UK Population

Cobra said:
Me I guess for not reading every single post or thread posted on TP,
I'm off to sit in a corner and think about what I've done, (or not done)
:(
Click to expand...
I didn't ask you to do anything. You included yourself in this part of the discussion of your own volition.
 
Cobra said:
Me I guess for not reading every single post or thread posted on TP,
I'm off to sit in a corner and think about what I've done, (or not done)
:(
Click to expand...

Indeed!
Shame on you. :lol:



(It was bound to happen) ;)
 
ghoti said:
Much less than a fifth.
Click to expand...
OK, OK for the sake of peace and quiet I gave in and Googled it, reports vary but ....
28 Jun 2012 - The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales.
Put another way, that means almost 93%of the UK is not urban. But even that isn't the end of the story because urban is not the same as built on.


ghoti said:
I'm not quibbling about building over nature or whatever. That's a different discussion.
Click to expand...
But its not though is it, its a population rapid expansion, thread,
and people will need to live somewhere.
 
ghoti said:
I didn't ask you to do anything. You included yourself in this part of the discussion of your own volition.
Click to expand...
Sorry for joining in a discussing, I'll go sit back in the corner when my time is up from the last one :thumbs:
 
ghoti said:
Because immigrants are net contributors to the economy. We're richer with them than without.

But anyway, just put aside the fact that you apparently think that "too much" of the UK is populated regardless of the numbers and just take a guess at how much of the UK is populated (as a % of land mass) just for the pure trivia of it. Go on.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, those people on boats towards Italy or those at Calais would add so much to the country.
 
Cobra said:
OK, OK for the sake of peace and quiet I gave in and Googled it, reports vary but ....
28 Jun 2012 - The urban landscape accounts for 10.6% of England, 1.9% of Scotland, 3.6% of Northern Ireland and 4.1% of Wales.
Put another way, that means almost 93%of the UK is not urban. But even that isn't the end of the story because urban is not the same as built on.
Click to expand...
Yes. About 6.7% is urban (not necessarily inner cities - urban in this context refers to all populated areas - villages, towns, cities, hamlets). If you narrow the definition of urban to "built on" then it drops to 2%.
 
Cobra said:
Sorry for joining in a discussing, I'll go sit back in the corner when my time is up from the last one :thumbs:
Click to expand...
Obviously you can join in discussions if you like. Just don't moan about it as if you've been dragged in against your better judgement when you threw in your 2 cents completely voluntarily.
 
ghoti said:
Those aren't immigrants. They're asylum seekers. Two completely different things.
Click to expand...

Those hopping onto trucks in Calais are not seeking asylum.
 
ghoti said:
. Just don't moan about it as if you've been dragged in against your better judgement when you threw in your 2 cents completely voluntarily.
Click to expand...
WTF?
I didn't say that I had been dragged in, I mentioned "me" in response to your "no excuse"
for not knowing the answer!
I did in fact give you the answer a bit later to satisfy your curiosity :thumbs:
 
viv1969 said:
Those hopping onto trucks in Calais are not seeking asylum.
Click to expand...
Many of them are seeking asylum. Many of them are trying to get into the country illegally.

Not that it matters because neither group are "immigrants".

The Daily Mail crew constantly confuse immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees and illegal immigrants. Completely different categories.
 
Cobra said:
WTF?
I didn't say that I had been dragged in, I mentioned "me" in response to your "no excuse"
for not knowing the answer!
I did in fact give you the answer a bit later to satisfy your curiosity :thumbs:
Click to expand...
I didn't direct the flippant "no excuse" at you.
 
ghoti said:
I didn't direct the flippant "no excuse" at you.
Click to expand...
It appears you did, but OK lets kiss and make up, and start again, from scratch :thumbs:
 
cambsno said:
So they don't plan on living here? It's just a cheap holiday?
Click to expand...
What's your point?
I said immigrants are net contributors (they are). You started banging on about asylum seekers. Different things.
What do you want to talk about? Immigrants or asylum seekers?
 
ghoti said:
Many of them are seeking asylum. Many of them are trying to get into the country illegally.

Not that it matters because neither group are "immigrants".

The Daily Mail crew constantly confuse immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees and illegal immigrants. Completely different categories.
Click to expand...

To seek asylum here alk they need do is ride the ferry like everyone else and declare their asylum intentions to the authorities upon arrival.
They cannot then be ejected from the country until their claim has been fully investigated.
 
ST4 said:
There is a lot of the 1800s that's due back.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure whether it's due exactly, but we do seem to be heading back to Georgian times when the wealth of the country was concentrated on a few individuals. The UK is currently lying in sixth place (and climbing) in terms of inequality of wealth in its society.
 
viv1969 said:
To seek asylum here alk they need do is ride the ferry like everyone else and declare their asylum intentions to the authorities upon arrival.
They cannot then be ejected from the country until their claim has been fully investigated.
Click to expand...
Yes; and they are subject to quite serious restrictions. Asylum seekers, contrary to the understanding of those living on Daily Mail island, can't claim benefits/get a house/etc. They are kept in very, very basic accommodation and survive on food vouchers. They are not allowed to work.
Immigrants on the other hand are a different thing and do have access to some benefits and services.
 
Last edited:
The only fundamental problem I see with immigrants is that money earnt is very often sent abroad.

Surely by definition any individual who enters the country to live is an immigrant regardless of their reasons for entering?
 
viv1969 said:
To seek asylum here alk they need do is ride the ferry like everyone else and declare their asylum intentions to the authorities upon arrival.
They cannot then be ejected from the country until their claim has been fully investigated.
Click to expand...
Slightly aside to that, there was a news bite on the radio the other day, during "operation stack"
It seems that curtailed the import of persons from France.
However a few people reported that they were being "terrorised" in into taking < insert person type of choice>
over the channel in their cars / camper vans etc.

It wasn't clear from the report if it was the <insert person type> were doing it themselves or the people traffickers
 
Cartus said:
I'm not sure whether it's due exactly, but we do seem to be heading back to Georgian times when the wealth of the country was concentrated on a few individuals. The UK is currently lying in sixth place (and climbing) in terms of inequality of wealth in its society.
Click to expand...

Some people are more capable than others, why shouldn't the more capable excell without the albatross around their neck of the less capable.
 
ST4 said:
Some people are more capable than others, why shouldn't the more capable excell without the albatross around their neck of the less capable.
Click to expand...
No reason why not I guess, only it's far from a 'level playing field'...

We have a situation in this country where currently just five families are wealthier than the poorest 20% of the UK's population. Taken to its conclusion, one person would end up with everything. That scenario is extreme I know but what sort of society do you want to live in Steve?
 
ST4 said:
Some people are more capable than others, why shouldn't the more capable excell without the albatross around their neck of the less capable.
Click to expand...
Or to spin it on its head, why should those born into wealth and privilege get government subsidies to take advantage of those that weren't?

This will take some research, you'll have to do better than last time. :)
 
ST4 said:
Some people are more capable than others, why shouldn't the more capable excell without the albatross around their neck of the less capable.
Click to expand...
We need to level the playing field first. Everyone starts with the same opportunities. No inherited wealth or nepotism. Then we'd be able to tell who was actually "more capable" and who was only up the ladder because they got a push.
 
ghoti said:
Yes; and they are subject to quite serious restrictions. Asylum seekers, contrary to the understanding of those living on Daily Mail island, can't claim benefits/get a house/etc. They are kept in very, very basic accommodation and survive on food vouchers. They are not allowed to work.
Immigrants on the other hand are a different thing and do have access to some benefits and services.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
Those genuinely seeking asylum from persecution declare their intentions. They are content to reside in basic accommodation with limited freedoms because it's a damn sight better than the situation they are fleeing, and because generally the legitimate cases are granted leave to stay, at which point their freedoms widen.

Similarly those from other EU countries wishing to migrate to the UK to work are free to do so and can travel by everyday means without interference.

The "truck jumpers" clearly have no legitimate reason for entering the country and steps should be taken to stop them.
 
ghoti said:
We need to level the playing field first. Everyone starts with the same opportunities. No inherited wealth or nepotism. Then we'd be able to tell who was actually "more capable" and who was only up the ladder because they got a push.
Click to expand...

Why shoudln't people inherit wealth. If I had kids, I would want them to have what I left behind. Too bad if that's more than the next person or not as much as the person after me.

The problem with this country is people are fixated on what other people have, rather than being fixated on enjoying what they have or improving what they have if they are not happy with it.
 
viv1969 said:
Exactly.
Those genuinely seeking asylum from persecution declare their intentions. They are content to reside in basic accommodation with limited freedoms because it's a damn sight better than the situation they are fleeing, and because generally the legitimate cases are granted leave to stay, at which point their freedoms widen.

Similarly those from other EU countries wishing to migrate to the UK to work are free to do so and can travel by everyday means without interference.

The "truck jumpers" clearly have no legitimate reason for entering the country and steps should be taken to stop them.
Click to expand...
Lots of asylum seekers have no money, resources or means. That's why they jump trucks and whatnot.
Not that I think every single truck jumper in Calais is legitimate but many certainly are.
The illegitimate ones (illegal immigrants) are entitled to precisely nothing in the UK.
 
ghoti said:
Lots of asylum seekers have no money, resources or means. That's why they jump trucks and whatnot.
Not that I think every single truck jumper in Calais is legitimate but many certainly are.
The illegitimate ones (illegal immigrants) are entitled to precisely nothing in the UK.
Click to expand...

Yet they can pay thousands to trafficking gangs? Why not seek asylum in France, Italy, and why avoid detection at port of entry in the UK where there is ample chance to seek asylum?
 
ST4 said:
Yet they can pay thousands to trafficking gangs? Why not seek asylum in France, Italy, and why avoid detection at port of entry in the UK where there is ample chance to seek asylum?
Click to expand...
Some can pay. Some can't. Lots of different people in different situations become asylum seekers. They're not all the same.

Many people do claim asylum in other European countries.
 
ST4 said:
Why not seek asylum in France, Italy, and why avoid detection at port of entry in the UK
Click to expand...
Hmm thats a toughy, is it anything to do with our NHS and benifits system? ;)

ST4 said:
I do. It sounds drastic but opening fire on these people is the only way to make them stop.
Click to expand...
And God help 'em if they have a dog with them Eh Steve? :D

I know that some drastic measures have to be taken to slow the flow, weed out the weeds etc etc,
but shooting them in the face (or elsewhere) brings us in a parallel with the old East / West Germany.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Cobra said:
Hmm thats a toughy, is it anything to do with our NHS and benifits system? ;)


And God help 'em if they have a dog with them Eh Steve? :D

I know that some drastic measures have to be taken to slow the flow, weed out the weeds etc etc,
but shooting them in the face (or elsewhere) brings us in a parallel with the old East / West Germany.
Click to expand...

I am only advocating shooting people trying to circumvent border controls, not legal immigrants and genuine asylum seekers (we actually introduced the law and part of it is that Asylum has to be seeked in the first safe place, not the one they think is the nicest). Nor I am advocating shooting British people trying to leave Britain or foreigners leaving Britain, which is very different to that of the policies in East Germany.
 
ghoti said:
Lots of asylum seekers have no money, resources or means. That's why they jump trucks and whatnot.
Not that I think every single truck jumper in Calais is legitimate but many certainly are.
The illegitimate ones (illegal immigrants) are entitled to precisely nothing in the UK.
Click to expand...

If legitimate they can present themselves to the UK border agents in Calais. ..they don't even need to do it here; and there are a lot of our agents in Calais.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top