Quite so, Mr. D, which brings us back to where I started - the claim is mathematical twaddle. 4 million is a lot bigger number than 20 and of those 4m those of breeding age probably number at least 2million and they didn't stop breeding.
Your logic is faulty because those of breeding age would have bred with descendants of John of Gaunt. It only takes one drop along the way.
However, in practice I expect that the John of Gaunt statistic is wrong because the descendants would have been disproportionately likely to be breeding with each other rather than bringing proles into the Gaunt bloodline.
" disproportionately likely to be breeding with each other rather than bringing proles into the Gaunt bloodline"
This is where daughters are important, once married off to another man their fortune is no longer relevant to the gentry. And THEIR daughter is right out.
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
Hmm, are we sure that Charles isn't *the* Charles?
Do you really think I'd be daft enough to post under my real name if I was?
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Maybe maybe not but it puts into question Nigel's appearance in front of a large poster of Turkish would-be immigrants together with the implication that we must stop importing terrorism.
How does the fact we have Muslim terrorists born in this country bring into question the wisdom of not importing more? Bizarre logic.
It was posited as being a remedy for terrorism.
Which in isolation it is not, but is a pretty obvious contributor. To say that "implying we must stop importing terrorism" is questionable as a remedial measure for terrorism is absurd.
Quite so, Mr. D, which brings us back to where I started - the claim is mathematical twaddle. 4 million is a lot bigger number than 20 and of those 4m those of breeding age probably number at least 2million and they didn't stop breeding.
Your logic is faulty because those of breeding age would have bred with descendants of John of Gaunt. It only takes one drop along the way.
However, in practice I expect that the John of Gaunt statistic is wrong because the descendants would have been disproportionately likely to be breeding with each other rather than bringing proles into the Gaunt bloodline.
" disproportionately likely to be breeding with each other rather than bringing proles into the Gaunt bloodline"
This is where daughters are important, once married off to another man their fortune is no longer relevant to the gentry. And THEIR daughter is right out.
Mr. Rex, I gather they don't follow individual threads, just make a calculation based on the length of time and what we know of the first few generations after a given individual (John of Gaunt had lots of kids, and I think they did too, add that to over 600 years and that's what the calculation reveals). ...
Sounds like twaddle to me, Mr. Dancer, mathematical twaddle. John of Gaunt and his immediate progeny make up less than a tiny fraction of 1% of the population in the mid-fourteenth century. The other 99.whatever% did not stop procreating. Would that section of the population have produced more offspring that even John of Gaunt's fertile loins? How could he have out-bred every other man in the kingdom.
Probably due to the descendants of that 1% marrying the descendants of the 99%.
Does that really work though, Mr. D. Even taking into account Mr. Pulpstar's point about doubling up on the number of ancestor's at each generation. The number of people who are not descended from John of Gaunt has always massively out numbered those that are. Therefore the chance of breeding with one of the clan has always been very slim.
Yeah, it's *only* about twenty generations (using the non-Scottish definition of the word here), so the chance that all non-John of Gaunt descendants have intermarried with the 1% are probably pretty slim. Saying that, if they are efficient at intermarrying they would be up to 2% after the first generation, 4% in the second, 8%.. etc. That would quickly build up.
Don't forget that the population was much smaller, and the noble classes probably had a higher percentage change of surviving longer and procreating more (both within wedlock and as by-blows).
(Although I am descended from both John of Gaunt and Mohammed with the paperwork to prove it)
Nate CohnVerified account @Nate_Cohn 2h2 hours ago
Voters disapprove of the GOP plan to replace Obamacare by a staggering 56 to 17% margin
And yet someone voted for Trump and his plan. I am reminded of the TV clip during the election when a Trump voter said he hated Obamacare and was voting the Donald in to get rid of it. The reporter asked him what he would do for medical insurance. Oh, I'm ok was the reply - I'm covered on the Affordable Care Act.
Nate CohnVerified account @Nate_Cohn 2h2 hours ago
Voters disapprove of the GOP plan to replace Obamacare by a staggering 56 to 17% margin
And yet someone voted for Trump and his plan. I am reminded of the TV clip during the election when a Trump voter said he hated Obamacare and was voting the Donald in to get rid of it. The reporter asked him what he would do for medical insurance. Oh, I'm ok was the reply - I'm covered on the Affordable Care Act.
Trump REPEATEDLY said Obamacare was a "disaster" on the campaign trail. People can hardly say they weren't given due warning..
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Roger would much prefer to blame the idea of Britishness for this horrific crime than have the remotest hint of any blame whatsoever attached to a distorted understanding of Islam. Such is the nature of political correctness among those of his ilk.
Now, can we somehow through a process of reeducation, reorientation and positive reinforcement change a Tottenham fan into a Chelsea one? Who knows. But they are all Brits and we need to deal with that.
All you say is largely correct and has sweet fa to do with my point about Roger who detests everything about the country of his birth. Just as a matter of interest how do you think some of these terrorists self-identify? Muslim? or Brit? Maybe you can get down off your high horse and try to answer it honestly.
No idea, frankly.
Neither do I care what Roger does or doesn't think of his country. My interest is how the idea of wanting to stop or reduce terrorism interacts with a desire to close our borders, for example to Muslims a la Trump.
Which I believe to be nonsensical and which lends itself to illogical and damaging actions which don't address the core issue.
I believe the main motive of ISIS terrorism is to provoke us to turn against Muslims in general and thereby radicalise more Muslims in a vicious circle. It is ISIS's only leverage.
Well yes, that is exactly what ISIS have said the aim of their terrorism is.
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
Hmm, are we sure that Charles isn't *the* Charles?
Do you really think I'd be daft enough to post under my real name if I was?
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
Hmm, are we sure that Charles isn't *the* Charles?
Do you really think I'd be daft enough to post under my real name if I was?
Quite so, Mr. D, which brings us back to where I started - the claim is mathematical twaddle. 4 million is a lot bigger number than 20 and of those 4m those of breeding age probably number at least 2million and they didn't stop breeding.
20 million is a lower bound though, say, for example, the John of Gaunt descendants typically had five children compared with two for the peasant classes.
The fecundity of the nobility is known down the ages and by the aged ....
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Roger would much prefer to blame the idea of Britishness for this horrific crime than have the remotest hint of any blame whatsoever attached to a distorted understanding of Islam. Such is the nature of political correctness among those of his ilk.
Now, can we somehow through a process of reeducation, reorientation and positive reinforcement change a Tottenham fan into a Chelsea one? Who knows. But they are all Brits and we need to deal with that.
All you say is largely correct and has sweet fa to do with my point about Roger who detests everything about the country of his birth. Just as a matter of interest how do you think some of these terrorists self-identify? Muslim? or Brit? Maybe you can get down off your high horse and try to answer it honestly.
No idea, frankly.
snip
I believe the main motive of ISIS terrorism is to provoke us to turn against Muslims in general and thereby radicalise more Muslims in a vicious circle. It is ISIS's only leverage.
Well yes, that is exactly what ISIS have said the aim of their terrorism is.
Actually, I think it is worse than this (if that is possible). ISIS believe Muslims who live among non-believers (i.e. here in christian west) are as bad as the non-believers and deserve to die as well.
In absolute terms the UK took more Eastern EU migrants than any other EU nation from 2004 to 2011 as Blair imposed no transition controls
Doesn't that slide rather ignore the size of the country / population density etc? And wouldn't those be relevant to this questions?
And it completely ignores what you define as 'overrun'. You could argue all of the countries on the chart are over-run or none of them, depending on your viewpoint. The fact that the UK is in the centre of a statistical distribution doesn't justify the conclusion. If it were a student of mine I'd be suggesting that they try harder!
I didn't define "overrun". I was asking a question. If you were my teacher, I'd expect a constructive attempt to engage!
In absolute terms the UK took more Eastern EU migrants than any other EU nation from 2004 to 2011 as Blair imposed no transition controls
Doesn't that slide rather ignore the size of the country / population density etc? And wouldn't those be relevant to this questions?
And it completely ignores what you define as 'overrun'. You could argue all of the countries on the chart are over-run or none of them, depending on your viewpoint. The fact that the UK is in the centre of a statistical distribution doesn't justify the conclusion. If it were a student of mine I'd be suggesting that they try harder!
I didn't define "overrun". I was asking a question. If you were my teacher, I'd expect a constructive attempt to engage!
I wasn't criticising you, I was criticising the statement on the slide - that's what the 'it' refers to in my first line.
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
I reckon I'm about 85,000th in line to the thrown...
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
Hmm, are we sure that Charles isn't *the* Charles?
Do you really think I'd be daft enough to post under my real name if I was?
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
Hmm, are we sure that Charles isn't *the* Charles?
Do you really think I'd be daft enough to post under my real name if I was?
Is that a double-bluff?
Were you one of the 823?
Geoff used up all of his 823 votes in the Referendum
Quite so, Mr. D, which brings us back to where I started - the claim is mathematical twaddle. 4 million is a lot bigger number than 20 and of those 4m those of breeding age probably number at least 2million and they didn't stop breeding.
20 million is a lower bound though, say, for example, the John of Gaunt descendants typically had five children compared with two for the peasant classes.
The fecundity of the nobility is known down the ages and by the aged ....
As is the fact that while the noble is away doing noble stuff in the wars, his castle's policies are full of lusty young ghillies and gamekeepers and so forth.
You are the Prince of Wales, and I claim an earldom.
Earl Morris of The Dance? Or will it be Earl Dancer of the Whiffle Stick? Though thinking about it, that sort of title is used for lesser mortals - Viscounts and Barons. Earls are more direct in their titles. So perhaps we could Earl of Writers' Block or, maybe, Earl of Bleedin'HellWhenDidHeSayTheNextBookWasComingOut.
Nate CohnVerified account @Nate_Cohn 2h2 hours ago
Voters disapprove of the GOP plan to replace Obamacare by a staggering 56 to 17% margin
And yet someone voted for Trump and his plan. I am reminded of the TV clip during the election when a Trump voter said he hated Obamacare and was voting the Donald in to get rid of it. The reporter asked him what he would do for medical insurance. Oh, I'm ok was the reply - I'm covered on the Affordable Care Act.
Trump REPEATEDLY said Obamacare was a "disaster" on the campaign trail. People can hardly say they weren't given due warning..
Trump did say Obamacare was a disaster but he also pledged to replace it with something better -- but what he has done is not present Trumpcare (better, cheaper, full provision) but basically endorse the Ryan plan which is worse for many Americans but does not go far enough down the repeal route for some GOPpers.
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
I reckon I'm about 85,000th in line to the thrown...
As in Game of Throwns, that epic saga set in the world of high-stakes poker dice?
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
I reckon I'm about 85,000th in line to the thrown...
Probably about right if Rose Leveson Gower (Nee Bowes Lyon) was your great grandmother.
Nate CohnVerified account @Nate_Cohn 2h2 hours ago
Voters disapprove of the GOP plan to replace Obamacare by a staggering 56 to 17% margin
And yet someone voted for Trump and his plan. I am reminded of the TV clip during the election when a Trump voter said he hated Obamacare and was voting the Donald in to get rid of it. The reporter asked him what he would do for medical insurance. Oh, I'm ok was the reply - I'm covered on the Affordable Care Act.
Trump REPEATEDLY said Obamacare was a "disaster" on the campaign trail. People can hardly say they weren't given due warning..
Trump did say Obamacare was a disaster but he also pledged to replace it with something better -- but what he has done is not present Trumpcare (better, cheaper, full provision) but basically endorse the Ryan plan which is worse for many Americans but does not go far enough down the repeal route for some GOPpers.
The two most popular features of Ryancare comes from Obamacare !!
Nate CohnVerified account @Nate_Cohn 2h2 hours ago
Voters disapprove of the GOP plan to replace Obamacare by a staggering 56 to 17% margin
And yet someone voted for Trump and his plan. I am reminded of the TV clip during the election when a Trump voter said he hated Obamacare and was voting the Donald in to get rid of it. The reporter asked him what he would do for medical insurance. Oh, I'm ok was the reply - I'm covered on the Affordable Care Act.
Trump REPEATEDLY said Obamacare was a "disaster" on the campaign trail. People can hardly say they weren't given due warning..
I'll be honest, even now, I'm still not sure exactly what "Obamacare" actually entails. The US healthcare system seems such a tangled mess that I give up trying to read how it works (and what Obamacare changed about it) halfway through any article I read on it.
Quite so, Mr. D, which brings us back to where I started - the claim is mathematical twaddle. 4 million is a lot bigger number than 20 and of those 4m those of breeding age probably number at least 2million and they didn't stop breeding.
20 million is a lower bound though, say, for example, the John of Gaunt descendants typically had five children compared with two for the peasant classes.
The fecundity of the nobility is known down the ages and by the aged ....
As is the fact that while the noble is away doing noble stuff in the wars, his castle's policies are full of lusty young ghillies and gamekeepers and so forth.
The occasion influx of stout yeoman stock is no bad thing .... so I'm told.
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Maybe maybe not but it puts into question Nigel's appearance in front of a large poster of Turkish would-be immigrants together with the implication that we must stop importing terrorism.
How does the fact we have Muslim terrorists born in this country bring into question the wisdom of not importing more? Bizarre logic.
It was posited as being a remedy for terrorism.
It's not a remedy. But when you have a problem with integration or, indeed, de-integration of second/third generations, then it really does not make a whole lot of sense to increase the numbers in a particular community. That is not going to aid integration. And unintegrated communities are likely to pose a higher risk of creating the breeding grounds for terrorism and other extremist behavior or behavior at odds with the norms of the society. That is not good for social cohesion.
To misquote a famous person's words: There is such a thing as society. I don't want the society I live in to end up fractured because we refuse to apply any sort of common-sense or intelligent judgment to the question of who should be permitted to join it.
There is a discussion to be had about further levels of immigration and integration. But let's look at practicalities. The government seems to be about to clamp down on Polish plumbers while doing nothing about non-EU immigration.
So even if we think there should be no more immigration from Muslim countries the UK does not seem about to do anything about it.
But that's beside the point. Reducing such immigration in future will not address the issue of British terrorists today.
In absolute terms the UK took more Eastern EU migrants than any other EU nation from 2004 to 2011 as Blair imposed no transition controls
Doesn't that slide rather ignore the size of the country / population density etc? And wouldn't those be relevant to this questions?
And it completely ignores what you define as 'overrun'. You could argue all of the countries on the chart are over-run or none of them, depending on your viewpoint. The fact that the UK is in the centre of a statistical distribution doesn't justify the conclusion. If it were a student of mine I'd be suggesting that they try harder!
I didn't define "overrun". I was asking a question. If you were my teacher, I'd expect a constructive attempt to engage!
Could be wrong, but I think TR's comment was directed at williamglenn (as an adjunct to your earlier comment) and not at you.
I wonder what percentage of the UK's mosques tomorrow will be telling their faithful that the Westminster terrorist is now burning in hell. As will all who follow in his footsteps. As will all who sit on information about others planning to follow in his footsteps.
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was when the police officer doing the late press conference referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Maybe maybe not but it puts into question Nigel's appearance in front of a large poster of Turkish would-be immigrants together with the implication that we must stop importing terrorism.
How does the fact we have Muslim terrorists born in this country bring into question the wisdom of not importing more? Bizarre logic.
It was posited as being a remedy for terrorism.
To misquote a famous person's words: There is such a thing as society. I don't want the society I live in to end up fractured because we refuse to apply any sort of common-sense or intelligent judgment to the question of who should be permitted to join it.
There is a discussion to be had about further levels of immigration and integration. But let's look at practicalities. The government seems to be about to clamp down on Polish plumbers while doing nothing about non-EU immigration.
So even if we think there should be no more immigration from Muslim countries the UK does not seem about to do anything about it.
But that's beside the point. Reducing such immigration in future will not address the issue of British terrorists today.
Do you think there is a solution? Personally I think it is too late, and this is the new normal. Extreme surveillance, less freedom, more anxiety
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
Hmm, are we sure that Charles isn't *the* Charles?
Do you really think I'd be daft enough to post under my real name if I was?
Possibly you'd think it was hiding in plain sight.
Mr. Llama, I'd be Lord of the Dance, but I believe that title's already taken...
Book scheduling/ramble: Well, Traitor's Prize was originally intended for November/December, and I'm going to try and release it June/July. I also have two exciting innovative projects (a serial and a tip-top secret something) that should be out in the next month or two.
I might be trying to draw some sketches for the serial (for promotional nonsense) so that might add a little to the time.
Quite so, Mr. D, which brings us back to where I started - the claim is mathematical twaddle. 4 million is a lot bigger number than 20 and of those 4m those of breeding age probably number at least 2million and they didn't stop breeding.
20 million is a lower bound though, say, for example, the John of Gaunt descendants typically had five children compared with two for the peasant classes.
The fecundity of the nobility is known down the ages and by the aged ....
As is the fact that while the noble is away doing noble stuff in the wars, his castle's policies are full of lusty young ghillies and gamekeepers and so forth.
The occasion influx of stout yeoman stock is no bad thing .... so I'm told.
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the fince referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his nationality is far more important than his religion. I find the fact that someone British born should choose to behave like this is far more concerning than that he should self designate as an islamist
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Maybe maybe not but it puts into question Nigel's appearance in front of a large poster of Turkish would-be immigrants together with the implication that we must stop importing terrorism.
How does the fact we have Muslim terrorists born in this country bring into question the wisdom of not importing more? Bizarre logic.
It was posited as being a remedy for terrorism.
To misquote a famous person's words: There is such a thing as society. I don't want the society I live in to end up fractured because we refuse to apply any sort of common-sense or intelligent judgment to the question of who should be permitted to join it.
There is a discussion to be had about further levels of immigration and integration. But let's look at practicalities. The government seems to be about to clamp down on Polish plumbers while doing nothing about non-EU immigration.
So even if we think there should be no more immigration from Muslim countries the UK does not seem about to do anything about it.
But that's beside the point. Reducing such immigration in future will not address the issue of British terrorists today.
Do you think there is a solution? Personally I think it is too late, and this is the new normal. Extreme surveillance, less freedom, more anxiety
I don't actually think there is a solution beyond an active promotion of our values. Whose values? Post reformation, enlightenment values for me. But plenty of Brits value Islamic Fundamentalism.
I think the modern globalised world has thrown up some challenges for which the answers are still a work in progress.
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
I reckon I'm about 85,000th in line to the thrown...
Probably about right if Rose Leveson Gower (Nee Bowes Lyon) was your great grandmother.
Afraid not. I'm the great grandson of Evelyn Marmaduke Gresham Leveson Gower:
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
I reckon I'm about 85,000th in line to the thrown...
Probably about right if Rose Leveson Gower (Nee Bowes Lyon) was your great grandmother.
Afraid not. I'm the great grandson of Evelyn Marmaduke Gresham Leveson Gower:
Nate CohnVerified account @Nate_Cohn 2h2 hours ago
Voters disapprove of the GOP plan to replace Obamacare by a staggering 56 to 17% margin
And yet someone voted for Trump and his plan. I am reminded of the TV clip during the election when a Trump voter said he hated Obamacare and was voting the Donald in to get rid of it. The reporter asked him what he would do for medical insurance. Oh, I'm ok was the reply - I'm covered on the Affordable Care Act.
Trump REPEATEDLY said Obamacare was a "disaster" on the campaign trail. People can hardly say they weren't given due warning..
Many American voters don't know what Obamacare was and didn't know they were getting their healthcare under and Obamacare provision.
Many Trump voter though that 'others' were getting Obamacare and sponging off them. They were happy to vote for others to no longer have healthcare.
The repeal attempt has revealed to many that Obamacare is the only thing keeping them in health insurance.
If it's an Islamic/Islamist terror attack, that should be the focus. The fact he happened to be born in this country is irrelevant.
By that logic, the 7/7 attack should've been all about them (3/4) being from Beeston.
It's mealy-mouthed to only refer to Islamic fundamentalism when worrying about a far right response (the fince referred to such a concern).
Of course, when attacks aren't of that nature (Breivik being the most obvious example), that should also be made clear.
I would say his religion is a far more determining factor regarding his behaviour than where he was born.
Maybe maybe not but it puts into question Nigel's appearance in front of a large poster of Turkish would-be immigrants together with the implication that we must stop importing terrorism.
How does the fact we have Muslim terrorists born in this country bring into question the wisdom of not importing more? Bizarre logic.
It was posited as being a remedy for terrorism.
There is a discussion to be had about further levels of immigration and integration. But let's look at practicalities. The government seems to be about to clamp down on Polish plumbers while doing nothing about non-EU immigration.
So even if we think there should be no more immigration from Muslim countries the UK does not seem about to do anything about it.
But that's beside the point. Reducing such immigration in future will not address the issue of British terrorists today.
Do you think there is a solution? Personally I think it is too late, and this is the new normal. Extreme surveillance, less freedom, more anxiety
I don't actually think there is a solution beyond an active promotion of our values. Whose values? Post reformation, enlightenment values for me. But plenty of Brits value Islamic Fundamentalism.
I think the modern globalised world has thrown up some challenges for which the answers are still a work in progress.
I think in a game of Values Top Trumps, Islamic beats Secular hands down in the "commitment" category
The mistake humans have made in the last half a century or so seems to be switching from "don't try it in case it makes a mess" to "just try it and clear up the mess as best you can" in almost every aspect. We celebrate the happy accidents and ignore the permanent stains
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
I reckon I'm about 85,000th in line to the thrown...
Probably about right if Rose Leveson Gower (Nee Bowes Lyon) was your great grandmother.
Afraid not. I'm the great grandson of Evelyn Marmaduke Gresham Leveson Gower:
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
At the risk of sounding a bit 'where did it all go wrong Georgie Best', are you really that comfortable dating someone 32 years your junior? I am about ten years younger than you and don't think I could date a 21 year old, if one was interested. It would make me insecure, I'd be wondering why she wasn't dating someone in their 20s
I've always dated younger women. One of my great loves was a girl called Sarah, she was 18 and I was 34. I just fancy them more. There it is. My last long term girlfriend was 25 and I was 50.
I do sometimes - very rarely - feel a little uncomfortable, but then I mainly think Who Bloody Cares. I've got one life. I intend to enjoy it. We're all consenting adults. If both sides are happy then that's all that matters. Same goes for gay people, polyamorists, kinksters, girls who like to pretend to be cats because it turns them on. We all have our quirks and eccentricities.
Let adults do whatever they want to do, if it makes them happy.
Besides, the Ancient Greeks though this kind of thing was positively beneficial for society, so if it's OK with Plato and Socrates it's OK with me.
Too bad that what the ancient Greeks actually used to get up to(including probably Plato and Socrates) to would have got them long jail terms and a record as sex offenders nowadays. And that's just the Athenians. The Spartans, if anything, were worse.
Many of our top public schools were modelled on the Spartan system. Vile food, cold showers, lots of sport in all weathers, and compulsory pederasty.
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
At the risk of sounding a bit 'where did it all go wrong Georgie Best', are you really that comfortable dating someone 32 years your junior? I am about ten years younger than you and don't think I could date a 21 year old, if one was interested. It would make me insecure, I'd be wondering why she wasn't dating someone in their 20s
I've always dated younger women. One of my great loves was a girl called Sarah, she was 18 and I was 34. I just fancy them more. There it is. My last long term girlfriend was 25 and I was 50.
I do sometimes - very rarely - feel a little uncomfortable, but then I mainly think Who Bloody Cares. I've got one life. I intend to enjoy it. We're all consenting adults. If both sides are happy then that's all that matters. Same goes for gay people, polyamorists, kinksters, girls who like to pretend to be cats because it turns them on. We all have our quirks and eccentricities.
Let adults do whatever they want to do, if it makes them happy.
Besides, the Ancient Greeks though this kind of thing was positively beneficial for society, so if it's OK with Plato and Socrates it's OK with me.
Too bad that what the ancient Greeks actually used to get up to(including probably Plato and Socrates) to would have got them long jail terms and a record as sex offenders nowadays. And that's just the Athenians. The Spartans, if anything, were worse.
Many of our top public schools were modelled on the Spartan system. Vile food, cold showers, lots of sport in all weathers, and compulsory pederasty.
They used to put bromide in the tea at my school. Sometimes I think it's wearing off.....
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
At the risk of sounding a bit 'where did it all go wrong Georgie Best', are you really that comfortable dating someone 32 years your junior? I am about ten years younger than you and don't think I could date a 21 year old, if one was interested. It would make me insecure, I'd be wondering why she wasn't dating someone in their 20s
I've always dated younger women. One of my great loves was a girl called Sarah, she was 18 and I was 34. I just fancy them more. There it is. My last long term girlfriend was 25 and I was 50.
I do sometimes - very rarely - feel a little uncomfortable, but then I mainly think Who Bloody Cares. I've got one life. I intend to enjoy it. We're all consenting adults. If both sides are happy then that's all that matters. Same goes for gay people, polyamorists, kinksters, girls who like to pretend to be cats because it turns them on. We all have our quirks and eccentricities.
Let adults do whatever they want to do, if it makes them happy.
Besides, the Ancient Greeks though this kind of thing was positively beneficial for society, so if it's OK with Plato and Socrates it's OK with me.
Too bad that what the ancient Greeks actually used to get up to(including probably Plato and Socrates) to would have got them long jail terms and a record as sex offenders nowadays. And that's just the Athenians. The Spartans, if anything, were worse.
At what stage does a British born become British ?
I know you're only trying to be clever, so you can call Plato a racist or something, but do you have to do it all the time?
Not Plato. Theresa May. But seriously, how is someone British born different from being British ?
Ok, I'll bite. To me the fella that did this isn't British. He might have been born here and have a British passport, but he clearly doesn't identify as British, as British people shouldn't feel the need to mow down innocent people and stab a police officer to death in the name of some crazy branch of a religion, that has been hijacked by an evil terrorist group that wants to turn the western world into part of its warped Caliphate. I dunno what you'd call him.
Truckles booked for 6pm Wednesday 29th. I've asked for the reservation to read 'Mr Mortimer of PB'.
Did you remember to tell them that famous local author S K Tremayne (TWO places in the German TOP TEN!) is footing the bill?
I'm afraid famous author S K Tremayne may not even be attending due to the fact that last night he sealed the deal with an extremely hot new girlfriend, a 21 year old Anthropology student, who is keen for a rematch next week, probably Weds.
It was my own personal act of defiance against the terrorists. We drank a LOT of champagne.
At the risk of sounding a bit 'where did it all go wrong Georgie Best', are you really that comfortable dating someone 32 years your junior? I am about ten years younger than you and don't think I could date a 21 year old, if one was interested. It would make me insecure, I'd be wondering why she wasn't dating someone in their 20s
I've always dated younger women. One of my great loves was a girl called Sarah, she was 18 and I was 34. I just fancy them more. There it is. My last long term girlfriend was 25 and I was 50.
I do sometimes - very rarely - feel a little uncomfortable, but then I mainly think Who Bloody Cares. I've got one life. I intend to enjoy it. We're all consenting adults. If both sides are happy then that's all that matters. Same goes for gay people, polyamorists, kinksters, girls who like to pretend to be cats because it turns them on. We all have our quirks and eccentricities.
Let adults do whatever they want to do, if it makes them happy.
Besides, the Ancient Greeks though this kind of thing was positively beneficial for society, so if it's OK with Plato and Socrates it's OK with me.
Too bad that what the ancient Greeks actually used to get up to(including probably Plato and Socrates) to would have got them long jail terms and a record as sex offenders nowadays. And that's just the Athenians. The Spartans, if anything, were worse.
Many of our top public schools were modelled on the Spartan system. Vile food, cold showers, lots of sport in all weathers, and compulsory pederasty.
One of my uncle's went to Winchester in the early forties and then joined up at eighteen , landing at Normandy with the Commandos. I said that must have been quite a shock, he said not really.
Mr. T, quite. But the first time it was mentioned on the news last night was regarding fears the far right are, or might be, making Muslims feel scared.
Good afternoon, Miss JGP.
On Edward III, a majority (over 99%) of long-term Englishmen are descended from him, so it's hardly impressive.
The better fact is that more than 99% of Englishmen are descended from Mohammed.
Edward III's son, John of Gaunt, married a Spanish noblewoman who was descended (because Spain had previously been under control of the Moors) from Mohammed. And, from him (because he had an awful lot of children, and much time has passed) over 99% of Englishmen [well, Anglo-Saxons, to be picky] are descended.
I read somewhere that all Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've no idea whether that is true or not or how anybody would go about verifying it.
More than likely
On my mother's side I go Wicks -> Viveash -> Fribbence -> Gilbert -> Piper/Baber -> Leigh
Which then has a line of descent:
Leigh -> Bond -> Hale -> Cavendish -> Cavendish-Bentinick -> Bowes-Lyon -> Windsor
Which are you more chuffed about, the relation to HM or 007?
Oh Lol its miles off, I'm guessing either @Charles or @tlg86 is closest to the Queen here.
Hmm, are we sure that Charles isn't *the* Charles?
Do you really think I'd be daft enough to post under my real name if I was?
Comments
This is where daughters are important, once married off to another man their fortune is no longer relevant to the gentry. And THEIR daughter is right out.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/mar/02/science.research
(Although I am descended from both John of Gaunt and Mohammed with the paperwork to prove it)
Voters disapprove of the GOP plan to replace Obamacare by a staggering 56 to 17% margin
And yet someone voted for Trump and his plan. I am reminded of the TV clip during the election when a Trump voter said he hated Obamacare and was voting the Donald in to get rid of it. The reporter asked him what he would do for medical insurance. Oh, I'm ok was the reply - I'm covered on the Affordable Care Act.
You are the Prince of Wales, and I claim an earldom.
So even if we think there should be no more immigration from Muslim countries the UK does not seem about to do anything about it.
But that's beside the point. Reducing such immigration in future will not address the issue of British terrorists today.
Surely, it will have to be 100%? /sarcasm-mode
Book scheduling/ramble:
Well, Traitor's Prize was originally intended for November/December, and I'm going to try and release it June/July.
I also have two exciting innovative projects (a serial and a tip-top secret something) that should be out in the next month or two.
I might be trying to draw some sketches for the serial (for promotional nonsense) so that might add a little to the time.
I think the modern globalised world has thrown up some challenges for which the answers are still a work in progress.
http://thepeerage.com/p1570.htm#i15691
And Elo Janet Catherine Farquharson:
http://thepeerage.com/p1571.htm#i15710
Many Trump voter though that 'others' were getting Obamacare and sponging off them. They were happy to vote for others to no longer have healthcare.
The repeal attempt has revealed to many that Obamacare is the only thing keeping them in health insurance.
The mistake humans have made in the last half a century or so seems to be switching from "don't try it in case it makes a mess" to "just try it and clear up the mess as best you can" in almost every aspect. We celebrate the happy accidents and ignore the permanent stains
http://thepeerage.com/p10559.htm#i105589
Just saying.
There's a lot of it about.