They were all in the same boat

[Norcon]

"approximately 345,000 of those were due to improved living and medical standards"

What do you mean by that? It sounds like your usual tosh.

Peruse, comprehend and analyse the information contained in the links, you know, the web pages that open when you click on the links, that's the links to the original source data, that you can never seem to find.

Yes you should try that sometime.

In the mean time what do you mean by this...
"approximately 345,000 of those were due to improved living and medical standards"

?

This paragraph alone explains 250,000:

The UK's population increase can be tracked back to the fact that there were 254,400 more births than deaths ......../
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...in-europe-over-past-year-8751929.html[/QUOTE]
How the fchuk do you manage to put a written quotation together if you can't understand simple arithmetic.

I'm not asking what the text in the link means.

I'm asking you to explain this nonsense...
"approximately 345,000 of those were due to improved living and medical standards"

Just admit you were posting garbage and we can leave it at that.

 

[RNReindeer]

"approximately 345,000 of those were due to improved living and medical standards"

What do you mean by that? It sounds like your usual tosh.

Peruse, comprehend and analyse the information contained in the links, you know, the web pages that open when you click on the links, that's the links to the original source data, that you can never seem to find.

Yes you should try that sometime.

In the mean time what do you mean by this...
"approximately 345,000 of those were due to improved living and medical standards"

?

This paragraph alone explains 250,000:

The UK's population increase can be tracked back to the fact that there were 254,400 more births than deaths ......../
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...in-europe-over-past-year-8751929.html[/QUOTE]
How the fchuk do you manage to put a written quotation together if you can't understand simple arithmetic.

I'm not asking what the text in the link means.

I'm asking you to explain this nonsense...
"approximately 345,000 of those were due to improved living and medical standards"

Just admit you were posting garbage and we can leave it at that.

I see: you've finally realised that you were spouting verbal diarrhea and now you want to divert the debate to the minutia of my interpretation of the data.

Why the fchuk should I bother to educate someone who cant even read figures from a table?
Go bother some other poor unfortunate person.

 

[Norcon]

No I'm talking about the numbers in your link numbnuts.
Haven't you even read your own link?

You're making a bigger ass of yourself than normal. Stop it before I split my sides.

I see. So you post a link giving facts and figures and then don't believe whats written in them.
Idiot.

I know you don't like accepting that England is a small densely populated area.
Probably one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

You have a misconception between believing and comprehending.
I believe, that you can't comprehend!

You posted the link idiot. Your numbers. Ho hum.

 

[Norcon]

"approximately 345,000 of those were due to improved living and medical standards"

What do you mean by that? It sounds like your usual tosh.

Peruse, comprehend and analyse the information contained in the links, you know, the web pages that open when you click on the links, that's the links to the original source data, that you can never seem to find.

Yes you should try that sometime.

In the mean time what do you mean by this...
"approximately 345,000 of those were due to improved living and medical standards"

?

This paragraph alone explains 250,000:

The UK's population increase can be tracked back to the fact that there were 254,400 more births than deaths ......../
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...in-europe-over-past-year-8751929.html[/QUOTE]
How the fchuk do you manage to put a written quotation together if you can't understand simple arithmetic.

I'm not asking what the text in the link means.

I'm asking you to explain this nonsense...
"approximately 345,000 of those were due to improved living and medical standards"

Just admit you were posting garbage and we can leave it at that.

I see: you've finally realised that you were spouting verbal diarrhea and now you want to divert the debate to the minutia of my interpretation of the data.

Why the fchuk should I bother to educate someone who cant even read figures from a table?
Go bother some other poor unfortunate person.

Why don't you go eat **** and die buddy.
I see you buddy nausey hasn't got back to me either.
Just call me t.i.t.l.w.s That's Mr titlws to you.

 

[noseall]

You are dumb Norcs. One thing though, you never tire of humiliating yourself. Good comedy value that.

 

[RNReindeer]

No I'm talking about the numbers in your link numbnuts.
Haven't you even read your own link?

You're making a bigger ass of yourself than normal. Stop it before I split my sides.

I see. So you post a link giving facts and figures and then don't believe whats written in them.
Idiot.

I know you don't like accepting that England is a small densely populated area.
Probably one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

You have a misconception between believing and comprehending.
I believe, that you can't comprehend!

You posted the link idiot. Your numbers. Ho hum.

OMG, my patience is not infinitesimal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_statistics
UK - 246
Germany - 225
France - 111
That is people per kM (sq)

BTW Malta - 1261 ! People are emigrating to there!

 

[Norcon]

And England 413. You've conveintly left that out.
That is people per kM (sq)

 

[RNReindeer]

And England 413. You've conveintly left that out.
That is people per kM (sq)

I've conveintly (sic) left nothing out of the data that I provided.
Whereas you've introduced some data without any supporting links, (as usual)
Where is the source for your data (you know; use google!)

 

[EFLImpudence]

Don't like to defend Norcon but you're spouting rubbish:

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sour...ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=population+of+england
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sour...GB493&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=area of england

53,010,000 people / 130,395 sq.km. = 406 (wikipedia figures) near enough to 411.

It is more realistic because there aren't many people in Scotland or Wales.

Did you know there are 2.27 Popes to the sq,km. in Vatican City?

 

[Norcon]

England is the 6th most densely populated country in the world and still the left wingers want the floodgates kept wide open to all and sundry.

 

[JBR]

I found this article very interesting:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/11/muslim-population-england-wales-nearly-doubles-10-years

If the RoP numbers in England doubles in size every 10 years, their numbers will grow exponentially, as some of us have warned on here in the past.

The accompanying map, incidentally, suggests that the 'most taken over' areas are parts of Bradford and Birmingham. Tell me something I didn't know!

 

[noseall]

England is the 6th most densely populated country in the world and still the left wingers want the floodgates kept wide open to all and sundry.

Whilst the UK is smaller than France and Germany, it makes little difference in terms of migrant population because they will choose to live in or near the cities or places of population or where their similar kind are living.

 

[noseall]

I see you buddy nausey hasn't got back to me either.
Just call me t.i.t.l.w.s That's Mr titlws to you.

If you see immigration as a problem then what are you huffing and puffing about?

Lies, untruths and b*****t!

Immigration is a two way street. You either have it or you don't. If you can come up with a formula that only allows rich people in and poor people or money sapping people out then good look.

Utopia is a dream boyo.

 

[noseall]

The right wing ******* are spouting about population density figures regards England and the other is spouting about population density figures regards the UK.

Neither are relevant to the migration of refugees because they populate the cities etc.

Saying that it is wrong to include the whole of the UK in the population figures as opposed to just England is like saying it is wrong to include the mountainous regions in France.

There is no doubting the UK is burgeoning with migrants and it is a cause for concern as it is in other European countries also. Any (sensible) suggestions? We certainly don't want a blanket ban on immigration, this would not be good for the UK.

 

[Micilin]

The right wing ******* are spouting about population density figures regards England and the other is spouting about population density figures regards the UK.

Neither are relevant to the migration of refugees because they populate the cities etc.

Saying that it is wrong to include the whole of the UK in the population figures as opposed to just England is like saying it is wrong to include the mountainous regions in France.

There is no doubting the UK is burgeoning with migrants and it is a cause for concern as it is in other European countries also. Any (sensible) suggestions? We certainly don't want a blanket ban on immigration, this would not be good for the UK.

I think this is the point - sensible suggestions are not being aired and given due consideration.

Unfortunately too many people can only see the extreme approaches of any problem. The only alternatives are polar opposites.

So for them it''s either stop immigration totally, or have totally open borders.

That's why when anyone suggests an alternative to their extreme solution, they automatically assume that they must be taking the other extreme position.

It's a mindset that does not allow people to deal with reality, because in the real world, real solutions are seldom found in the extremes.