Monday, June 21, 2010

St Marks 1955/6 Mr Stuarts class


Anonymous said...

A lovely old photo - keep posting them please.

Mr.Stuart looks like he has a few characters to deal with there.

Anonymous said...

By Heck! Those were the days.

Looking forward to playtime, Wellies on a sunny day, just about 2 haepennies to rub together, national health glasses, undoing ribbons in girls hair and being chased for the privilege, not careing how your tie was tied, black pumps, TV that box thingy your aunt had, spit on the palm of your hand as a comb, free milk, 5 bob a week for your dinner money, penny bubbly and a clip round the earhole, coconut matting scars, 100 different games with a tennis ball, the smell of waxed floors, knowing everybody's name, everything taught in 1 classroom, biscuit monitors, volunteering to clean the blackboard, ink wells & scratchy pens, treat of the week Fish n Chips, swaps, murps, dobbers, kick can, joining in the girls skipping for a laugh, running and smacking your rump horse galloping, pea soupers, balaclavas, pulling your socks up, times tables, pressing button 'B' to hear the rapid clicking, wondering what Pecks, Bushels and Chains were on the back of your exercise book.
All this and being taught by a Will Hay lookalike....does it get any better?

Anonymous said...


Good comment. I'd forgotten all about "smacking your rump horse galloping". You've lost me with the "murps" and "dobbers" though.

I wonder if those are new council houses in the background. People forget about the slums they replaced. Maybe they are new private houses.

The lads on the back row look like they'll have had a few "clips round the earhole" from Mr. Stuart - especially the middle two.

Labour Gone. said...

The 2055 picture won't be much cop. All the girls will be wearing burkas. Check out the demographics if you don't believe me. All thanks to New Labour's 13 year immigration deluge.

Anonymous said...

Murps = marbles....ooooh those milky ones.
Dobbers = Big oversized marbles....good for when you claimed "bombs" (when 2 or more marbles were touching)

Lets not not forget "Nitty Nora" the bug explorer.

That's one baaaad wig Mr. Stuart.

Anonymous said...

Its a sad indictment of the shallowness of some people that they seize opportunity to make political gain and reference, however tenuous the link, to innocent posted topics.

Please John, if the numb skulls who continue to do this unrelated political diatribe with otherwise unrelated topics, don't pass as publishable.

There are many other topics headings with which they can perform their rant.

Such inappropriate derailings of your topic blogs is unworthy of the space you provide for them.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the info re. the "murps" and "dobbers".

Any old photos of sporting events, parades, demonstrations, old-fashioned living conditions etc. would be very much appreciated. Cracking stuff.

Anonymous said...

The marbles were occasionally called "Alleys" as in "Pop Alleys" derived I would guess from the type of bottle that pop was in. The bottle having a narrow alley that contained a small glass ball, that through the action of the gas in the pop sealed the neck of the bottle at the end of the alley way.
The name "Alleys", (in my case in the 1950's) we found an old fashioned terminology, laughable and not used. We didn't know the names origin (Alleys) at the time and those kind of bottles were not then any longer in common use considered unhygienic.

Labour Gone. said...

My comment on the 2055 class might have been semi-unrelated, but pointing out what WILL happen to Britain in a few decades if something is not done about current demographic trends isn't 'shallow'. Infantile converstaions about marbles however, are.

Anonymous said...


The marbles were occasionally called "Pops" or "Alleys" as in "Pop Alleys"

Anonymous said...

@Labour Gone,

"Infantile conversations about marbles..." Maybe you are just bitter because Roy West lost his marbles years ago!

Anonymous said...

Maybe it has slipped your notice that the photograph is a nostalgic, and if I may be so bold, a piece of Dukinfield history of yesteryear circa 1955/6, the subject of which is a class of infant/junior children. Believe it or not these children would have been well aware of the game of marbles as well as some, if not all, the other reminiscences of that era posted earlier.
To say that it is infantile to converse about such things on this particular topic reveals a distinct lack of values and common sense for an eminently worthy subject. If these things are not discussed the finer points of nomenclature contemporaneous to that era, indeed any era, may well be lost and we will all be that much more impoverished for the loss.
Your original post on this topic is not "semi-unrelated" it is totally unrelated.
If you wish to make political observation, demographic or otherwise, please show the courtesy to not hijacking threads on topics that bare no relationship to your particular leanings...that is just downright bad manners.
Your shallowness I referred to is nothing to do with your political belief, it is to do with the use of a topic unrelated to that belief. There are many other internet threads, blogs and chat facilities that you could expound your political and social leanings, this thread is not one of them.

Anonymous said...

I imagine Mr. Stuart only had one teaching style - "chalk and talk". He probably had quite a collection of dobbers and murps in his desk drawer - all confiscated until the end of the school year.

Re. the BNP interlopers' uncalled for racial comments: the parents of the children captured in the photo would no doubt have used "nomenclature contemporaneous to that era" to describe the likes of "Labour Gone" - To them, who no doubt had raw memories of the war, he would have been a "Quisling rat".

Labour Gone. said...

Some people may not think a comparative point about then, now and what, on current trends, lies ahead is relevant or related, I disagree.
As for the parents of that era, many of them will still be alive and, having seen the massive demographic change in their lifetimes, will no doubt have their own views about who the traitors are.

Anonymous said...

I dare say one could make socio/political comparative point about anything if you had a mind to.
Whit Walks
Fun Fairs
School Children
Political Prisoners
Werewolf Lookalikes
Pensioners Parties
Dukinfield Visitors
In fact a comparative point about the universe and its entire contents......that is, if your a sad enough character to want to manifest your crystal ball theories into ranting facts that other level headed people may see as nothing short of a thread hijack.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps "Labour Gone" is meddling on this thread because he spotted the lad on the "far-right" of the front row wearing a blackshirt and sporting a Hitlerian greasy parting.

Have you noticed how his classmate "on the left" is straining to get away from him? Some things never change.

Labour Gone. said...

Anonymous 1) 'Crystal ball theories'; according to the last government's own figures the Islamic population of Britain increased ten times faster than any other group between 2004-2008. That's a 'fact' not a 'rant'.
Anonymous 2) 'Meddling', no, commenting. As for the Hitler comment, we all know anyone who doesn't toe the politically correct line on immigration is a Nazi, racist, hater etc etc etc. But then abuse is a lot easier than constructing a reasoned argument isn't it.

Anonymous said...

The reasoned argument is that the photograph of the children should not bare any relationship with your politico/socio agenda no matter which way you wish to prevaricate in attempts to garner support or peddle your opinion.
There are other places eminently more suited to your purpose.

Labour Gone. said...

The only agenda is yours, to demonstrate how much modern gobbledegook you can spout; 'politico/socio'?. Unfortunately that's no substitute for the capacity for independent thought. Here's some plain English; point out where I 'prevaricated' or tried 'to garner support'. I simply responded to points made. As for 'peddling opinions', ones based on fact don't need selling.
I personally, despite what you seem to think, am not of any particular political allegiance, I am simply stongly opposed to the direction Britain is headed, particularly demographically (which is what the original comment was about). BNP etc supporters DO regularly comment on here but that appears to be largely because of Mr Taylor and his self proclaimed position as head of the local anti 'fascists'.

Anonymous said...

Prevaricate:- To deviate; transgress; to waffle; to go astray (from).
Taking the opportunity to use an innocent photo topic to deviate, transgress, waffle and go astray from the topic thread.

"I simply responded to points made"
You initiated.

"Unfortunately that's no substitute for the capacity for independent thought." "All the girls will be wearing burkas."
Independent thought of a parrot springs to mind.

"despite what you seem to think, am not of any particular political allegiance"
As previously stated:- this is "nothing to do with your political belief"

"As for 'peddling opinions', ones based on fact don't need selling."
"Check out the demographics if you don't believe me."
If that is not 'peddling opinions' or 'garner support' then you need a lesson or two in syntax.

'Crystal ball theories':- "The 2055 picture won't be much cop. All the girls will be wearing burkas."

That's my last on your rants, you obviously have a chip on your shoulder regarding a justifiable request to desist and to give you any more space would be an anathema to the subject.....
St Marks 1955/6 Mr Stuarts class

Labour Gone. said...

Congratulations on giving up, having a good vocabulary is no substitiute for being able to construct a reasoned argument.
Everyone knows I made the initial point, that's not in dispute, after that I was responding to any counter-views, there was no 'deviation'.
'An innocent photo', you've ignored where I stated it was a comparative point about then, now and what may lie ahead.
The burkas comment isn't parrotlike, I formulated that view myself from the facts, perhaps you think the government's figures re the Islamic birthrate are wrong.
On political beliefs, YOU said I had a 'politico/socio agenda', I haven't, I just think, based on the facts, that the 'nationalist' viewpoint is absolutely right on this issue.
You've still totally failed to explain how expressing factually based opinions is 'peddling them', repitition on your part is not explanation. By your line of argument any expression of an opinion is peddling, but then you'd decided I had some sort of agenda from the start and now can't recant.
I responded to your 'crystal ball theories' comment by showing, using the government's own statistics on reproductive rates, that the Islamic birthrate WILL result in the indigenous, and everyone else, being outbred and utterly minoritised, if drastic action isn't taken very soon. Perhaps you have counter-facts to dispute this.
The ony one 'ranting' is you.

Anonymous said...

Please Labour Gone - people of the Islamic faith do not breed - they have children and families - just like all other humans. The use of dehumanising language is distasteful and worrying.

You talk of the "nationalism", threatening minorities, and "drastic action". We've heard it all before "Labour Gone" - such talk leads to places like Auschwitz and Screbrenica.

Anonymous said...

@Labour Gone,

You were worried earlier by ladies in burkas. Please have a look at this lovely old footage from 1901 - from outside a cotton mill in Oldham.

You will see a great many ladies wearing clothes almost identical to the muslim dress you worry about. I showed the footage to some muslim ladies of my acquaintance and I was able to fool them that there were lots of Somalians in Oldham in 1901. They are, of course, Lancashire mill lasses but it just goes to show that we all have a lot more in common than we often think.

My mother used to pick me up from school wearing a headscarf and it was worn for the same reason that many muslim ladies wear theirs - to appear modest and respectable in public.
Old fashioned perhaps - but harmless enough.

Labour Gone said...

1927-five mosques in Britain. How many now?
The Nazi related references are as predictable as they are pathetic. We need the immediate cessation of all immigration until the issues that threaten our survival are resolved, particularly those groups we KNOW won't integrate, that's nothing to do with German extermination camps from 70 years ago. Perhaps you think the Swiss banning minarets THIS YEAR and the French clampdown on the burka are forms of 'Nazism'.
This government needs to deal with what is happening now in places like Bradford, Luton, Leicester, Rochdale, Slough, Oldham and large parts of inner London.
There is no relation whatsoever between headscarves worn as 'harmless' modest dress
in civilised cultures and the Islamic burka which symbolises what Islam is based on; the suppression and control of women, and therefore their fertility, who are regarded as inferior by this expansionist, alien cult.
We shouldn't forget the damage done and likely civil unrest to come caused directly by New Labour's 13 year floodgates open immigration 'policy'.

James Irwin said...

Interesting mention of Srebrenica, in large parts of the Balkans, pre the ethnic cleansing and civil wars etc, the typical Muslim population was growing so fast that 50% or more of them were under 16, in other words massive families. This crushing, highly visible and intentional demographic display was one of the key triggers for the extreme reaction of the Christians and nationalistic Serbs.
We're a good few years behind that here in terms of population balance, but catching up fast. There is growing tension in a lot of areas and large scale 'white flight'.

Anonymous said...

"Our" survival threatened by foreigners...the inevitability of a race-war...excuses for genocide...yours is not the nationalism of Plaid Cymru or the SNP, is it? Traditional European Fascism is what you articulate.

Thankfully the likes of the BNP will never succeed here - in fact I think the BNP may implode before the end of the summer as its financial chickens come home to roost. The long-knives are certainly out for Griffin. However, if the fascists were ever to come to power here it's not some spurious notion of "white flight" you'd have to worry about. It'd be a very real "brain drain" as intelligent, educated, artistic and outward looking people headed for the borders.

You'd make a pitiful tribe - alone, impoverished and scorned by the world. Some utopia! You are welcome to it.

Molly said...

Public House politicians and their beer mat manifestos always use the same tactics....... Always.
They take and use official government figures and create future racist scenarios to perpetrate their own particular brand of so called patriotism or nationalism to feed their twisted minds. "Look at the figures...the figures don't lie", they will sweepingly announce. They attempt to draw you into spurious arguments that concentrates upon their own agenda and dismiss any argument that is contrary to theirs. They claim that any dissenters can not formulate reasoned thought simply because it is not their particular brand of misguided reasoning, the irony being, because of this particular tactic it displays and reveals themselves as lacking rational and reasoning.
They very rarely have made any worthwhile contribution to the society they claim is festering, so rare in fact that they are prominent by their lack of contribution. They will attempt to conjure up their (what is often veiled) racism on the scantiest of whims and within scenarios that bear little or no relationship to current discussion in order to draw you in to argue against their agenda or particular twisted brand of 'national pride', the purpose of which is flagging up their agenda, works like a charm doesn't it.
If permitted to do so......................

Mr. Taylor
You have allowed this thread to escalate giving voice to the undesirable types that I am sure you really want no part of.
You may very well be an advocate of so called free speech but it has, in this case, got to such a stage that it is borderline racial hatred, in fact it could be seen that you, by permitting this uncensored thread, are 'distributing racist material to the public' via your blog, which is, in part, getting very near to being against the 'Public Order Act'.
I'm sure you have no desire to condone this type of racist national supremacy stuff but I'm afraid you have made a severe mistake in allowing those types to have a voice on your blog without censor.
There are many public house politicians out there who are only too willing to take the opportunity that you offer them on this, and many other, blogs to bandy about their ill informed nonsense. The very real danger and damage is that these urban myths and half truths, because they are given public voice, as in this case, become for the vulnerable and feeble minded a guideline to believe what is said is truth and so in turn continue to voice and proliferate this hatred.
Check out the other side of this disturbing trend.

Labour Gone. said...

Interesting use of the term racism, Islam is not a race, but you already know that. Many people in the Balkans are as white as snow and Islam is truly multi-ethnic (in Texas alone there are 420,000) and increasingly global, but the liberals amazing mind reading powers have decided that my INTENT was clearly racist despite there being absolutely no evidence of that.
Also a complete absence of denial from anyone of the basic facts of the Islamic reproductive rate (that's ten times faster than ANY group, including other non-whites/Poles/Irish/West Indians/ Africans, many of whom are known for large families) in Britain and the Balkans. The latter is undeniable and if government statistics were suppressed (a possibility if the TRUE fascists who masquerade under the name liberal have their way) a trip to any of the named cities in the previous comment would show the plain truth - this is colonisation not immigration.
The official statistics relating to the cultural (not racial) make up of primary schools in inner London, as compared to five and ten years ago give the best picture of where Britain is headed. They are a picture of exponentially growing Islamic demographic dominance in the most vital area of all when national survival is the issue.
There is absolutely minimal evidence of integration into our ways in any meaningful or significant way, and a mountain of evidence of ever growing demands that we should change OUR culture to suit them - separate banking systems, court systems, the atrocity of Halal slaughter, being able to claim benefits for more than one wife etc etc etc.
I did not claim 'any dissenters can not formulate reasoned thought', I said several individuals could not construct a reasoned argument to counter my factually based assertions, with your anti 'fascist' polemic as a would be substitute for this ability you appear to be among them.
I have no idea what the Griffin/BNP comments are about as I have no political or any other agenda but I DO think the BNP position on this vital issue is absolutely correct.

Anonymous said...

By Heck Molly!

All his posts fit your your description like a glove.

Oh by the way.....
The United States government does not collect religious data in its census.
Due I would guess to The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the first section of the Bill of Rights.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."

Labour Gone. said...

Fascinating contribution, and of real value to the debate.

Anonymous said...

More fascinating than your claim for a specific number of Muslims in Texas. The United States government does not collect religious data in its census.
The claims you make are rife on the internet, they are largely initiated by right wing Christian groups in the USA...and the sheep keep following and bleating the same inaccurate BS, or is it SS?

Try this for a change...

or this...

or this...

But then I know it wont make any difference, you have a need to be correct -)

Labour Gone. said...

State how many Muslims there are in Texas. But then that's a fact and you only deal in attempted abuse and intolerance of opposing views.
Virtually all sources put the figure in excess of 400,000 (up from the State's own estimate of 190,000 only twenty years ago). Perhaps Wikipedia (even with their conservative figure) and the State of Texas are in on the Nazi conspiracy too.

Anonymous said...


Sorry just got playfully attacked by the dog when I was rolling on the floor laughing.

Unlike most encyclopaedias, anyone can contribute to this one (Wilkipedia). Therein lies its success — and its failure. The open nature has resulted in a trove of useful information, especially in the science and technology areas. But on controversial topics, Wikipedia articles sometimes descend into a free-for-all, and the information may be biased or inaccurate.

Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems.

"Yes it's garbage, but it's delivered so much faster!"

Encouraging signs from the Wikipedia project, where co-founder and ├╝berpedian Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work.
"This is garbage, an incoherent hodge-podge of dubious factoids that adds up to something far less than the sum of its parts," he wrote.

"Pathetic"ally collapses on floor again.

Labour Gone. said...

The 400,000 figure is an estimate as are all figures, national and State, relating to all religions, in America. There is no other credible estimate for this particular figure, presumably if it had been a lot lower you'd have been happy to accept it. Just as you would be happy to accept the figures for Jews, Roman Catholics, Buddhists etc. But not those for Islam which, despite presenting the biggest demographic threat, must never be criticised.
The Muslim population of Britain is growing at an exponential rate and there is a mountain of reliable, official information to back this up. All of which is completely unnecessary as the visible and actual evidence of cultural change is everywhere, from mosquebuilding to ghettoisation, having their own Court system, wearing of burkas and other foreign dress and the disproportioate number of children in Islamic areas.
Perhaps you'd care to assert that Muslims actually have SMALLER families than everyone else, when you've finished laughing that is

Anonymous said...

I wonder if you know any muslims, Labour Gone!

If you did you'd know that family size and level of social integration don't corellate with religion but with social class, and whether or not someone comes from a rural or urban background. No serious social scientist would talk of an "islamic birthrate". It's the kind of garbage you'd read in a book by someone like Arthur Kemp.

The descendents of rural immigrants (from Pakistan and Bangladesh, for example) have smaller families and integrate more than their parents did - especially if they do well at school. Reality, thankfully, is rather more nuanced than one of Mr. West's leaflets.

The muslim community isn't the homogenous mass depicted in the crude stereotypes - peddled for nefarious reasons by the BNP and similar organisations - it's as varied as any other community.

I have worked with muslims for years and have a great many friends of that faith, Labour Gone. Believe me you will meet all sorts in the muslim community and getting to know some real people would help humanise and balance your views.

Muslims do not threaten "our survival" at all - that's just ugly extremist rhetoric - and we've heard it all before from these so-called "nationalists" - about the Jews, the Irish, the blacks and the gypsies.

I wonder which group the fascists will be blaming in twenty years' time?

Labour Gone. said...

Are you saying there is no overall or average birthrate amongst Muslims, regardless of class? Hope not because that would be ridiculous. No response also to my challenge to say that Muslims have smaller families, so you must therefore accept they have larger ones. The reality of course is they have much larger ones or the population ratios would not be changing so quickly.
Demonstrate evidence of this increasing integration you talk of. You can't because the reverse is true which is why there has been a massive increase in Muslim girls covering their heads in the last ten years, and an increasing demand for separate systems of banking, benefit rules and their own Courts. Perhaps you think cutting animal's throats without pre-stunning is acceptable and should result in prosecution only if you're a British slaughterman. Medieval barbarity and a biased judicial system don't look like evidence of increasing integration to me.
There is no such thing as a 'homogenous mass', of any community, there is however an average level of everything, from birthrate to demonstrable examples of integration such as respect for and desire to conform to, our values, culture and traditions. This is Britain, with thousands of years of history, traditions, customs and patterns of behaviour, not some multicultural fantasy land for nation state hating liberals to experiment on.
Having worked in Rochdale and Oldham for 17 years I've seen this 'integration' with my own eyes so don't need a lesson from you.
I don't know who Mr Kemp is but if you don't like his books I'll seek them out.

Anonymous said...

Disproving the Muslim Demographics sums

How can you find out if something is untrue when you do not know what the truth is?

That was the challenge that confronted the More or Less team (BBC) when we tried to unpick a claim that appears in the infamous Muslim Demographics YouTube video that "in the Netherlands, 50% of all newborns are Muslim."

A Dutch woman wearing a burka
The video assumes Dutch Muslim women are extraordinarily fertile

If life was easy it would be possible to phone up the Dutch government's official statistics office, Statistics Netherlands, and simply ask them what proportion of babies are born to Muslim families.

But life is not easy. Like many European countries, the Netherlands does not routinely collect information about religious belief as part of its population statistics.

There is a tradition in Europe that religious belief is a matter of personal conscience and should not be mixed up with the detailed data that is used to track births, deaths and migration.

However, the Dutch statisticians do conduct surveys of religious belief independently of their wider population data.

And we know from their latest research that roughly five per cent of the population in the Netherlands is Muslim - around 850,000 people.

So five per cent of the population is responsible for 50 per cent of the babies?

It sounds pretty implausible when you put it like that, but how implausible is it exactly? Can we put some numbers on it?


One approach is to assume that the statement is true and then find out what else would have to be true for the numbers to add up.

We know that the female population of the Netherlands in 2008 was 8,293,326. We can estimate the female Muslim population as 5 per cent of this - or 414,666 - leaving 7,878,660 non-Muslim women.

A pregnant woman holds her stomach
How do the fertility rates of Muslim and non-Muslim women compare?

And we know that last year there were 184,634 children born in the Netherlands.

So if the Muslim Demographics video is right, 414,666 Muslim women gave birth to 92,317 babies - the same number as 7,878,660 non-Muslim women gave birth to.

That means roughly one in four Dutch Muslim women would have had a baby last year, compared with only one in 85 non-Muslim women.

Or to put it another way, the birth rate of Muslim women would need to have been about 19 times greater than their non-Muslim neighbours for the claim in the video to be true.

But hang on a minute. Doing the sum this way makes one very big assumption: that the populations of Muslim and non-Muslim women in the Netherlands have the same age distribution.

And it is not unreasonable to think that a greater proportion of Muslim women may be of child-bearing age.

But what proportion exactly? This takes us right back to the problem we started with: we do not have demographic data broken down by religious belief.


But we can estimate the proportion of Muslim women that are of child-bearing age by using the age distribution of Dutch citizens who originally came from Morocco and Turkey, the most common countries of origin for Dutch Muslims.

Turkish women waiting for the metro in Istanbul
A group of young Turkish women waiting for the metro in Istanbul

Looking at the numbers for 2008, 61 per cent of women of Turkish origin were aged between 15 and 49 - the age group typically taken as child-bearing.

The figure for women of Moroccan origin was 57 per cent. For women of Dutch origin, only 45 per cent were in this age group.

Anonymous said...

Disproving the Muslim Demographics sums

Using the higher of the two figures to estimate the child-bearing Muslim population, that gives us an estimated 252,946 fertile Muslim women and 3,545,397 fertile non-Muslim women in the Netherlands.

Now if we redo our earlier calculation using these figures, we can estimate that more than one in three Muslim women of child-bearing age would have given birth last year, but less than one in 38 non-Muslim women in the same age group.

That means, even when you adjust for age differences between the two populations, fertile Muslim women would still need to be giving birth at 14 times the rate of their fertile non-Muslim neighbours.

Total fertility rate

Let us put all this in context.

The figures imply a crude birth rate for Muslims in the Netherlands of 112.5 births per 1,000 people last year.

According to the United Nations, the country with the highest birth rate in the world is Niger with 54.1 births per 1000, per year. And the birth rates in Turkey and Morocco are 18.4 and 20.5 births per thousand, respectively.

Nigerois babies are treated at a Save The Children clinic near Tessaoua, Niger
According to the UN, Niger has the highest total fertility rate

We can also make a similar comparison using the age-adjusted estimates of the fertile populations by using a measure called the 'total fertility rate'.

The total fertility rate (TFR) is the average number of children a group of women would have if they experienced the current fertility rates of women in different age groups throughout all of their child-bearing years.

In plain English, it represents the fertility rate of an imaginary woman who will have, in each period of her life, the typical fertility that women of each age-group have right now.

By multiplying our estimated population of all fertile Dutch women by the current total fertility rate for the Netherlands we can calculate a hypothetical next generation of 6,609,117 children.

By assigning half of this generation to each group, we can estimate the total fertility rate that fertile Muslim and non-Muslim populations would each need to have for the claim to be true.

The estimated TFR for Dutch Muslims would be 13.06.

According to the UN, the country with the highest total fertility rate in the world is Niger with a TFR of 7.15. And the TFR in Turkey and Morocco is 2.13 and 2.38 respectively.

This would also imply an extremely low fertility rate for the non-Muslim population. The estimated TFR for non-Muslims would need to be just 0.93. According to the UN, the country with the lowest total fertility rate in the world is Bosnia and Herzegovina with a TFR of 1.22.

It is implausible that "in the Netherlands, 50 per cent of all newborns are Muslims".

It would mean that the Muslim and non-Muslim populations have some of the most extreme fertility rates found anywhere in the world, at opposite ends of the spectrum, while living in the same country.

Anonymous said...

@Labour Gone,

You can, of course, fashion an average birth-rate for people of the muslim faith – my point is that such a figure is meaningless. Such averages hide more truths than they show.

What about an average figure for numbers of GCSEs per pupil in this country? – It would hide the massively significant differences between the rich and the poor.

What about an average Christian birth-rate? – It would hide differences between large families from poor rural areas (such as in parts of Africa) and smaller families in richer urban areas (such as the American Mid-West). An average muslim birth-rate does just that.

Educated, professional muslims in this country do not have large families – they have one or two kids – just like every one else. The people who have large families in this country are generally from poor, rural backgrounds and the large family is much more the product of culture and tradition than religion. Their kids, who grow up and study here, don’t want to have eight or nine kids, Labour Gone. If you doubt that go and ask some muslim youngsters who were born here. That would give you a better idea than cherry-picking stats from Wikipedia and watching YouTube ranters.

Certainly more girls are wearing hijabs these days. But take a closer look, Labour Gone. More and more girls are wearing what are really quite colourful and fashionable hijabs. Take a closer look again and you’ll see that they are wedded to their mobile phones and Facebook. They speak in text speak and use phrases like “innit”, “cool”, as well as “mashallah”. They hang out with their pals and go dancing at weekends. The Asian kids are expressing themselves more and more in an individual way – they are, in short, integrating Labour Gone. They may not be changing fast enough for the likes of you – but people change at their own pace. It’s a free country, after all.

What’s wrong with an “Islamic” Bank? It’s just another financial service. I see no reason why can’t they join the ranks of high street banks, internet banks, credit-unions, mutuals, building societies etc. etc. This is an economically free country too, Labour Gone and we’ve have always moved with the times.

As for the treatment of animals – they are nowhere treated with a great amount of respect. Cramming sheep onto lorries, dropping lobsters into boiling water in restaurants, the production of veal, factory farming – I’m sure there are countless more examples. Perhaps you should join an animal-rights group and campaign for reform…or maybe you are just looking for another way of telling a minority group what to do.

In short my advice to you is to look beyond the simplistic ideas which are guiding your rants. Have a read of a geography GCSE textbook - you'll find some information on basic demography there. More importantly get out there and meet some real people, take time to have a chat with people who are "different" to you. I'm sure you'll find that they are not quite so different as you thought.

Anonymous said...

To expand on the Islamic Banking and to inject a little education into Labour Gone....

The overarching principle of Islamic finance and banking products is that all forms of interest are forbidden. The Islamic financial model works on the basis of risk sharing. The customer and the bank share the risk of any investment on agreed terms, and divide any profits or losses between them. In addition, investments should only support practices that are not forbidden – trades in alcohol, betting and pornography are not allowed. Moreover, an Islamic banking institution is not permitted to lend to other banks at interest.

I only wish I knew about this when I took out my mortgage. Its not just for people of the Muslim faith either, anyone can use Islamic Banking.

Anonymous said...

An interesting comment re. Islamic Banking - thanks, I had no idea beyond that they didn't like interest.

It seems a similar approach (if not exactly the same) to those we know better here such as Co-ops, Credit Unions and Fair Trade.

Your insightful comment shows the importance of working towards greater understanding between different groups - because there is always so much more that unites us than which divides us.

Thankfully in our country the simplistic ideas articulated by people like Labour Gone, the BNP, and other extremists find little resonance amongst the wider population. These people can only spread their ideas amongst fellow cranks on the internet, amongst barely literate drunkards, and amongst those incapable of any change.

The BNP, who for a while appeared to be gaining some ground in the UK, have now been reduced to a laughing stock. Their ideas simply could not stand up to the increased public scrutiny that came with increased public exposure. They are currently ripping themselves to shreds in a hilarious "leadership campaign". It looks like Griffin's days are numbered and he'll probably take his so-called "party" down with him.

Anonymous said...

The word Halal that is being used here is in fact a misnomer.

Halal pertains to many things in Muslim religion not just the "atrocity of Halal slaughter" as our sadly ill informed Labour Gone would have you believe.

The word Dhabihah is that of ritual Islamic animal slaughter and is far from an atrocity and is very similar to the Jewish method of animal slaughter.

To see Dhabihah, to the layman, looks pretty gruesome, but if you care to investigate a little further what you see and what you feel about it bears little to the actual reality of the methods and outcomes.

This method of slaughtering animals consists of a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides but leaving the spinal cord intact.
According to Islamic tradition, the animal is brought to the place of slaughter and laid down gently so as to not injure it. The blade must be kept hidden, the knife's blade should be extremely sharp yet not be sharpened in front of the animal, the animal must not be slaughtered in front of other animals until the very last moment while the jugular of the animal is felt. The conventional method used to slaughter the animal involves cutting the large arteries in the neck along with the oesophagus and vertebrate trachea with one swipe of an non-serrated blade. Care must be taken that the nervous system is not damaged, as this may cause pain to the animal before death, the massive and instant drainage of blood crates brain death within 2 seconds.

In 1978, a study incorporating EEG (electroencephalograph) with electrodes surgically implanted on the skull of 17 sheep and 15 calves, and conducted by Wilhelm Schulze at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Germany concluded that "the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions" (of the animals), but that "For sheep, there were in part severe reactions both in bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli" when Captive Bolt Stunning (CBS) was used, which is common in normal (non-Dhabihah) slaughtering.

Anonymous said...

@Labour Gone

Have you ever been to a Mosque?

A friend took me many years ago and I have been a number of times since. I am nor Muslim but the welcome I have always been offered has been staggering.

The food that is cooked and served by the community is simple and mouth wateringly delicious.

I recommend you go may open your eyes if not even your heart.

Labour Gone. said...

No-one said educated/middle class Muslims didn't have smaller families than their less well off counterparts, that's the same for all cultures. I said the average Muslim birthrate (which is the only figure that matters) is significantly higher than every other groups. This is backed up by the last government's own figures which showed that their birth rate increased ten times faster than any other group between 2004-2008.
Your comment about colourful hijabs is nonsense, they are virtually all black. You then shift to the phrase 'Asian kids' - despite this debate being about Muslims - in a blatant attempt to racialise it. Everyone knows Indian Hindus, for example, integrate far better than Muslims.
I never said there was anything WRONG with Islamic banking, but pointed it out as another example of separatist behaviour.
Your general stance is utterly contradictory, on the one hand giving examples of Islamic 'integration' (involving trivia such as mobile phones) as if that's praiseworthy, then asserting their right to separatist behaviour in significant areas such as reproduction, animal rights and finance as if THAT'S praiseworthy.
Your animal rights comments are ludicrous. You failed to answer the central point of the totally unacceptable and unsustainable situation of having different laws for different people on this issue. Circumstances that do not apply to factory farming (which, when done properly is a proven and humane way to treat and keep animals) or any of your other examples.
For anyone to suggest that the throat cutting of a fully conscious animal causes less pain than if it was unconscious is absurd and totally disingenuous.
In 2003 the investigation conducted by the Farm and Animal Welfare Council concluded that the way Halal and Kosher (oh no I'm an anti-semite now) meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals and should be banned.
In 2009 New Zealand's Massey University, using a new EEG method which definitively determines if an animal is feeling pain, confirmed slaughter without pre-stunning was more painful.
But no matter how much evidence is produced on this issue, reproduction, self-imposed ghettoisation, dress, banking, women's rights, arranged marriages, and the obvious and blatant lack of intention on the part of this community in particular to integrate meaningfully into the British way of life, the pro-multiculturalists will continue to promote Islamic culture and separatism. This is because they view them as tools in the vanguard of their campaign to impose multiculturalism until British culture, representing the nation state, is diluted to the point of meaninglessness.

Nationalist said...

Nothing to do with defending Muslims.
Everything to do with supporting the multiculti agenda, whether the British people want it or not. Anyone who disagrees is a 'Nazi'.

tonydj said...

Have we forgotten the London bombings?

Islam has NOTHING to offer me. Absolute;y nothing.

If I might paraphrase Leeds academic Dr Frank Ellis, sacked for questioning the multi-cultural agenda,

"Such is the dispruption caused to Britain by multi-culturalism that it is not for those opposed to it to justify their opposition - though there are many arguements they could use - but for those who support it to present a strong case for it."

I end by noting that at least one contributor has issued a veiled threat that some views on this posting "may breach the law".

I thought that we fought "The Nazis" to have free speech in Britain.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes the London bombings, absolutely outrageous.

As were the IRA bombings in Birmingham, Warrington, Manchester etc.

Dr. Frank Ellis:- was he the same Dr. Frank Ellis that first hit the headlines six years ago when he travelled to the US to speak at the American Renaissance conference, an event described by anti-fascist campaigners as a three-day rally bringing together the scientific racism movement.

(American Renaissance and the New Century Foundation are alleged to have had links with far right, neo-fascist and racist organizations and individuals such as: the Council of Conservative Citizens, the Pioneer Fund, the British National Party, Don Black and David Duke. The organization has held bi-annual conferences that are open to the public and that attract 200 - 300 people. Critics say that some of those who attend are neo-Nazis, white nationalists, white separatists, Ku Klux Klan members, Holocaust deniers and eugenicists.)

That Dr. Frank Ellis?

tonydj said...

Yes, that Dr Ellis.......and your point is??

Anonymous said...

Point is to establish if it was the same Dr. Frank Ellis...what else?

Now everyone will know.

tonydj said...

OK, everybody now knows
a) Who Dr Ellis is
b) Who I, tonydj, am
but they don't know
c)who you are.

Anonymous said...

Well hello tonydj...dont mean a thing to me

Im kevin@IoM but I prefer the name Anonymous...kept telling my parents that when I was a kid but they took no notice.

Anonymous said...

@anonymous bastard defending halal...

Perhaps you'd care to explain to us all why the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the RSPCA have demanded that halal and kosher be banned.

What this is really all about is the pc mainstream prioritising minority 'rights' above animal welfare, quite simply because they are nothing short of evil.

Anonymous said...

We are never going to agree about foreigners so we may as well change the subject as it's getting boring for both sides.

How about this one?

The Implosion of the BNP. Discuss.

I know you are all busy either jumping off Griffin's bandwagon, pretending you never had anything to do with the BNP or slagging off your "fellow nationalists" at the moment but please let us know what is happening.

Will it end in violence between the different sides?
How many "nationalist" parties will there be after the collapse of the BNP?
What happened to all the money?
Where have all the members gone?
How did people like Clive Jefferson and Roy West ever manage to get promoted in the BNP?

There are lots of questions there - so take your pick and let us know.

Anonymous said...

Another question:

Do you want the BNP leader to be:

a) a chubby, unpopular, corrupt and dictatorial old Nazi (Griffin)?

b) a bald, brothel-creeping drunkard with links to Combat18 and backed by a bunch of paranoid internet weirdos (Butler)?

It's a difficult choice, I'll grant you that!

Anonymous said...

Why have the BNP only got 2400 members who have been members for over 2 years?

Roy West told us they were Britain's fastest growing party!

How long will it be before they go bankrupt? A couple of weeks? a month? two months?

Bye-bye BNP!

Anonymous said...

Anti-BNP operatives around the country are reporting a massive fall-off in attendance at BNP meetings. The few members who turn up often start bickering about the leadership and the finances. Donations have dried up.

Union said...

The only reason you want to change the subject is because you've lost the argument.
For a Party that's 'finished' there's a lot of interest from the anti 'fascists'.
Gutless cyberwarriors won't do anything about the BNP one way or another. The EHRC (AKA We Hate White People), in their latest case (12000 ethnic minority organisations - good,
1 organisation supporting the indigenous population - bad) might succeed in getting rid of the Party - though it's extremely unlikely. If they do ALL nationalists and massive numbers of British people who support and agree with the BNP but who have been cowed by the PC establishment media/mafia using the manufactured stigma of 'racism' will have got the message: moderation doesn't work.
Nationalism, especially with the reality of the colonisation of our country becoming evermore apparent, won't go away and attempting to suppress it will simply cause profound resentment and massively increase the prospect of radical opinion and action. Commitment and a 'nothing to lose' attitude would grow exponentially, organisations like the National Front (not on the EHRC's hit list because of its current size) would be rubbing their hands and rightly.
Ten or twenty thousand determined and focussed 'ultra' nationalists who would KNOW the establishment was utterly intransigent and intolerant of even moderate nationalist views, would be extremely difficult to deal with. As long as they stayed within the law, and even bent it a little - there are many ways to protest - what would the authorities do? Arrest 20,000 people? And for what?
When civil unrest on any reasonable scale, backed by absolute conviction, gets going it's a hell of a job to even slow it down. If the public mood gets behind it - which could well happen - it's unstoppable.

Edward Manning said...

Good points above, especially about 'absolute conviction'. A good comparison is Northern Ireland. All quiet? In a few years there might be the mildest overtures about unifying the island of Ireland. The Loyalists, absolutely correctly in my view, would see this as treason and giving part of Great Britain to a foreign government. Imagine their 'reaction' to that, 'civil unrest' doesn't even begin to describe the ensuing carnage.
I think British nationalists in general see what's happening to Britain in the same way, particularly with immigration, i.e. the country and its identity is being destroyed by traitor's within.

Anonymous said...

@ so-called "Nationalists",

So you're not really democrats at all then, are you? Just like we have always said! It was all a charade - as was obvious to the British people - that's why they rejected you at the polls and now laugh their socks off at you.

You'll find that respectable British people have little time for the kind of violent grouplets you propose - a kind of British Taliban - dumbed-down, backward, isolationist, violent, misogynistic and on the hunt for "traitors" within.

You won't get twenty thousand though - more like two-hundred nationally, I imagine. Most BNP fascists will just go back to the bar.

Anyway, that's for the future. What about this summer and the collapse of the BNP? I can't see Gri££in handing over the party (and the accounts!) to Butler, can you?

Even if Butler did take over what would there be to inherit? Massive debts, a dozen pointless court-cases to pay for, a gangster-style feud within the party, a public image in the gutter, and cripplingly bad publicity when "the truth comes out" re. Griffin's tenure.


Union said...

You've got it bad haven't you. Get yourself a girlfriend, take up needlecraft or something.
The BNP ARE democrats, that's the point. A rigged media/establishment (the journalist's unions official advice is, always report negative BNP stories and never report positive ones - real integrity and impartiality from the 'free' Press) and white hating government backed bigots like the EHRC are adout as ANTI democratic as you can get.
Unless the government starts playing with a straight deck and accepts nationalism as a legitimate part of the democratic - i.e the will of the people as opposed to 'we know best' - process, nationalists will find other, possibly more radical, outlets for their deeply held convictions.
I never proposed anything, especially violence, I simply pointed out that destroying the BNP could be a serious and dangerous error because no-one knows what might take its place.

tonydj said...


And while the BNP are "imploding" what is the Con-Dem coalition doing?

Many of us in the BNP, indeed the Nationalst movement generaly, are aware of the state activities aimed at us.

Which is why some of us avoid involvment in the internal state or left-wing inspired bickerings. We just quietly keep going, increasing our number of candidates and our total vote (as in Tameside) and organising for the next actvity.

Who will lead the party? I do not know. But IF the party should implode and fragment then this wll lead to numerous semi-autonomous groupings (aka "Leaderless Resistance") hard to infiltrate and control. In this situation "Respectable" people are un-necessary, it is activists and the dedicated Nationalist who is the required person. As the situation gets worse the "respectable" have a choice, go under or join us. History shows us that they will choose NOT to go under

Anonymous said...

What many anti-BNP types don't seem to grasp is that any success or failure has to be measured against the odds the party faces, many of them unique.

For a political organisation that has the weight of the entire mainstream political, academic and media establishment vehemently against it, any success at all might be regarded as an achievement. Given the funding and long-established support of the mainstream parties, as well as the subtle pro-multiculturalist propaganda being constantly fed to the population, I'd say the successes of the BNP over the last 10 or so years have been admirable. The BNP face many more obstacles from outside elements than other parties, so any comparison is meaningless.

The modern and democratic BNP arose out of the unelectable neo-nazi movements of the past like the NF. Many within nationalist ranks realised a long time ago that there were two strands within the movement that were drifting apart, and the one that took control of the BNP represents the voice that many ordinary Brits can relate to. That isn't to say the current party is perfect or is at the point it needs to reach, but it has come a long way and is heading in the right direction.

Of course, our present era is only one consideration. Because if the likes of Anjem Choudary and his supporters are correct that (given birth rates) muslims will in a few generations be the majority imposing sharia on everyone, then the BNP is the country's only hope before we reach that nightmare situation. One thing's for sure, Labour and its supporters will happily ride us and future generations straight to this hell. Make no mistake people - eventually the choice for this country (and Europe) is going to be very stark and very simple. Remember that when mocking the BNP.

Vinnie da Vest said...


We at SOPHISM are of an unerringly and unwaveringly like mind, I think.

We are swelling in numbers in the Shite Counties & Stink Ports areas of the country. We maintain that we, rigorously oppose all forms of oppression by all current main political partys and, if given the chance of elected power, will oppress & condemn all future efforts of any opposing party to oppress our oppressive efforts.

We can think of no thing that we can agree upon with any mainstream party in this country, they don't offer us nothing. We on the other hand can offer such an immeasurable amount when we agree a strategy that is uniform.

We will never be a party with secrets to hide from the people but promise to maintain a rigorous policy of agreed internal security.

We maintain the maxim of all people are created equal, but some are more equal than others for circumstances that we deem as and when necessary for that equality.

In our quest for what we believe to be the truth, we will leave no rolling stone unturned and repel all boarders who are not on board with us. We will not be sidelined to the sidings on our course to the proper station in our policies.

Anonymous said...

Is the above a quote from some uttely s***e book or did you make it up yourself?

Brit said...

UAF think Muslims are their tool, the reverse is the reality.

Anonymous said...

Gri££in is the tool!

Anonymous said...

Clive Jefferson is the mule...

Anonymous said...

...and West is Duki's fool!

Anonymous said...

John Betjeman you ain't.

Anonymous said...

have any of you got some