UK Population increase

[stevie_r]

No! yourwrong. In the first half 1970's it was not paid for the first child. It was reinvented in the later 1970's as Child Benefit and paid for the first child.

Please check and apologise if wrong!

did you claim it? getting bored of asking this now

 

[stevie_r]

Joined up thought do me a favour if you have to resort to foul and abusive language to try and get a point over the I am not even going to spend anymore time debating with you. Also if you get a infraction from a Mod for it then it has not come from me although you deserve one.

So do you think that an increased population is due to a fantastic array of benefits or do you think its due to the fact that more males and females of breedable age are around?

 

[SocketRocket]

So do you think that an increased population is due to a fantastic array of benefits or do you think its due to the fact that more males and females of breedable age are around?

Cant you understand that if you reward child birth for people that dont have the means to support them then it will encourage. People that work hard have to limit the number of children due to their financies.

I will explain just one more time to you that we had family allowance in the 1970's for our second child of around 25 pence, I have also explained the reasons why this was appropriate at that time. I also cannot carry on replying to someone who does not make a reasoned debate and explain their own position but would rather just nit pick others. Keep your foul language to your self, I will not lower the debate to that level.

 

[bigslice]

increase in population is due to no WW3!!!!!!!!!!!!! fact from the COOP!!!!!!!!! lol

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Some insulting and abusive posts have been removed from this thread and an infraction given
Please can we contribute in a civil manner or thread will be locked

Thank you

 

[Doon frae Troon]

SR
Decimal currency came in in 1970 so it probably was not 5/-.
Our eldest was born in 1972 and I think we received 75p a week.

 

[SocketRocket]

SR
Decimal currency came in in 1970 so it probably was not 5/-.
Our eldest was born in 1972 and I think we received 75p a week.

Thought I said 25 P, I know it was originally Five Bob

 

[Iaing]

Thought I said 25 P, I know it was originally Five Bob

So you did claim benefits?

 

[Val]

Who said there is a problem with the population, all I heard was there's a baby boom.

 

[SocketRocket]

Who said there is a problem with the population, all I heard was there's a baby boom.

813,200 new births in a year added to a population of 64 million indicates a bit of a problem. Just imagine if that is the normal birth rate in the UK, where are they going to live, work, receive health, education and employment and what about the increased numbers next year and years after. It's not a racist issue but more of how will civilised society survive.

 

[SocketRocket]

So you did claim benefits?

If that a light hearted remark then fair enough. Otherwise read the whole reply and understand the demographics.

 

[Val]

How many deaths?

 

[SocketRocket]

How many deaths?

813,200 babies were born in Britain between mid 2011 and mid 2012. Subtracting the number of people who died in the same period, the increase from births in the year was just over a quarter of a million - 254,400.

Quite a lot for one year, where are they going to live, be educated, receive health services and get jobs. It's not only this number that is a concern but the exponential increase. IMO it's not worth harping back to what happened in previous generations, we have to consider the reality of what the trend is now and how we manage this in the future. I am very interested in peoples opinons and ideas on how this will manifest.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I think it meant that most of the increase qas due to mothers born outside the UK.

Cut from a report in Channel 4 News.

'Migration in the early 2000s has had impact on the birth rate, the ONS says, with 26 percent of all live births in England and Wales in the period to women born outside the UK.'

So what I read in the Independant is correct - 26% being about a quarter. So was that a typo in your post where you said

...and it did say that most births were to women not born in the UK.

Now you may have actually have been meaning that the majority of the increase compared with the previous year was due to births to women born outside of the UK - but that's not what you actually said. May well have been a mistake but when the likes of the Daily Mail or Express make such 'mistakes' or make such ambiguous statements - a large number will take the statement at face value i.e. >50% of births in the year reported on, were to women born outside of the UK - and that isn't the case. So just wondering what your 'majority' refers to.

 

[Iaing]

If that a light hearted remark then fair enough. Otherwise read the whole reply and understand the demographics.

It was a light hearted remark.

But also a valid question which you seem to be evading!

 

[SocketRocket]

So what I read in the Independant is correct - 26% being about a quarter. So was that a typo in your post where you said



Now you may have actually have been meaning that the majority of the increase compared with the previous year was due to births to women born outside of the UK - but that's not what you actually said. May well have been a mistake but when the likes of the Daily Mail or Express make such 'mistakes' or make such ambiguous statements - a large number will take the statement at face value i.e. >50% of births in the year reported on, were to women born outside of the UK - and that isn't the case. So just wondering what your 'majority' refers to.

I think I explained that, dont know why you are still quoting 'majority'. The increase in births to Women born outside the UK was 26% which IMO is a big number. I dont know why you are referring to the Mail and Express either, I have never quoted them. Do you want me to explain again or is one clarification not enough?

 

[SocketRocket]

It was a light hearted remark.

But also a valid question which you seem to be evading!

OK if light hearted the fair enough. Regarding 'Evasion' Please read my replies, I answered that one a number of times such that it is becoming tiresome. If you did not understand the response then be specific and I will attempt to explain it again. Please look back to post 72

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I think I explained that, dont know why you are still quoting 'majority'. The increase in births to Women born outside the UK was 26% which IMO is a big number. I dont know why you are referring to the Mail and Express either, I have never quoted them. Do you want me to explain again or is one clarification not enough?

I'm not disagreeing with the general sentiment of your postings - nor am I suggesting you have any issue or indeed put the increase down to immigration - but in post #45 you did say

The number of Births vastly outnumber the amount of deaths by the way and it did say that most births were to women not born in the UK

As this reads you imply that the majority of births were to women not born in UK - and I don't actually think that you meant that.

So I'm just saying that - mistake or ambiguity - it is unfortunate that some media outlets use such ambiguity to make their case in respect of immigration.

 

[SocketRocket]

I'm not disagreeing with the general sentiment of your postings - nor am I suggesting you have any issue or indeed put the increase down to immigration - but in post #45 you did say



As this reads you imply that the majority of births were to women not born in UK - and I don't actually think that you meant that.

So I'm just saying that - mistake or ambiguity - it is unfortunate that some media outlets use such ambiguity to make their case in respect of immigration.

I fail to see how I can explain my answers again. I have explained now a number of times that it was the increase in births that was associated to Mothers born outside the Uk and they produced 26% of new births. I dont want to revisit this any more.

 

[Iaing]

OK. I see that you did claim benefits.
I just found it strange that the anti-benefit king of the GM forum had , in fact, accepted benefits in the past.