Riots in Tottenham, London! (NO RACIST COMMENTS)

[the shadow]

His other posts are all just as backwards

 

[Castiel]

No it isnøt a fact and you know it because you know that we didnøt have the transport technology to do it. There has never been a time where Indians, Kenyans, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Hindus have lived in the same neighbourhood until transport technology allowed the possibility for that to happen.

What do you mean by transport technology exactly.

The Romans didn't seem to have too much difficulty in moving huge numbers of people across Europe, Africa and Asia Minor, which include peoples of many different cultures and races.

Vikings, Irish, Angles, Jutes, Franks, Gauls, Normans, all moved into Britain bringing their different cultures with them.

Around 800AD Asians from Pakistan and the Indian Sub Continent began moving in large numbers in Europe, the descendants of these Asian tribes who called themselves the Sinti arrived in Britain around the 16th century.

50,000 Huguenots arrived in London in 1670 bringing their culture with them, as did the Lascars who were made up of Bengali and Muslims came to Britain in their thousands during the 16th and 17th centuries. During the 18th century significant populations of Black immigrants began to appear in London.

This doesn't include the significant numbers of Arabs, Persians, North Africans who came to British shores from around the 12th century onward, or the significant numbers of Russian Jews or other Jewish settlers during the last millennia, whose numbers where significantly greater before the creation of Israel in 1948.

None of this includes the various cultures and creeds both imported and native to Europe including the Moor, Basque, Indo-Aryan, Turkic, Semitic, Germanic, Iranian, Persian, Latin, Slavic, and so on. All have their own cultures and have been moving around Europe for generations.

During the 8th-12th century there were cities such as Cordoba which were entirely multicultural and the Latin, Hellenic and Islamic worlds were in constant contact with populations moving across the respective regions bringing their cultures, values and most importantly their science and learning with them.

London (which is the topic) has been a multicultural city for hundreds of years to one degree or another. The issues we have today are with mass immigration into areas that are ill prepared and lack the relevant infrastructure and ability to integrate and assimilate such large immigrant populations in such a short time.

 

[scorza]

Would you accept that San Francisco is a global city as well with lots of different cultures in it? I was on holiday there about a month back and it's absolutely nothing like London in feel. It was amazing but wildly different to London or indeed anywhere else I've ever been so unless it's dramatically changed in the past few weeks I can't imagine it would be easy to mistake it for another city.

I've never been to San Francisco, but I have relatives who lived in North California. The impression they give is the San Francisco is a truly great city but horridly expensive to live there now. The surrounding areas of San Jose, Oakland, Stockton aren't quite as nice. So I do wonder if you're comparing apples to oranges here.

 

[do_ron_ron]

An open letter to the parents of David Cameron

 

[Rockitt5]

What do you mean by transport technology exactly.

The Romans didn't seem to have too much difficulty in moving huge numbers of people across Europe, Africa and Asia Minor, which include peoples of many different cultures and races.

Vikings, Irish, Angles, Jutes, Franks, Gauls, Normans, all moved into Britain bringing their different cultures with them.

Around 800AD Asians from Pakistan and the Indian Sub Continent began moving in large numbers in Europe, the descendants of these Asian tribes who called themselves the Sinti arrived in Britain around the 16th century.

50,000 Huguenots arrived in London in 1670 bringing their culture with them, as did the Lascars who were made up of Bengali and Muslims came to Britain in their thousands during the 16th and 17th centuries. During the 18th century significant populations of Black immigrants began to appear in London.

This doesn't include the significant numbers of Arabs, Persians, North Africans who came to British shores from around the 12th century onward, or the significant numbers of Russian Jews or other Jewish settlers during the last millennia, whose numbers where significantly greater before the creation of Israel in 1948.

None of this includes the various cultures and creeds both imported and native to Europe including the Moor, Basque, Indo-Aryan, Turkic, Semitic, Germanic, Iranian, Persian, Latin, Slavic, and so on. All have their own cultures and have been moving around Europe for generations.

During the 8th-12th century there were cities such as Cordoba which were entirely multicultural and the Latin, Hellenic and Islamic worlds were in constant contact with populations moving across the respective regions bringing their cultures, values and most importantly their science and learning with them.

London (which is the topic) has been a multicultural city for hundreds of years to one degree or another. The issues we have today are with mass immigration into areas that are ill prepared and lack the relevant infrastructure and ability to integrate and assimilate such large immigrant populations in such a short time.

The fact that Johnny Pakistan or Ghana couldn't hop on a plane and travel half way round the world in under a day and walk straight in the door being greeted with open arms. To get 50,000 people from Pakistan to the UK in 1500 would have meant half of them died along the way.

Once again you are mistaking 'a person from another country visiting the UK' as meaning there was 'significant' population from that country when it is plain as day that this isn't the case.

Also LOL at 50,000 arriving in 1670, so what about 25% of the population?

Yeah I'm sure that invasion ended well, or perhaps didnt happen

 

[semi-pro waster]

I've never been to San Francisco, but I have relatives who lived in North California. The impression they give is the San Francisco is a truly great city but horridly expensive to live there now. The surrounding areas of San Jose, Oakland, Stockton aren't quite as nice. So I do wonder if you're comparing apples to oranges here.

I'm comparing a global city with a global city, San Francisco and the Bay area has a population of about 7.15m, Greater London has a population of about 7.85m (figures from Wikipedia). London isn't particularly cheap to live in for many areas, nor is San Francisco. London has some great areas and some not so nice areas, San Francisco has some nice areas and some not so nice areas - often in both cities they are juxtaposed with each other. London is multicultural, San Francisco is multicultural, they both attract significant numbers of people from within the country they are in as well. I mentioned it primarily because I was there very recently and so it's in my head but as far as comparability goes I'd say it was apples to apples unless you know of some reason they aren't comparable.

 

[hola_adios]

The fact that Johnny Pakistan or Ghana couldn't hop on a plane and travel half way round the world in under a day and walk straight in the door being greeted with open arms. To get 50,000 people from Pakistan to the UK in 1500 would have meant half of them died along the way.

Once again you are mistaking 'a person from another country visiting the UK' as meaning there was 'significant' population from that country when it is plain as day that this isn't the case.

Also LOL at 50,000 arriving in 1670, so what about 25% of the population?

Yeah I'm sure that invasion ended well, or perhaps didnt happen

And go back a few tens of generations and you will find that your grand-grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand mother was black, wonderful thought isn't it

 

[Castiel]

The fact that Johnny Pakistan or Ghana couldn't hop on a plane and travel half way round the world in under a day and walk straight in the door being greeted with open arms. To get 50,000 people from Pakistan to the UK in 1500 would have meant half of them died along the way.


Also LOL at 50,000 arriving in 1670, so what about 25% of the population?

Yeah I'm sure that invasion ended well, or perhaps didnt happen

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Population-history-of-london.jsp

In the mid-1670s, when the Proceedings began to be published, the population of the capital was approximately 500,000. Fourteen years later, Gregory King, Britain’s first great demographer, estimated it at 527,000. This was a period of low overall population growth, even stagnation in England and was characterised by a very late age at marriage, low illegitimacy rates, and relatively low levels of birth within marriage. These factors impacted just as much on the population of London as on that of the country as a whole, and were exacerbated by particularly high levels of urban infant mortality. As a result, the last three to four decades of the seventeenth century and the first two decades of the eighteenth are a period characterised by slow incremental growth. It is also a period during which a high proportion of London's inhabitants were migrants. Most women came as domestic servants seeking employment, while young men sought apprenticeships or more casual labour. One estimate suggests that a sixth of all people born in England around 1700 lived some part of their lives in London. It was only by maintaining this constant influx that the capital could possibly maintain its population and grow.

The combination of low overall fertility rates with high levels of migration substantially skewed the age structure of London. Low fertility rates, for instance, generally result in a low overall dependency ratio (the number of old and young people supported by the working population). For England as whole this ratio reached its lowest point in the 1670s. Because a high number of London's inhabitants were relatively young recent migrants over the age of 14, the effect would be even more powerfully felt in the capital. In other words, London in the late seventeenth century was not a city of children or the elderly. Instead, it was dominated by young men and women in their teens and twenties.

During the seventeenth century migration tended to be long distance and international. As a result, besides its youth, London's population in this period was also characterised by its diversity. All the regions and countries that made up the British Isles were well represented by self-conscious communities of migrants. Specific neighbourhoods were associated with Yorkshire, Scotland and Ireland. At the same time the Huguenot refugees from France successfully carved out a distinct district for themselves in Spitalfields; while Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazim from Poland and Germany settled around Whitechapel and Petticoat Lane. The Irish came to dominate the area around St Giles in the Fields, which came to be known as "Little Dublin".

From approximately three-quarters of a million people in 1760, London continued a strong pattern of growth through the last four decades of the eighteenth century. In 1801, when the first reliable modern census was taken, greater London recorded 1,096,784 souls; rising to a little over 1.4 million inhabitants by 1815. No single decade in this period witnessed less than robust population growth.

In part this urban bloat resulted from a marked decline in infant mortality brought about by better hygiene and childrearing practices, and a changing disease pattern. By the 1840s children born in the capital were three times less likely to die in childhood than those born in the 1730s.

But much more important than mortality was increased migration and rising fertility. Long distance migration within the Britain Isles declined (with the exception of migration from Ireland), and was replaced by a higher level of regional migration, with London attracting large numbers from the home counties and from communities with strong links to London through coastal shipping. As a result, many more Londoners came to have family and friends back home within a few days walk than they would have done in the seventeenth century. This also ensured that the social identity of communities defined by a region of origin within the British Isles became relatively less important.

At the same time, international, and indeed global, migration (both economic and forced) became more significant. Following the end of hostilities at the conclusions of the Seven Years War in 1763 and the American War in 1783, a large number of black men and women from Africa, the Caribbean and North America settled in London. By the last quarter of the eighteenth century the black population of London is estimated to have been between 5,000 and 10,000. The outcome of the American War in particular also resulted in the establishment of a large American loyalist community, both white and black.

In 1815 London was already the largest city in the world, but by 1860 it had grown three-fold to reach 3,188,485 souls. And many of the souls it contained were from elsewhere. In 1851, over 38 per cent of Londoners were born somewhere else.

The Irish made up perhaps the single largest immigrant group. In 1841, when the first census to record the birthplace of Londoners was taken, 4% of the population were from Ireland, representing 73,000 individuals. This rose to 109,000 in 1851 in the wake of the Great Famine (1846-9). A further 13,000 Londoners were from elsewhere in Europe and the rest of the world (rising to 26,000 in 1851). French, Italian, German and Spanish refugees (both economic and political) all formed substantial communities in London during these decades – many forced to flee following the political and economic disorder associated with the revolutions of 1830 and 1848. Added to these were smaller communities of Chinese, Indian and African sailors, living and working along the riverside. And finally, there was a thriving and substantial Jewish community, replenished decade by decade by further European migration.

The last half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth saw continued strong growth, in some ways replicating and reinforcing the pattern set in preceding decades. The over three million people living in Greater London in 1861 more than doubled to become over seven million by the 1910s. During the same period, the flow of European immigrants rose from a steady stream to a regular river of humanity, while migration from the wider world also grew in importance.

Reflecting increasing fertility rates, by 1901 the proportion of Londoners born elsewhere had declined to just 33% of the total, but with the growing size of the new megalopolis the number of new migrants was nevertheless huge. And while the Irish born population of London declined from 107,000 in 1861 to just 60,000 in 1901, other groups came to take their place in the hard-scrabble economy of immigrant London. The great revolutions and political struggles of late nineteenth-century Europe brought many from Russia, Poland, France, Italy and Germany - including revolutionaries and political activists such as Karl Marx. But most came to work, or to escape persecution. In 1901 there were 27,400 Germans, 11,300 Frenchmen and women, and 11,000 Italians. But most prominent of all the immigrant communities were the Jews. From the 1860s in particular, the well established London Jewish community was dramatically expanded by those fleeing conscription into the armies of the Austrian Empire, and famine in Russia in 1869-70. The Russo-Turkish War of 1875-6 created a new batch of refugees, but it was in the 1880s, and as a result of the persecution of the Jews in both Russia and Prussia, that most came. It is estimated that by 1901 there were 140,000 Jews living in London, three times as many as two decades earlier.

Chinese and Indian immigrants became a more prominent and established part of the London whirl in these same years, while Indian sailors, and a small but significant African and Black Caribbean community continued to prosper. The Pan-African Conference was held in London in 1900; reflecting the extent to which the capital acted as the centre of imperial dissent as much as the centre of the imperium. The 1901 census recorded 33,000 Londoners as having been born in British colonies or dependencies.

http://www.huguenotsociety.org.uk/history.html

About 200,000 Huguenots left France, settling in non-Catholic Europe - the Netherlands, Germany, especially Prussia, Switzerland, Scandinavia, and even as far as Russia where Huguenot craftsmen could find customers at the court of the Czars. The Dutch East India Company sent a few hundred to the Cape to develop the vineyards in southern Africa. About 50,000 came to England, perhaps about 10,000 moving on to Ireland. So there are many inhabitants of these islands who have Huguenot blood in their veins, whether or not they still bear one of the hundreds of French names of those who took refuge here - thus bringing the word 'refugee' into the English language.

Because of the political climate of the time, in a Britain strongly suspicious of the aims of Louis XIV's France, and in fact about to begin a series of wars to curb those ambitions, the Huguenots were on the whole welcomed here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascar

The British East India Company recruited seamen from Bengal, Assam, Gujarat and Yemen. They were known by the British as ‘Lascars’, and a number of these created small settlements in port towns and cities in Britain. Most of these sailors settled down and took local white British wives, due to a lack of Asian women in Britain at the time.[2] By 1813, there were more than 10,000 Indian Lascars living in Britain.[3] By 1842, 3,000 lascars were visiting the UK every year, and by 1855, there were 12,000 lascars arriving annually to Britain. In 1872 and 1873, 3,271 Lascars had arrived annually to Britain.[4] Throughout the early 19th century, South Asian lascars were arriving to Britain at a rate of 1,000 every year,[3] which increased to a rate of 10,000 to 12,000 every year throughout the late 19th century.[5] In 1891, there were 24,037 Lascars employed on British merchant ships, and on the eve of World War I, there were 51,616 Lascars in Britain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England

You clearly do not even bother to research your claims before making them, neither do you actually read the post being made in the first place, and thinking that people did not regularly move across Asia, Europe and Africa before the twentieth century is just retarded, London has been multicultural to one degree or another for centuries, that I am afraid is a historical fact regardless of your inability to accept that.

 

[badcompany]

People on here make me laugh.

 

[hola_adios]

People on here make me laugh.

Ignorance makes me sad in this time and age.

 

[koolpc]

This thread goes on and on!!

 

[Flare]

 

[GAC]

hahahaha, like they wont be rubbing there hands together with the insurance money. as im sure the stores stockfile got tweaked

 

[jp_bl_68]

I just heard that a man has been arrested for burning down the Reeves' furniture store in Croydon. The suspect is a 33 year old man.

I hope they've got the right guy. I was worried that it would turn out to be some little kid who would end up getting little more than a slap on the wrist.

 

[koolpc]

Guess a lot of the rioters / looters will be scared now that everyone is after them.

 

[jp_bl_68]

Guess a lot of the rioters / looters will be scared now that everyone is after them.

I wish high blood pressure and stomach ulcers on them all........seriously

 

[Dr Who]

 

[SoapSurgeon]

I often wonder what tourists must think when they visit London expecting to see at least 1 or 2 classic Englishmen and instead they don't even see any white people. Tbh some of them are probably in dismay

Who travels to london expecting to see a 'classic Englishman'??

I fancy a trip to Paris actually, see me a classic Frenchman. Blue and white striped tshirt, beret, bulbs of garlic round his neck riding a bike with a baguette under his arm and playing the accordian... oh, wait

 

[scorza]

My son's yuman rites have been violated, wails eviction Mum - waah!

I actually felt a bit sorry for her before because I didn't think it was right that the parents and siblings should be punished because of the actions of one of the kids. Now I think she should go to hell Your son didn't have his human rights violated - he was acting like a knob, stealing stuff so got a bit of a tickle from a police baton during the arrest process - that's all.

 

[mrk]

Mother Nature violated her face more like :s