Canny lass

I don't Think you are allowed to press your own button Maggie! It shouldn't even be possible and there are probably warning Points involved! 60 points, eh. Somebody must agree with my rantings! Nice to know. But scoring Points is not what the discussion is about - I hope.

Mercuryg, thanks for some good POVs. It amazes me too that people don't take the time to read critically. That is one of the best things I learned to do in school and a habit that was drummed into me by my parents - well my father in particular - was to "never take things at face value". As you say, it's an enjoyable thread which makes me see that all hope is not lost. Maggie, those green buttons have a Life of their own and can make for interesting viewing at times. But not to worry, I Think that plenty of other buttons are being pressed on this thread and not all of them green.

" now here's an interesting FACT that relates to my where are all these moderate Muslms question" So, only 8.6% of the referrals come from Muslims. What's so very strange about that? They only comprise 4.8% of the population so why should the figure be any higher? And, well done Security Minister John Hayes who said "we must work with the overwhelming majority of British people who abhor the twisted narrative that has seduced some of our people". Nice one!

"even requests to explain the Words I've never actually used!" I assume, and I know that you'll correct me should I happen to be wrong, that you are referring to my polite request for " a clarification of YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the Word ghetto" NB: not a clarification of your USE of the Word ghetto or a clarification of the MEANING of the word. There is a difference, and understanding the writer's understanding of a Word helps me, the reader, to better understand your argument. I chose ghetto instead of ghettoised because ghetto is the root of ghettoised, meaning "to put something into a separate, limited category" (OALD). The addition of the typically class changing suffix, -ise, and the inflectional -d do not in anyway change the semantics of the root. In order to understand just what the writer is saying it may be advantageous to the reader to know whether or not the writer's UNDERSTANDING of the Word ghetto includes the notion of a slum. I Think it's a perfectly reasonable request and I'm looking forward to an answer.

And finally, for this evening at any rate, Point 5: "Sharia law is already imposed in our country" (posted today 12.57 PM) This statement is in direct opposition to your statement yesterday (10.09 PM), that "all viewpoints will be equally valid right up to the inevitable day that Sharia law is imposed on us all." I can't seem to find any reference to this anywhere in the British legal system. Could you please quote me, or at least direct me to, the relevant paragraphs. So, just to recap, what I'm asking for is, apart from an explanation as to how I recognise a muslim soley by his appearance (perhaps you missed the question?): a clarification of what is your understanding of the Word ghetto a clarification as to why we British can't succeed with the present wave of refugees just as we did with the Ugandan Asians or the boat-people one (1) example of how any aspect of the British Culture has been replaced by a Group of refugees a source of the given definition for "true refugee" a clarification as to whether Sharia law has, or has not, already been imposed in Britain. With any possible answer in the affirmative, a wink in the direction of the appropriate paragraphs would be very much appreciated.

Point 4: "true refugees Always harbour a desire to go back home when it becomes possible and/or when they have accumulated enough wealth" It is being suggested - no, stated - here that a refugee is a "true refugee" only if he/she "harbours a desire to go back home" Nonsense! None of these people WANT to leave their homeland. None of these people WANT to leave their family. None of these people WANT to be a refugee. All they WANT is for themselves and their Children to not be forced to be any part of war, religious struggle, abject poverty or any of the other atrocities prevailing in their country. The only way to achieve that is to leave. In the case of the Syrians, at least those I've taken the time to listen to, they also have a desire to return to Syria when that's possible (making them "true refugees" if I've understood your meaning). However, they are also realistic. They don't Think that possibility is going to present itself in the forseeable future - and quite frankly neither do I. This may come as a surprise to some, but all hope of returning does not vanish on becoming a British Citizen. The possibility of returning to their homeland is not eradicated by obtaining British citizenship. So, just because they apply for British citizenship does not mean that they don't long to return to their homeland. However, while waiting for any possibility to return, they become integrated (hopefully), their Children, some of them born in Britain, grow up and become just as British as The British themselves.Their family in the homeland are long since dead (it was the older generation who remained there) and the desire they once harboured to return fades with the passing of time. I'm no refugee but even we non refugees long for home and I can openly admit that I don't long for home nearly as often as I did 20 years ago. I've made this my home but It doesn't take away my love for my homeland. That is not a crime!

Point 3: "The present influx is about cultural replacement, not about integration and enrichment ... The Islamic leaders have only got one goal: total World domination" So many people rabbit on about this so-called cultural replacement! Give me just ONE example of how any aspect of British Culture has been replaced by the present, or for that matter any, Group of immigrants. Don't bore me with the usual rubbish about burkas and religion. I've already demonstrated to you that they, as well as all other Brits, have every right in accordance with both British law and constitution to choose their own clothing and religion. As for the Islamic leaders goal of "total World domination", it's the same as with the "overbreeding - there simply aren't enough of them! They are 11 in number - the 12th not having appeared yet. They've been waiting for centuries! Furthermore, It is being assumed here that every practitioner of a religion follows their leader's 'advice' regarding the doctrine involved. They do not! Contraception, and even abortion, are practiced among some catholics. What's to say that muslims agree with everthing their leader says?

Point 2: HELLO! WAKE UP! Our ancestors were immigrants! What about the Romans, the Jutes, the Angles and the Saxons? The UK is, and Always has been, a multi cultural society and it has, until recently, been very good at integrating Groups of foreign origin. Did you know for example that the Word racial wasn't to be found in the English vocabulary until the mid 19th Century? I've said it Before and I'll say it again, the English language reflects history better than any other media. These people may not have arrived in any great number, compared with today, but then again, the means of transport were fewer and they didn't get so many people into a boat in those Days! They may also have come with a 'take over' in mind, just as is being suggested of the present wave of immigrants,but they did not succeed. Britain is still Britain. Brits are still British. We didn't become Romans, Angles, Jutes or Saxons. THEY became BRITISH! 3g, you take up the Uganda Asians. This interesting Group of immigrants is - precisely as you Point out - "industrious, Christian and didn't ghettoise" (Lovely construction BTW). Industrious I can personally vouch for, having worked with many. Christian? Yes indeed, they were workers from British colonies carrying all that was a) expected of them and all that was forced upon them by their lords and masters in their baggage. They certainly didn't 'ghettoise'. How could they? They were themselves 'ghettoised' being on the receiving end of the stick, as it were. Ghettos are unavoidable when all that's left to offer are vacant, substandard housing in run down areas. Unfortunately, when so many arrive at the same time, it's very often all that's left, as was the situation at that time, but it's better than living in a war zone, Of course, much depends on how you interpret the Word 'ghetto. It has many meanings including Everything from the oroginal, Italian getto, meaning 'foundry' (because of the first Jewish ghetto established on the site of an old foundry in Venice) through the also Italian borghetto - diminutive of borgo meaning 'borough', to the present day meaning " a part of a city, especially a slum area, (but not necessarily) occupied by a minority Group. As was rightly said, they were not 60 000 in number, only a mere 30 000, but didn't WE do well to make such a su´ccess of this Group! If my memory serves me right then it wasn't all plain sailing. Who remembers the National Front with all their Marches, protests and scaremongering throughout the 1970s? Or Enoch Powell and his River of blood speech? It was first when Britain began to see these people as a resource that it started to go well for Commonwealth immigrants. Before that they were 'ghettoised, or segregated as I prefer to call it. And, guess what, it was the same thing with the so-called 'boat-people' from Vietnam in the 1980s, so what's to say it can't happen again with the present wave of people seeking help in Britain? We Brits are fantastic at rallying around when help is needed, well, most of us are.

I must just take up a couple of Points here: We " are "falling into the trap of equating foreign travel and a steady trickle Exchange of citizenry with mass economic migration into the domain of Another Culture". Mmm .... For many years I retreated occasionally to the house of a friend in central, mainland Spain. The purpose of the visit was, in part, to enjoy the weather but in the main it was to keep my language skills alive. I stopped several years ago, when it no longer was possible to have a conversation in Spanish with the locals. The house, previosly in the centre of a small, spanish village, is now, though not having moved, smack in the middle of a 95% English speaking, urban development. The houses are owned by Brits, mostly retired. None of them speak Spanish. They don't need to. All shops, restaurants and other businesses are owned and run by Brits. Want a new gas boiler fitted, need a haircut, a mechanic, gardener,Carpenter, joiner, glazier, electrician or taxi - the list is endless? Go to the local club (British, of course), look on the notice board and you'll find lots of these and many others advertising their services AT GREATLY REDUCED RATES. I wonder how they manage that? Meanwhile, all spanish shops and serices have gone out of business. I wonder why? And, it's the same thing in the Canary Islands! In most areas you could be forgiven for thinking that you were in central Newcastle or Edinburgh. I've even been able to spend english Money in some shops in Tenerife! I Think that today we can equate the two, that's to say, foreign travel and a steady trickle Exchange of citizenry and mass economic migration into the domain of Another Culture, quite nicely. NB. This is not to say that Spain, as a whole, has been subject to cultural replacement. it's rather a question of a concentration in small pockets giving the effect of something much bigger - A bit like the muslims and the burka. Apologies for all the capital letters. as of today I just can't be bothered to replace them all.

Hi Paul, I had problems with the 38 hours knowing that he starts his journey here in Scandinavia at 3 pm 24 Dec, continues in the UK from 12.01 am 25 Dec and doesn't finish until 6 Jan the following year in Spain (where the reindeers mysteriously change into Camels)! What does Hawkings say about that?

Haha Eggy, thanks for the link! If only I'd known about gizmodo I'd have saved myself half an hour's translation time! This is apparently doing the rounds in Swedish on FB. One grandson, now 21 years old, has never believed my stories of Santa with chimneys and mince pies. The simple logic of a child's mind told him many years ago that it couldn't be possible because: 1) he'd never seen a dirty Santa Clause and chimneys are dirty places 2) nobody could eat mince pies because they are horrible (according to him) I got it in an e-mail with the message "9 million Swedes can't be wrong" Just wait until Santa comes at 3pm today! Now where did I put that chimney brush?

B*ggar Webbtrekker! You're right! Now I'll have to do all those sums again. But, on the other hand - being a seasoned hand at the job, so to speak - He may have purchased the Gaviscon Before he left Scandinavia, where he works between 3 and 4 in the afternoon only, while most fathers are out buying newspapers.

Thanks for the tip! I'll bear that in mind.

Now in all fairness Pilgrim, I did point out that allowances were not being made for toilet visits for either Santa Clause or his reindeers! I did this to get round the fact that the UK has not as yet standardised the mince pie to any specific weight or circumfrence measurement - a bit like Cornwall and it's pasty (which requires only a specified origin) - making any calculation of the amount of NCC policy document (is that a euphemism?) impossible. Having just returned from a few weeks touring (and seeing through a haze of Mojito and Piña Colada) the island of Cuba I have the answer in the palm of my hand. Cuba is having the same problem with all the horse drawn carriages that compete with tourist buses on the motorways. Here the animal is requred to have an old shirt, free choice of colour, threaded by the arms over the shafts of the carriage, while the shirt tail is in some mysterious manner attached to the foot board of the carriage itself. It functions a bit like the nappy you mention in collecting up the NCC policy document as it is churned out but without impeding the movement of the horse. I think it could be implemented at once if all you guys give up one measly little shirt in the name of Christmas.

My bells have never been more decked!

Not a euphemism Pilgrim, but "polishing his gear stick" might be.

Not exactly Eggy. I translated it from Swedish. Got it from one of the 'older' grandchildren (who's now the conker champion with his very own 'sixer'). And what's a gizmodo?

Does Santa Clause exist? No known species of reindeer can fly. However, there are 300 000 living organisms that do and even if most of these are insects and bacteria it doesn't rule out the possibility that flying reindeer - which only Santa Clause has access to - do, in fact, exist. There are approximately 2 billion children (persons under the age of 18) on this earth. However, Santa Clause doesn't seem to visit Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or Jews, thus reducing the workload to roughly 15% - in round figures 378 million. With an average of 3.5 children per household - and assuming that at least one child in each household has behaved himself the whole year - Santa is required to visit 91.9 million homes. Santa Clause has only 38 hours in which to do this - thanks mainly to the different time zones and the rotation of the Earth. I am of course assuming that he travels from east to west as that would appear to be the most logical. It follows that Santa Clause must make 822.6 visits every second. This would mean that at every Christian household with well behaved children Santa Clause would have 1/1 000 of a second to park, disembark, squeeze down the chimney, fill stockings, place parcels under the tree, eat the mince-pies and drink the sherry that have been left for him, get himself back up the chimney and onto his sleigh ready for the next visit while at the same time trying to remain reasonably sober.. If we assume that all these households are equally distributed over the surface of the earth (which we know they are not, but it makes the arithmetic easier), and that the journey is 1.2 km per household, then Santa's journey would be 120.8 million kilometres. Therefore, Santa's sleigh would have to move at a speed of 1 045 km/second (3 000 times the speed of sound!), if no child were to be disappointed on Christmas morning. I'm making no allowances here for toilet visits or meal times for either Santa or his reindeers. Just to compare, one of the quickest vehicles built by man - the Ulysses space probe - moves at a speed of 43.8 km/second while a reindeer - of the conventional type - moves at a speed of 24 km/hour. The cargo on the sleigh adds another interesting dimension to the equation. If we assume that every child gets no more than a box of Lego, weighing approximately 1.5 kg, then the sleigh must be carrying 321 000 ton - and that's not including Santa Clause who is most often portrayed as being somewhat overweight. On the ground, conventional reindeers can't draw a load of more than 220 kg so even if we agree that Santa's 'flying' reindeer can draw more than 10 times the normal weight it wouldn't be enough with only eight reindeer. We would need a staggering 214 000 reindeer which would increase the weight of the sleigh to 354 430 ton. Again, just for the sake of comparison, that's four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth. Just imagine that on your roof! These 354 430 tons, travelling at 1 045 km/second, would create an enormous air resistance which would heat up the reindeer - in the same manner as a space capsule returning to the earth's atmosphere. The two leading reindeer would absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of pure energy per second - EACH! In other words, they would be burned up immediately and, not enough with that, the reindeer following would be subjected not only to immense heat but also a deafening explosion. The whole troupe of reindeer would disintegrate in less that 4.26/1 000 of a second and Santa Clause would be subjected to a g-force 17 000 500.06 times the normal. A Santa Clause weighing 182 kg would be pressed against the back wall of the sleigh with a force of 3 149.961 kg. The only conclusion that can be rightly drawn is that should there at any time have been a Santa Clause delivering presents on Christmas Eve then he is no longer living! But, please keep this a secret and try to enjoy yourselves anyhow! Have a really good Christmas and New Year. PS I must learn how to post a Picture next year. It would be so much easier!

Same here - and still proud of it!

I think "taxi-driver" and "he" are written in the singular Webbtrekker. Just joking, industrial injury!

He polishes his gear stick while waiting for the next 20 year old to come along!

Never a more true word spoken Maggie.

Me too! haven't sat in the front seat since 1967 when a taxi driver, religion unknown, put his hand somewhere other than on the gear stick. Correction: to my last post. I meant to say that these few women will NOT be able to outbreed the local population.

No glossing intended. I agree with you Webtrekker. The birthrate among women of the muslim persuasion is marginally higher than the national average. . However, it isn't relevant to the question as we talking about an 'outbreeding' of the whole population. They could have Twins at every one of their 40 confinemets. It wouldn't change the end result. These few women will be able to outbreed the local population. Extinction is not inevitable. We will not be in a dire situation.

3g, are you telling me that it's not only within the health service that there are people of the muslim persuasion WORKING - i.e. those doctors and nurses you mentioned earlier? You mean that some are also WORKING as taxi drivers? What happened to all those stay at home, benefits fiddling, rights demanding people of the same persuasion that we read about so often on the Internet? With all these muslims working, who's left to do the job of "outbreeding the local population" and more importantly, when do they find time to do it? You suggest that I may have to agree to wearing a burka simply because I'm told to sit in the back seat of a taxi. I suggest that you may have a genuine, but never the less irrational, fear that the UK is on its way to becoming a Sharia state - that's to say predominantly populated by people of the muslim faith either through "outbreeding the local population" or by converting the local population by whatever means possible - as you appear to suggest in your question. Let's have a look at these two possibilities and see if I can put your mind at rest. First we'll take a look at the "outbreeding of the local population" and why I think it will never happen. According to the 2011 census there are around 63 million residents in the UK. Of these, some 25.3 million are aged between 15 and 44 - the fertile years. However, they are not all female. Roughly half (49%) are men leaving the 51% , 12 903 000, who are female to man the 'production line' as it were. But, wait a minute - not all of these are of the muslim persuasion! Again, according to the 2011 census, muslims account for only 4.8% of the population thereby reducing the 'workforce on the production line' to 619 344. In order to give these poor women a fair chance of succeeding with the outbreeding job, I want us to imagine that no fertile female of any other religious persuasion ever gives birth to another child. Let's also imagine that there are no multiple births from this muslim 'workforce' (there aren't so many in reality that they would significantly change the outcome of this exercise). To make the maths easier we can keep the numbers constant by allowing one teenager to become fertile for every woman reaching the menopause - a bit like it is in real life. Now, given that a fertile female (perpetually pregnant (give or take the odd hour for giving birth and the odd minute or two for conceiving) can produce max. 4 children every 3 years (multiple births not counted), and is fertile for approximately 30 years, how long would it take for these 619 344 women to outbreed the local population? I've never been brilliant at maths but I get it to somewhere around the 80 years mark! And that is in optimal conditions with no competition from any other women and taking no account of reduced egg production forced upon us (men and women) by the biological ravages of time. Not to mention the part played by headaches and brewer's droop, though the latter is not likely to be a problem for the majority of muslim men - avoiding alcohol as they do! Add to that the fact that the UK's total fertility rate has been decreasing steadily since 2008 and was recorded in 2012 as being 1.92 children/woman - somewhat lower than the replacement rate of 2.075 children/woman. RELAX 3g! It's never going to happen. This is not an optimal world. Women of all denominations will continue to lie on their backs thinking of England (when they are not thinking of what to give hubby for his tea) and popping out youngsters at the rate of 1.92 per woman. Some biological clocks will undoubtedly have stopped ticking by the age of 45 while most others will at the very least be going slow but I'm quite sure of one thing - whatever their religious persuasion most women will have drawn the line long before reaching the 40 births in 30 years required to "outbreed the local population". Then there's the question of converting the population to Islam. Again, using the information given by the local population in the 2011 census, I don't think you have any need to be afraid. The majority (59.3%) are still christian bringing with them all that safety in numbers can offer. Another 25.1% have no religion at all while yet another 7.2% haven't bothered to answer the question at all. So, it would appear that a third of the population aren't sufficiently interested in religion to belong to any denomination whatsoever, making conversion to Islam highly unlikely. Ther'e a very good book by Prof.Grace Davies Religion in Britain Since 1945: Believing without Belonging (1994), in which she describes the steady decline of religious affiliation in post-war Britain. Judging by the census figures there doesn't appear to have been any great stampede to fill the void by converting voluntarily to Islam. there simply isn't any interest in it! Neither do I believe that the UK will succumb to conversion under threat of being relegated to the back seat of a taxi. The extremists advocating total Islam are but a minute proportion of a minority group within Islam - the Shia Group comprising roughly 10% of all muslims. They do not represent nor - sit down if your standing for this may surprise you - do they have any support from the majority of Islam's followers. So, what's my answer to the taxi question? Well, I'm batting in the dark here as I'm still not sure I'd be able to recognise as muslim any unknown man soley by his appearance. Of the first Three alternative answers: get in the back, go nowhere, would never happen, there really isn't any that fits the bill. I have no objections to sitting in the back seat, in fact I usually do. If I'd hailed a cab it would be because I needed to get somewhere and I don't really understand Webtrekker's fourth alternative and I certainly wouldn't want a heart attack. However, I do believe it could happen. I've nursed patients detained under section 25 of the 1953 MHA with less delusional ideas! Given no other choices I would probably have to opt for smartly pulling out the Kalashnikov, which self-respecting girls like myself always carry in their handbags, point it at his head and say "Take me to the nearest police station. I wish to report an act of sexual discrimination" and I'd probably add "Buster", like they do in the movies, just to frighten him a bit.