United Kingdom Independence Party hail victory

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dæl**

Albatross wrote:
dæl wrote:
Albatross wrote:
And Harriet Harman once floated the idea of decriminalising incest, child pornography and lowering the age of consent to 14 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html). What's your point? That a political party can include some pretty unsavoury members? And?

Can you honestly not see the difference between a human rights lawyer supporting an unsavoury group and standing as a candidate for the National Front?

That unsavoury group went on to become Liberty, incidentally - she didn't just support them, she worked for them. Please look into their attitudes towards paedophila, there is some pretty shocking stuff in there. This gem, for example: "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage...'

The unsavoury group I was referring to were the paedophile groups such as the Paedophile Information Exchange rather than Liberty. The point isn't who she was supporting but the message itself, a message which is deeply emotive and quite against common sense. But the claim itself: "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage...' has some evidence and support within the psychology community. I'm not saying the claim is true or false as I don't know, but I'm just pointing out the fact the claim is open to debate.
http://www.ipce.info/host/sandfort_87/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy

I guess it depends which you think is worse, paedophila or racism.

Well both paedophilia and racism have links with lower IQ, but paedophilia is an actual illness rather than racism which isn't, you can tell a paedophile from an MRI as they have a different white matter makeup. Of course you do have to distinguish between paedophilia and child abuse as they are very different things, one is a mental illness and the other is an abhorrent crime, but not all child abusers are paedophiles and not all paedophiles are child abusers.

And she was a central part of the last Labour government, not just some local whack-job who wasn't vetted properly before being allowed to stand.

You will notice the list I posted included a couple of Chairmen, the links between the BNP and UKIP are far deeper than some idiot who can't even sieg heil properly posting photos on facebook.

We are of course getting away from the topic at hand, which is whether UKIP are some trojan horse (thank you for the analogy MGS

) for racists, and it would appear they are. Do any of the other main parties describe themselves as non-racist? They don't need to, and while other parties have had some members of the far right they haven't crowded like moths around a flame as they have to UKIP. Tommy Robinson (or whatever his real name is) told all EDL candidates to stand down in areas where UKIP stood a chance of getting in, for fear of splitting the vote, so he must see something similar in their platforms.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here are some of UKIP's policies from this article.

Spoiler:

**Grey Templar**

purplefood wrote:
It's probably a better idea to stay in the EU and try and fix it rather than just bail...

I'm not entirely sure it can be fixed, not with its current members.

As it stands its a sinking ship, we just aren't sure how much time it has and the only way to slow it realistically is to throw the weak economies overboard. But I doubt that will happen, so its only a matter of time.

**Mr Hyena**

How does any country start to fix a mafia made up of many other countries, some of which are quite unsavory.

**dæl**

Mr Hyena wrote:
How does any country start to fix a mafia made up of many other countries, some of which are quite unsavory.

I don't even know where to start...

How is the EU a mafia? I don't see many MEPs looking around saying "nice country you have here, shame if anything happened to it." What I do see is a council which, for example, this week has stopped our crops from failing by outlawing pesticides that our government were too toothless to, probably due to financial interests and lobbying.

**Mr Hyena**

dæl wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
How does any country start to fix a mafia made up of many other countries, some of which are quite unsavory.

I don't even know where to start...

How is the EU a mafia? I don't see many MEPs looking around saying "nice country you have here, shame if anything happened to it." What I do see is a council which, for example, this week has stopped our crops from failing by outlawing pesticides that our government were too toothless to, probably due to financial interests and lobbying.

They interfere in sovereignty of nations by imposing rules they shouldn't be imposing. Like that very example you cited. Which will reduce the productivity of farm produce while causing an increase in argicultural pests which has serious financial implications for the farming sector (and the public as a result) while also causing a surge in infectious disease of agriculture.

**dæl**

Mr Hyena wrote:
dæl wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
How does any country start to fix a mafia made up of many other countries, some of which are quite unsavory.

I don't even know where to start...

How is the EU a mafia? I don't see many MEPs looking around saying "nice country you have here, shame if anything happened to it." What I do see is a council which, for example, this week has stopped our crops from failing by outlawing pesticides that our government were too toothless to, probably due to financial interests and lobbying.

They interfere in sovereignty of nations by imposing rules they shouldn't be imposing. Like that very example you cited. Which will reduce the productivity of farm produce while causing an increase in argicultural pests which has serious financial implications for the farming sector (and the public as a result) while also causing a surge in infectious disease of agriculture.

The farming sector will be fine, unless of course we leave the EU, then they are properly fethed due to loss of subsidies. I will trust the academics that have conducted experiments on the effects of nicotine on bees ahead of the company that produces the pesticides, but then I'm somewhat skeptical when it comes to financial conflicts of interest in science.

Is that seriously why you think the EU is a "mafia"? Because they take experimental data ahead of political lobbying?

And these are exactly the sorts of things they should be imposing rules on, as it is quite apparent that our government do not have the interests of the people in mind when they make policy on such matters.

**Mr Hyena**

dæl wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
dæl wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
How does any country start to fix a mafia made up of many other countries, some of which are quite unsavory.

I don't even know where to start...

How is the EU a mafia? I don't see many MEPs looking around saying "nice country you have here, shame if anything happened to it." What I do see is a council which, for example, this week has stopped our crops from failing by outlawing pesticides that our government were too toothless to, probably due to financial interests and lobbying.

They interfere in sovereignty of nations by imposing rules they shouldn't be imposing. Like that very example you cited. Which will reduce the productivity of farm produce while causing an increase in argicultural pests which has serious financial implications for the farming sector (and the public as a result) while also causing a surge in infectious disease of agriculture.

The farming sector will be fine, unless of course we leave the EU, then they are properly fethed due to loss of subsidies. I will trust the academics that have conducted experiments on the effects of nicotine on bees ahead of the company that produces the pesticides, but then I'm somewhat skeptical when it comes to financial conflicts of interest in science.

Is that seriously why you think the EU is a "mafia"? Because they take experimental data ahead of political lobbying?

And these are exactly the sorts of things they should be imposing rules on, as it is quite apparent that our government do not have the interests of the people in mind when they make policy on such matters.

Academics can claim a lot of things, but not all Academics agree with one another on experimental results. The bee situation is inherently controversial. Again, how does removing pesticides help the productivity of the farm or the health of the vegetables?

The EU doesn't hold any more more interest for the people than the average thug on a street does. It only holds the interests of its favored countries and its leaders pockets.

Today, it is the sabotaging of one nations farming....another it may very well be removal of dissenters...or a systematic extermination of a group of people.

**dæl**

Mr Hyena wrote:

Academics can claim a lot of things, but not all Academics agree with one another on experimental results. The bee situation is inherently controversial. Again, how does removing pesticides help the productivity of the farm or the health of the vegetables?

If you don't understand how pollination works I'm not sure I can help you.

The EU doesn't hold any more more interest for the people than the average thug on a street does. It only holds the interests of its favored countries and its leaders pockets.

The ECHR seems to suggest otherwise, as does pretty much all of the legislation from the European Parliament. And regarding the lining of pockets, I notice one person taking vast expenses is Farage, 2 million a year which basically pays for UKIP.

Today, it is the sabotaging of one nations farming....another it may very well be removal of dissenters...or a systematic extermination of a group of people.

Just... wow. Firstly, how is it "one nations farming" when it's an EU-wide directive? Secondly, do you honestly believe that the EU, which is governed by the ECHR is more or less likely to engage in such ridiculous claims than a government which wishes to dispose of human rights entirely? Seriously though, wind down the hyperbole and stop claiming everyone is trying to reenact the holocaust, it's just a little bit silly.

**Mr Hyena**

If you don't understand how pollination works I'm not sure I can help you.

I've got a degree in Biology. Stopping pesticides may help bees survive, but it won't do much when its the weather which is killing them more. Besides, it still doesn't answer the problem of plant-borne diseases which WILL increase with no pesticides to keep the insects that cause it at bay.

Farage is crooked, its no doubt. But then, so is the salary of the top dogs at the EU a lot worse.

do you honestly believe that the EU, which is governed by the ECHR is more or less likely to engage in such ridiculous claims than a government which wishes to dispose of human rights entirely?

Yes? Considering they have countries with extreme human rights issues on board...

**dæl**

Nobody is calling for a ban on all pesticides, they are banning neonicotinoids, and even then they are still allowing their use during the winter and in some other cases where they will not come into contact with bees. You have degree in biology so you know as well as I do that neonicotinoids are not the only form of pesticide.

Any citizen of any EU country can bring a case to the European Court as the highest court of appeal, it is higher than our Supreme Court and our House of Lords, it is the same throughout the rest of Europe. The only country I personally feel should be kicked off being a signatory of the ECHR is Russia.

**Wolfstan**

I do wonder how we went from a country that that told white American soldiers to take a hike when they tried to stop blacks using the same pubs / clubs as them in WWII, to where we are today. From what I can see most Brits have no problem with immigration, all they ask is that you pay your way, whatever colour you are. Many other countries have the same policy. When I was looking at going to New Zealand to improve my rugby I still had to have about £2000 in savings and a job lined up, which to me seemed fair enough.

As per usual over here you have right wing using this to hide their racist views and the left wing saying that anybody who mentions immigration restrictions is a racist. The trouble is both sides are the ones who shout the loudest, so unfortunately the press repeats what they have to say and the politicians respond in a kneejerk reaction.

**unmercifulconker**

Wolfstan wrote:
I do wonder how we went from a country that that told white American soldiers to take a hike when they tried to stop blacks using the same pubs / clubs as them in WWII, to where we are today. From what I can see most Brits have no problem with immigration, all they ask is that you pay your way, whatever colour you are. Many other countries have the same policy. When I was looking at going to New Zealand to improve my rugby I still had to have about £2000 in savings and a job lined up, which to me seemed fair enough.

As per usual over here you have right wing using this to hide their racist views and the left wing saying that anybody who mentions immigration restrictions is a racist. The trouble is both sides are the ones who shout the loudest, so unfortunately the press repeats what they have to say and the politicians respond in a kneejerk reaction.

Completely agree with this. Both sides are stupid, you either think all non british people are naturally bad solely because of their colour or country of origin, or you believe any talk around sensitive areas should be labelled as racist and offensive.

**Grimtuff**

BlapBlapBlap wrote:
Am I the only person who wants Britain to stay in the EU?

I don't and probably never will have a vote (Norwegian Citizenship), but one of the distinguishing features of Britain is the sheer cultural variety and integration. Unlike many countries, most communities actually function together really well.

And I feel that UKIP doesn't understand the purpose of the EU; it's really a huge support and governing network across Europe, not just a money sink.

That's the problem. It simply does not happen. Right now around where I live (funnily enough where UKIP got the biggest vote (Boston in Lincolnshire)) there are segregated enclaves of eastern europeans. The vast majority of them refusing to even associate with their adopted countries. Not even attempting to assimilate is not going to endear yourselves to the locals. Having your own shops and barbers (yes, really. Albatross pointed out in another thread there is a Poles only barbers) gives the impression you're walling yourself up and just looking to fleece the country for every penny. Add in the fact you quite literally cannot communicate with some groups as they have no reason to learn our country's language due to staying within their little cliques just raises tensions further.

FWIW the same goes for the enclaves of Brits abroad in countries like Spain. It's just offensive.

How is the government addressing this thorny issue? By telling the Romanians and Bulgarians it rains a lot. .

**purplefood**

Well it does rain a lot...

**dæl**

Grimtuff wrote:

That's the problem. It simply does not happen. Right now around where I live (funnily enough where UKIP got the biggest vote (Boston in Lincolnshire)) there are segregated enclaves of eastern europeans. The vast majority of them refusing to even associate with their adopted countries. Not even attempting to assimilate is not going to endear yourselves to the locals. Having your own shops and barbers (yes, really. Albatross pointed out in another thread there is a Poles only barbers) gives the impression you're walling yourself up and just looking to fleece the country for every penny. Add in the fact you quite literally cannot communicate with some groups as they have no reason to learn our country's language due to staying within their little cliques just raises tensions further.

FWIW the same goes for the enclaves of Brits abroad in countries like Spain. It's just offensive.

How is the government addressing this thorny issue? By telling the Romanians and Bulgarians it rains a lot. .

I agree that it is insulting to have such ghettoisation, but I don't believe that the uniculturalism that UKIP favour is helpful. Britain has, for centuries, assimilated every culture that has arrived on these shores and there's no reason to think our current situation will be any different. It may take a generation, but integration will happen, and we as a society will be better for it.

I don't really know what else the government can do regarding Romanians and Bulgarians, imposing limits is out of the question, as the limits we did impose are now running out and can't be reinstated. But I also doubt we will see the influx we did from Poland, the country is in a very different state to what it was then and there simply aren't assured jobs for them to take. Meaning they would have to face no money and vastly higher costs of living in comparison to the rest of Europe.

**Grey Templar**

I may be off base here, but I don't think you quite understand what assimilation means.

If a person's culture is assimilated, it means they have been absorbed into the dominate culture completely. Someone moving from Bulgaria gradually loses their own culture and takes on the culture of the place they now live. It may not be complete, but they do lose a portion of their original culture. This process normally takes at least a generation, with the original immigrant keeping most of their original culture and the subsequent generation(s) having a mostly the new culture.

But that isn't what appears to be happening in Britain. It appears immigrants a secluding themselves in pockets of their own culture and not really assimilating.

While not inherently bad, it can be damaging if there is zero assimilation.

here in the US we do have cultural pockets. many cities have their China-town, Italian section, etc...

But while they do retain their original cultural identity, they do still gain American cultural traits. Including speaking the language.

From what I've heard, this is not whats happening in Britain. Its more like straight up voluntary segregation.

**dæl**

British culture has taken bits from every group that has come here, and because of this British culture is like some rich tapestry interwoven with all sorts of interesting stuff.

You acknowledge that assimilation takes a generation and then claim that it isn't happening currently, except the Polish influx is less than a decade old, so its unlikely in the extreme that assimilation will have occurred by now. The cultures that arrived in the 60s and 70s have assimilated really well, the West Indians and those from the sub-continent, there are some rare exceptions, but on the whole second generation immigrants are closer to being British than being from their genetic land of origin.

Grey Templar wrote:
I may be off base here, but I don't think you quite understand what assimilation means.

You are off base, considering I'm a student of social science and have recently worked on the subject of Britishness and multiculturalism, its one of the few things I can claim any authority on.

**Grimtuff**

Grey Templar wrote:
I may be off base here, but I don't think you quite understand what assimilation means.

If a person's culture is assimilated, it means they have been absorbed into the dominate culture completely. Someone moving from Bulgaria gradually loses their own culture and takes on the culture of the place they now live. It may not be complete, but they do lose a portion of their original culture. This process normally takes at least a generation, with the original immigrant keeping most of their original culture and the subsequent generation(s) having a mostly the new culture.

But that isn't what appears to be happening in Britain. It appears immigrants a secluding themselves in pockets of their own culture and not really assimilating.

While not inherently bad, it can be damaging if there is zero assimilation.

here in the US we do have cultural pockets. many cities have their China-town, Italian section, etc...

But while they do retain their original cultural identity, they do still gain American cultural traits. Including speaking the language.

From what I've heard, this is not whats happening in Britain. Its more like straight up voluntary segregation.

Yup, there was an article in one of the papers recently (Daily Express IIRC) that described it as an "unspoken apartheid". It is a massive elephant in the room and us Brits are simply doing what we do best: keeping a stiff upper lip and getting on with it, as we see our towns we grew up in get overrun by immigrant populations (this is mainly affecting the east coast of Britain with areas like Peterborough and Boston being some of the most egregious examples).

For full disclosure there are some lovely immigrants. The Polish family that live above me are really nice neighbours; though his countryman that lives 2 doors down from me is an inconsiderate dick whom he dislikes too as he keeps his baby awake by blasting music throughout the flats during the day. His argument as to why this is acceptable? "it's not dark.". It's things like this that show that certain cultures are not getting certain aspects of how we operate within this country and then are unwilling to learn and keep to their own cliques.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:

You acknowledge that assimilation takes a generation and then claim that it isn't happening currently, except the Polish influx is less than a decade old, so its unlikely in the extreme that assimilation will have occurred by now. The cultures that arrived in the 60s and 70s have assimilated really well, the West Indians and those from the sub-continent, there are some rare exceptions, but on the whole second generation immigrants are closer to being British than being from their genetic land of origin.

Weirdly I work with a Czech girl whom I was unaware was first generation until a few months ago. She's about 20-21 and only came to the UK about 10 years ago with her mother. I was convinced she was born here.

Go figure.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, I do have a view that if you are going to move to another country permanently you should speak the language and at least try to adjust to the cultural norms.

**dæl**

If you want horror stories regarding people not engaging then I used to live in St. Pauls in Bristol, which has a reputation for being something of a ghetto and has a history of racial tension. In my experience it was fine and I was regularly accepted despite being white. However in recent years there has been a massive influx of Somalians, which has lead to all sorts of trouble as they have arrived from a lawless society and simply don't understand how we work. But I would happily put my life savings on their children being far better adjusted to our way of life. Socialisation doesn't just come from the immediate family group, but from a much wider pool, and those children will have to engage with our society.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, but the process will be slowed if the people in question are all living together and only hanging out with each other. This will make assimilation much slower as they are still living in a transplanted culture. It could even make their cultural feelings stronger if they develop an "Us vs Them" mentality.

**dæl**

Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but the process will be slowed if the people in question are all living together and only hanging out with each other. This will make assimilation much slower as they are still living in a transplanted culture. It could even make their cultural feelings stronger if they develop an "Us vs Them" mentality.

Its not a transplanted culture though, its a hodgepodge of all sorts of cultures, Somali, Jamaican, Indian, Pakistani etc. all within a small area. Then you have the fact that children are schooled in British classrooms by British teachers and have to engage with other children from all sorts of other cultures, they watch television and film and get socialised through that as well. We don't have the Chinatowns and Little Italys that you guys do, its more residential areas being based on socio-economic status. It's just that most immigrants share socio-economic groupings as well as cultural ones.

**Albatross**

dæl wrote:
We don't have the Chinatowns and Little Italys that you guys do, its more residential areas being based on socio-economic status.

I wouldn't go that far. Here in Manchester there are definite enclaves. I live in the second largest Jewish enclave in the UK, and it's definitely obvious. Not that I mind. Then there's Curry Mile, Cheetham Hill, Moss Side and Longsight... It's the same in most large (and some small) UK towns and cities. There is even an identifiable 'Asian' area in Middlesbrough, and that's tiny compared to say, London. And don't get me started on Bradford. If anyone wants to know why there is concern about immigration and racial tension, go to Bradford. It's not a British city any more, effectively.

**azazel the cat**

As someone who lives in a country that has openly embraced the "mosaic" approach to immigration, I feel that I should point out that said mosaic approach really does encourage ethnic enclaves, which often leads to ghettoization simply by the nature of many immigrants being of a lower socioeconomic standing. This is not to say that it prevents immersion; but it does slow the process down, often on a generational scale.

I'm personally not a fan of the mosaic approach for the aforementioned reasons; however what the UKIP seems to be encouraging is terrible on its face: homogenous cultures are as boring as white-people-church. I've always been a fan of the idea the US used to put forward in theory (if not in practice): the melting pot. That is, adding tin to copper doesn't give you more copper; it creates bronze, which is a far better and stronger material. I've always seen this theory as having the best of both worlds: a situation where everyone does integrate, but retains their old culture in the process of adding it to the whole.

Or maybe I just love being able to get some Vietnamese phở and some Lebanese baba ghanoush on the same block.

**Grey Templar**

Maybe the problem is that the culture trying to do the assimilation is now very strong, due to many years of assimilation of cultures.

the pot has settled somewhat, and now has a strong identity of its own. And thus is reluctant to accept new things, and the reverse is also true. Its difficult to let yourself be absorbed by a strong culture. There is some sort of natural aversion to the stronger culture shock.

Its almost like its easier to merge 2 weaker cultures than to mix a strong culture with another culture(strong or weak)

**Albatross**

Part of the problem has been that the immigration from Eastern Europe was at unprecedented levels. Much is made of the Windrush Generation and how excellently they adapted to British life (often in the face of hostility), becoming 'more British than the Brits', fulfilling vital roles within society by becoming nurses, posties and busdrivers. Indeed, we are justifiably proud of our vibrant British Carribean community.

Two things, though: People from the 'West Indies', at that time, shared many of our cultural values due to the Empire/Commonwealth heritage of those places. In fact, I would feel more kinship with a Jamaican or a Barbadian than I would with a Pole, on balance.

The other thing is that the Windrush Generation was a lot smaller than the influx of Eastern Europeans was under New Labour. Considerably so.

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:Maybe the problem is that the culture trying to do the assimilation is now very strong, due to many years of assimilation of cultures.

the pot has settled somewhat, and now has a strong identity of its own. And thus is reluctant to accept new things

That's actually one of the definitions of conservatism.

**sebster**

Grey Templar wrote:
here in the US we do have cultural pockets. many cities have their China-town, Italian section, etc...

But while they do retain their original cultural identity, they do still gain American cultural traits. Including speaking the language.

From what I've heard, this is not whats happening in Britain. Its more like straight up voluntary segregation.

There is always, always a crop of angry people complaining that this current crop of immigrants aren't like us. Whether it was the Chinese, or the Southern Europeans or whoever, they'll grudgingly admit oh sure, people complained about that last crop of immigrants and they got it wrong beacuse those immigrants turned out to be just fine... but this new crop of immigrants really are failing to assimilate. This time we are totally right and this new crop is terrible... until of course a generation passes, it becomes clear that this group is just like all the other groups and inter-generational assimilation is happening just like it always has, but by then the angry people have moved on to the next wave of immigration to complain about.

I mean, ultimately we know a few things about people. We know that with a few exceptions, people basically want the happiest, easiest lives for themselves and their families. And we know they've got a brain in their head, so that no matter what they're told they'll look around and see what is really the happiest, easiest life possible for them.

From there, if you honestly believe that our materialist, liberal lifestyle really is as good as is it can be for people today, then inter-generational assimilation becomes, basically, inevitable.

**dæl**

White Britons Culturally Segregated Due To Retreat From Minority Areas
A "retreat" of white Britons from areas where minorities live is limiting cultural integration, according to research by think tank Demos. Analysis of Census 2011 figures show that 45% of ethnic minorities in England and Wales live in areas where less than half the population is white British, while 41% live in wards that are less than half white.

Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Equalities Commission and Demos Associate, said white Britons choosing not to live in minority-dominated areas "ought to make us a little anxious". He said: "This very interesting piece of research reveals a number of vital findings about how people in England and Wales are living together. First, it shows a kind of 'Ambridge effect' - a welcome minority advance into areas previously only the preserve of the white majority.

He added: "It also demonstrates a greater degree of ethnic mixing within cities, although unfortunately this appears to be mostly between minorities. What ought to make us a little anxious is the 'majority retreat' it has unearthed - white people leaving minority-led areas and not being replaced - which isn't good news for the cause of integration."

The 4.1 million ethnic minorities who now live in white minority areas is a significant increase from the 2001 Census, when only around 1 million minority Britons lived in such wards.

A statement from Demos said: "Demos researchers attribute this mainly to white British people choosing not to move to minority-dominated areas, in what Trevor Phillips has described as 'majority retreat'. "In these areas, departing white British are replaced by immigration or by the natural growth of the minority population. Over time, the end result of this process is a spiral of white British demographic decline." But integration between ethnic minorities is now more common than it was during the last census in 2001.

Demos said minority white areas were generally multi-minority, since new British minorities such as Somalis have taken up housing vacated by established minorities, such as Afro-Caribbeans. Figures also show that more ethnic minorities are moving to live in white-dominated rural parts of the country, with fewer than 800 wards which are more than 98% white compared with more than 5,000 in 2001.

Eric Kaufmann, a professor at Birkbeck College and HuffPost blogger who carried out the detailed analysis, said: "These results present a mixed picture. While ethnic mixing and integration is being helped by more minority people moving into England's whitest areas, the most concentrated minority areas are just becoming more so. "This is essentially due to a large increase in the ethnic minority population in its areas of concentration over the past ten years due to natural growth and immigration. This trend has outpaced minorities' wider spread across the country."

David Goodhart, director of Demos, said the limited integration would lead to further problems with employment and familiarity with cultural codes. He said: "The greater concentration of the ethnic minority population means there is less opportunity for interaction with the white mainstream. One problem with this relates to employment. Most jobs come through knowing someone, and most of those hiring for good jobs are from the white majority. A growing population which is geographically separate and has limited familiarity with majority cultural codes or connection to majority networks may find its occupational mobility reduced. Canadian studies, for example, show that immigrants in cities with larger immigrant shares of the population (i.e. Toronto, Vancouver) perform less well against the national average than immigrants in smaller, less diverse cities."

Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch said the findings were a sign that Britain is becoming more segregated. He said: "This is extremely serious. It is undeniable evidence that we have indeed been sleepwalking into segregation as Trevor Phillips warned seven years ago and it is the clear result of Labour's mass immigration policy. Public dismay at the pace of change in our communities largely explains why so many voted as they did in last week's local elections. The case for a sharp reduction in immigration is now overwhelming; we cannot possibly integrate new arrivals on anything like the present scale."

Source

This is some pretty interesting research, and shows that it not minorities who are choosing to ghettoise themselves, as they are living in culturally diverse areas, it's just the majority culture has removed itself.

**BryllCream**

I intend on voting UKIP in the next election. I live in an inner city area of Nottingham and it's essentially a foreign country. The people at work are also overwealmingly foreign, though the people who run it are all English.

edit - over-reliance on those bs "studies" is part of the reason politicians are so detatched from actual English people. You don't need a god-damn study to tell you that English people are being pushed out of areas in English cities, anyone could tell you that. And it's been going on for a long time.