to its health effects. It provides a tangy taste, and being an agro-industrial chemical, is available cheaply and in large quantities (much like common salt, also used in excess in many processed foods). The low cost and bulk availability is unlike more expensive and even healthful natural seasonings that give comparable flavors, such as ginger for tangyness, or citric acid for sourness, readily obtainable from lemons and limes."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost by definition immigrants are going to be harder working than "native" Britons; they have had to get off their **** and migrate after all.

The key thing they are bringing with them is not their genes; that is a bit of distraction IMHO. Far more importantly, they bring with them a different culture and outlook. Setting up a shop may well be seen by some immigrants as being a major step towards becoming a success, an opportunity not afforded back in the sub-continent where the banking and wholesale structures may not have existed or been accessible. Here there is the opportunity and many people grasp it. Running a small shop means can you at least provide for yourself and your family, and even do quite well, but this is still just a link in the retail chain. The key thing for their local community is that they are not scabbing off anyone and doing well for themselves.

What is more exciting is when people set up businesses that go on to export, grow, etc etc. If immigrants do this, then great, good for them and "us" indigenous Brits. Nevertheless, the central advantage such groups have for themselves is a sense of "getting ahead" and being independent. Working class whites in this country have been provided with housing, hand-outs, and until the 1980s, jobs by the "powers that be". This has created a culture of complacency and dependence.

What many immigrants don't realise is that living in the UK is a two-way process. The more corrupting influences of general UK chaviness and dependence can impact on the second generation. Many immigrant groups have no idea how to handle heroin addiction, or prostitution, etc among their young people. In some sad instances the same young people then react against chaviness and the bigotry of whites, by embracing mujahadeen, "street culture", or whatever.

We as a country could learn a lot from immigrants, sadly it seems that the window for doing so is limited. At the moment there is not the housing for the UK's own "deprived" (I have recently interviewed a family of four living in a 1 bed flat in S. London, not untypical), so I don't see how large-scale immigration is all that sensible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Many immigrant groups have no idea how to handle heroin addiction, or prostitution, etc among their young people. In some sad instances the same young people then react against chaviness and the bigotry of whites, by embracing mujahadeen, "street culture", or whatever.

..what on earth are you talking about...??

..drug addiction and prostitution are solely british preserves are they..??

..ironic considering the embraced mujahadeen are the ones providing the heroin..

..give your head a shake.. :lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the cancer thing, I think is there little point changing lifestyle to avoid it. My mum has just been diagnosed with bladder cancer and shes 52. never smoked ever and drinks possibly half a pint of cider every three months. the average age for bladder cancer is 67, its three times more common in men and it is sometimes caused by smoking. So there is no reason other than bad luck shes got it!

As her mum had kidney cancer and died of a brain tumour, her dad had skin cancer and her uncle died of brain tumour, I'm guessing its something to do with genes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with immigrants whatsoever.

I think people should be able to live wherever they like, so long as they don't sponge off peoples good nature.

IMHO, there are two types of people along these lines: workshy layabout bas**rds who are happy to let someone else do the work for them, and people who have enough self respect and respect for others to do their bit.

I find it unfortunate that some fool always has to lay something at the door of immigrants. I know some refugees who have come here and worked their arses off and now employee 5 local people producing goods. But I also know a family of refugees from eastern europe who are here solely to sponge off the NHS/DSS, and reportedly want to go home when their mothers treatment is complete :angry:

You get lovely people and ass**les everywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW there was a good article about LTS here

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/disp...tory_id=2319297

It's an ill wind

Dec 30th 2003 | GLASGOW

From The Economist print edition

Why so many people are off sick while the economy is healthy

FEELING a bit stressed? Pop along to the doctor and explain how you can't sleep, can't eat, don't want to go out and, by the way, a nasty boss at work is making your life hell. Stress, increasingly given as a reason for being off work, is conveniently hard to diagnose. A recent survey of 67 doctors by Aberdeen University researchers, published in the British Medical Journal, found that most tended to hand out sick notes when asked.............

Link to post
Share on other sites
..what on earth are you talking about...??

..drug addiction and prostitution are solely british preserves are they..??

..ironic considering the embraced mujahadeen are the ones providing the heroin..

..give your head a shake..  :lol:  :lol:

Sorry, I meant this as an example, not the rule. A friend of mine works "in the community" in Bethnal Green, E London. Many second or third generation children of Bangladeshi/Bengali families are getting involved in drugs and the associated problems, e.g. crime, prostitution, etc, but their families' cultural background doesn't have a way of coping with said vices. Many of these sorts of issues are novel for migrating families, who may have come from rural areas.

Just because Afghanistan produces and exports heroin, it doesn't mean they are stupid enough to allow their children to smoke it, pump it up their veins etc.

My point is that while immigrant families have much to teach us in terms of being entrepreneurs, but in the end we "swamp" them far more than they "swamp" us, to use the Daily Mail phraseology, and they can easily end up on the chav/welfare scrapheap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that while immigrant families have much to teach us in terms of being entrepreneurs,

Immigrants pay vastly less tax even though many have larger houses & real incomes. This I have concluded is a cultural thing which is why thier home countries tend not to develop so well.

Go and talk to Greeks in North London. Many are very wealthy indeed and have houses in Winchmore Hill etc yet when you really get to know them they will brag how they only pay £10000 P/A Tax yet live in a £1m house, own restaraunts and other property and drive big Mercs. They live for money.

Sure when immigrants first arrive they take low paid / low skill jobs but go and really see how the ones here a few years are doing.

Go and talk to your local Indian restaraunt owner. If he trusts you he will tell you he ownes lots of businesses and property and rents out his council house for a profit yet he lives in a large detatched which council are not aware of.

If all these immigrants really did contribute fully in Tax the rest of us could have a Tax cut.

Yeah there are lots of white van men who pay little tax but Tax evasion is not ENDEMIC in the established population anything like the degree in the immigrant (arrived in last 30 years) population.

Any one disputing my claims has not really got to know many immigrants or gives out a vibe to immigrants which warns the immigrant not to divulge too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Immigrants pay vastly less tax

This depends whether the IR regard them as domiciled or non-domiciled. Roman Abramovich, for example, pays very little tax because the IR regard him as non-domiciled in the UK, ie he holds the vast majority of his wealth offshore.

Genuine immigrants who have UK citizenship and a permanent home in the UK will find it hard to prove that they are non-domiciled in the UK.

yet he lives in a large detatched which council are not aware of.

********.

Tax evasion is not ENDEMIC in the established population anything like the degree in the immigrant (arrived in last 30 years) population.

The situation I described above with Roman Abramovich et al. is not tax evasion. It is perfectly legal.

Any one disputing my claims

...knows that you are talking out of your ar5e?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I meant this as an example, not the rule. A friend of mine works "in the community" in Bethnal Green, E London. Many second or third generation children of Bangladeshi/Bengali families are getting involved in drugs and the associated problems, e.g. crime, prostitution, etc, but their families' cultural background doesn't have a way of coping with said vices. Many of these sorts of issues are novel for migrating families, who may have come from rural areas.

Just because Afghanistan produces and exports heroin, it doesn't mean they are stupid enough to allow their children to smoke it, pump it up their veins etc.

My point is that while immigrant families have much to teach us in terms of being entrepreneurs, but in the end we "swamp" them far more than they "swamp" us, to use the Daily Mail phraseology, and they can easily end up on the chav/welfare scrapheap.

yes, the people who're immigrants are on the whole meek,grateful and hardworking and law-abiding.

But it's their children and granchildren who in many cases become a new underclass as they have the same expectations and attitudes as the average Brit..

This is true with immigration to all rich countries....It is far too simplistic for the government to say ''immigration helps economic growth by filling jobs Brits won't do''

There are also issues with the infrastructure........Britain is less prepared than other countries to expand its road and rail network......and build on greenfield sites like we used to....

Link to post
Share on other sites
This depends whether the IR regard them as domiciled or non-domiciled. Roman Abramovich, for example, pays very little tax because the IR regard him as non-domiciled in the UK, ie he holds the vast majority of his wealth offshore.

Genuine immigrants who have UK citizenship and a permanent home in the UK will find it hard to prove that they are non-domiciled in the UK.

********.

The situation I described above with Roman Abramovich et al. is not tax evasion. It is perfectly legal.

...knows that you are talking out of your ar5e?

ZZ you are a very out of touch person and the best bit is you dont realise it.

Most of the immigrants I know allready have UK citizenship. I keep saying this to you, stop reading books and start meeting REAL people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 443 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.