Racist and anti-immigration views held by UK children revealed in schools study - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;47757118]Now do the same survey to adults. Hopefully they'll grow out of it, I know I was a little racist(and homophobic) shit when I was a kid but then I stopped being stupid, of course if their parents keep pumping shit into their head they might not grow out of it.[/QUOTE] My friends are pretty homophobic. I guess if for some unknown reason we had to go into a gay bar, I'd be the most corageous out of the group for not being jumpy. And once we were out, I'd have to hear a torrent of jokes about dicks.

[QUOTE=Mellowbloom;47758078]Kinda sad what people are teaching their kids nowadays[/QUOTE] Maybe the kids are learning it themselves?

[QUOTE=SuperPlamz;47757069]Kids are absolutely terrible when it comes to politics, so I'm not surprised.[/QUOTE] Actually, whatever these kids believe can be seen as a perfect reflection of the views their parents hold - The parents are actually tactful enough not to let them show in public.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47757898]I don't get why so many people find anti-immigration to be on levels of Satan. There are limits as to how many people a country can support while also upkeeping same living standards.[/QUOTE] And we only just happened to hit that limit? 10 years ago with the Poles people claimed we'd hit that limit. 30 years ago with the Pakistanis and the Indians people claimed we'd hit that limit. for a long time up until 50 years or so ago with black people, people claimed we'd hit that limit. (obviously I've simplified the timing of these for the sake of argument, the point still stands) What makes you think you're right this time? The truth is, that limit doesn't really exist in any sense other that in terms of how much space we have, and we've got a lot of space. If you're talking about a limit on jobs and on public services, well, you put more people in the country, you produce more work totally proportionately with the population because those new people need to be homed, fed, connected to infrastructures, etc. and other people have to do those jobs for them. The new people will then get jobs themselves and pay taxes, going on to fund public services. If you think of a job simply as doing a service for another person, then if there are more other people, there will be more work and more jobs. The pot of money for public services isn't constant, it increases the more people there are paying taxes. I know it's very easy to see how shitty waiting times are for A&E and how overworked all our doctors and nurses are, and then to look at all the new immigrants there are and then to blame them for it, but the fact is that those immigrants are paying taxes that should be going towards hiring more doctors and nurses, and fixing those problems. There is no finite limit to how many jobs there are or how many people public services are capable of supporting. Those things increase perfectly in proportion to the number of people there are, and increase with immigration. Immigration is used, when talking about unemployment and public service strain and other issues, as a scapegoat, when in reality these problems are down to a shitty overall economy caused by globally underegulated banks creating a loan bubble that burst bad, and a bunch of other economic factors, followed by a complete failure of the (relatively free) free market to provide new good jobs, along with a complete lack of investment by the government to provide new good jobs, and massive spending cuts on all public services. Regarding space, though, theoretically speaking (though of course this is a ridiculous suggestion) if the whole country had the population density of London we could fit around 1,300,000,000 in the UK (though my maths might be wrong on that, I didn't take much care when I calculated that), and our current population is around 64,000,000 so we could theoretically handle 20 times the population we currently have. Obviously we need farmland, or alternatively we'd fuck up the environment transporting goods from elsewhere, and it would be a pretty bleak world but I doubt it will come to that, certainly not because of immigration. The issue there is more one of overpopulation in general, not of immigration, and there's little we can do humanely about that other than fighting poverty globally (since high birth rates always correlate to lower income) and then we could theoretically have a sustainable population level if every couple had two children because they're not having more out of fear of more of them dying (that's assuming those children then also always have 2 kids for the sake of simplicity, in reality many people would be able to have three kids).

[QUOTE=Svinnik;47757114]Ehh, under their standards, it's iffy. Koran gives women a lot of rights that they didn't have in Arabia circa 600AD but nowadays, no one really seems to pay attention to those rights.[/QUOTE] That's irrelevant because in 7th Century Arabia women were property. Any rights were an improvement, but why is that something that should be celebrated in the 21st Century? Should we applaud the laws of the antebellum South that prevented masters from killing their slaves as if they are progressive and meaningful today?

[QUOTE=Svinnik;47757114]Ehh, under their standards, it's iffy. Koran gives women a lot of rights that they didn't have in Arabia circa 600AD but nowadays, no one really seems to pay attention to those rights.[/QUOTE] Of course, being worth half a man is better than being worth a fourth or less. It just seems very hypocritical that Facepunch has this thing where they try their damned hardest to defend the Quran, but the moment the Bible is brought up we're met with people throwing out "violent" and "barbaric" passages which are met with a shower of Agrees and Winners. They're both religious texts with their fair share of wisdom and ignorance, stop trying to act like one is better than the other and consider how their teachings are used in society.

Great news, the white awakening will be glorious to witness.

You guys had your chance to save britian, but you chose Islam instead. [img]http://www.catch21.co.uk/catch21/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Nigel-Farage-1552356.jpg[/img]

There's absolutely no consistency in that poll. And from what I can get, the majority still isn't against immigrants so...??

guardian scaremongering, what else is new

Can you really blame them? With all the news about immigrants literally washing up on the shores of Europe, all those Pakistani rape gangs that the authorities have been aware of for the past 10 years, the EU essentially forcing immigrants on people and ISIS saying they're getting people back into countries for their shenanigans it's pretty simple to see why people might not be too pleased with immigrants in specific. No idea about the racism part though.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47759100]the EU essentially forcing immigrants on people[/QUOTE] huh?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47759424]huh?[/QUOTE] I fully agree with the immigration policies of the EU and I want immigration to continue at the current rate it is. However, they DO force immigrants on people - One of the key parts of being a member of the EU is freedom of movement of EU citizens, meaning that anyone, whether they are French, Italian or Polish, can easily move to the UK and work here. The only realistic way to stop this should you dislike immigration is to leave the EU as Merkel has frequently seemed to be firm on not budging on this issue.

I also like how the title and 2/3rds of the article is talking about what kids think of immigrants, when this is the more worrying part: [quote]40% – proportion of schoolchildren studied who believe they will not earn enough in the future [/quote]

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47757898]I don't get why so many people find anti-immigration to be on levels of Satan. There are limits as to how many people a country can support while also upkeeping same living standards.[/QUOTE] Leftist ideals center on internationalism. That borders are a bad thing. Thus 'racist' This what I understand.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47759100]Can you really blame them? With all the news about immigrants literally washing up on the shores of Europe, all those Pakistani rape gangs that the authorities have been aware of for the past 10 years, the EU essentially forcing immigrants on people and ISIS saying they're getting people back into countries for their shenanigans it's pretty simple to see why people might not be too pleased with immigrants in specific. No idea about the racism part though.[/QUOTE] good thing we don't have any BRITISH rape gangs with long-standing police corruption allowing them to be ignored by government officials and the media at large for several decades *cough cough* i mean i'm not trying to make a personal slight against you, it's just that the westminster conspiracy is so extremely messed up and far-reaching and just downright nightmarish that i find the tabloid media's narrative - that political correctness was essentially allowing rapists to keep raping - ridiculously ironic, considering very few of those tabloids seem to be giving the conspiracy the attention it deserves, preferring instead to push party-line-friendly rants about immigration and the incompatibility of our two cultures. now i think of it it's a really fucking unpleasant parallel.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;47758388]And we only just happened to hit that limit? 10 years ago with the Poles people claimed we'd hit that limit. 30 years ago with the Pakistanis and the Indians people claimed we'd hit that limit. for a long time up until 50 years or so ago with black people, people claimed we'd hit that limit. (obviously I've simplified the timing of these for the sake of argument, the point still stands) What makes you think you're right this time? The truth is, that limit doesn't really exist in any sense other that in terms of how much space we have, and we've got a lot of space. If you're talking about a limit on jobs and on public services, well, you put more people in the country, you produce more work totally proportionately with the population because those new people need to be homed, fed, connected to infrastructures, etc. and other people have to do those jobs for them. The new people will then get jobs themselves and pay taxes, going on to fund public services. If you think of a job simply as doing a service for another person, then if there are more other people, there will be more work and more jobs. The pot of money for public services isn't constant, it increases the more people there are paying taxes. I know it's very easy to see how shitty waiting times are for A&E and how overworked all our doctors and nurses are, and then to look at all the new immigrants there are and then to blame them for it, but the fact is that those immigrants are paying taxes that should be going towards hiring more doctors and nurses, and fixing those problems. There is no finite limit to how many jobs there are or how many people public services are capable of supporting. Those things increase perfectly in proportion to the number of people there are, and increase with immigration. Immigration is used, when talking about unemployment and public service strain and other issues, as a scapegoat, when in reality these problems are down to a shitty overall economy caused by globally underegulated banks creating a loan bubble that burst bad, and a bunch of other economic factors, followed by a complete failure of the (relatively free) free market to provide new good jobs, along with a complete lack of investment by the government to provide new good jobs, and massive spending cuts on all public services. Regarding space, though, theoretically speaking (though of course this is a ridiculous suggestion) if the whole country had the population density of London we could fit around 1,300,000,000 in the UK (though my maths might be wrong on that, I didn't take much care when I calculated that), and our current population is around 64,000,000 so we could theoretically handle 20 times the population we currently have. Obviously we need farmland, or alternatively we'd fuck up the environment transporting goods from elsewhere, and it would be a pretty bleak world but I doubt it will come to that, certainly not because of immigration. The issue there is more one of overpopulation in general, not of immigration, and there's little we can do humanely about that other than fighting poverty globally (since high birth rates always correlate to lower income) and then we could theoretically have a sustainable population level if every couple had two children because they're not having more out of fear of more of them dying (that's assuming those children then also always have 2 kids for the sake of simplicity, in reality many people would be able to have three kids).[/QUOTE] No, there is a limit, but not necessarily on "number of immigrants" per-say. This is going to sound harsh, but the "limits" are determined by the class of the immigrant. Too many lower class/ unskilled immigrants WILL put a strain on a country because until they move past minimum wage, etc., they take more out of the system than they put in. However, this can be offset by bringing in more higher class/skilled immigrants who start off productive and put more into the system than they take out. However, too many skilled immigrants pushes down middle class citizens who are trying to work their way up. So there is a "limit", but it's more like a balance. You can't let too many of one type in without negative consequences. And you really shouldn't be letting people in if your current economy can't keep up with the amount of people in it.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;47758761]Great news, the white awakening will be glorious to witness.[/QUOTE] It's too late we're already being genocided on a global scale Dare I even say A galactic scale

[QUOTE=Baron von Hax;47757305]I feel that there are many issues with this study, such as which people were sampled and where they were from, their class and other important factors. These aren't stated and I'd be correct to suggest that since it's The Guardian, they're hardly going to hesitate pushing their own left wing agenda. Besides, the statistics are not nearly as bad as they're trying to play it off, not to mention 6,000 is smallish sample size to make such conclusions.[/QUOTE] Whilst I agree that the study is flawed and the Guardian, like most papers in this country has gone and distorted it even worse, I [b]disagree[/b] with your assertion that 6000 is a smallish sample size, depending on the confidence interval and such you want to obtain, I do not take issue with the sample size, though I do with other parts, such as the sampling method and lack of knowledge as to how the questionnaire was handed out. Did the teachers just give it to kids? Was there a talk first? (potentially biasing one side or another) Were they guaranteed that their answers would not be identifiable? Were the schools clustered together, giving a false representation of the view? If you were to go to London or Bradford, of course your results would be different from if you were to go to, say, Royal Tunbridge Wells. You want a randomly distributed sample. I would also take issue with the way that some questions are worded and the fact that it was done "Show Racism the Red Card", who as a charity about racism will have a vested interest in making sure that the results are presented as shocking and distorting them as such, as does the Guardian. If it was done by an independent company like Ipsos Mori or something, then I'd pay it a lot more heed. However, let's just do some basic statistics just about the sample size. I'll probably make a small error or two, but eh who cares. Basically, I am by no means good at statistics or trained as such, this is just the ramblings of someone with a calculator and a basic knowledge. I have not read the study, just grabbed the figures. As of 2014 there are around 7.7 million school children in the UK, if we count primary and secondary. ([URL="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/schools-pupils-and-their-characteristics-january-2014"]School census, check the national tables[/URL]) This survey claims to be sampling 10 to 16 year olds, so let's use the secondary school value listed - about 3.18 million pupils in state funded secondary schools. I'll just take sample size as 6000 and total pop as 3.18 million for the purposes of this, we're not aiming to be super precise so it's a tiny bit rounded. If we assume we want a 99% confidence level and a confidence interval of 2%, then only need 4155 participants, assuming the worst case percentage of 50% (no extremes). That means that 99% of the times you do the survey, you should expect to get results that are pretty close together - within +/- 2% of each other. If you only wanted a 99% confidence level with an interval of 5%, you only actually need 666 students, for 1% you need 16554 students, but the amount of students sampled is correct, The 99% confidence level is pretty good - many people just use a 95% one. Of course this is assuming a randomly sampled population, which this is possibly (hell, I'll say probably) not, but I believe other parts of the study should be criticised, the actual number of responses is fine.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47760380]No, there is a limit, but not necessarily on "number of immigrants" per-say. This is going to sound harsh, but the "limits" are determined by the class of the immigrant. Too many lower class/ unskilled immigrants WILL put a strain on a country because until they move past minimum wage, etc., they take more out of the system than they put in. However, this can be offset by bringing in more higher class/skilled immigrants who start off productive and put more into the system than they take out. However, too many skilled immigrants pushes down middle class citizens who are trying to work their way up. So there is a "limit", but it's more like a balance. You can't let too many of one type in without negative consequences. And you really shouldn't be letting people in if your current economy can't keep up with the amount of people in it.[/QUOTE] lol the main reason we need immigrants is because theyre the only people willing to do the low paid jobs we don't want

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;47762035]lol the main reason we need immigrants is because theyre the only people willing to do the low paid jobs we don't want[/QUOTE] I never said countries don't need immigrants. However, they need to make sure that they aren't ONLY bringing in people for these low paying jobs. They need to bring in higher paid skilled ones as well to help offset the burden they place on the country.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47762616]I never said countries don't need immigrants. However, they need to make sure that they aren't ONLY bringing in people for these low paying jobs. They need to bring in higher paid skilled ones as well to help offset the burden they place on the country.[/QUOTE] Or, right, why not start a drive to train natives for those high skilled jobs? Seriously what the fuck is with this idea that high skilled immigrants are needed? We should be pushing to get more natives into training and stable jobs, high skill and low skill as opposed to getting more people into the country to take the jobs instead. Really fucking tired of that shit, we've got folk here in our own country struggling as it fucking is and every cunt and their mum is shouting about how we need to bring in more people to get the jobs done.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;47762035]lol the main reason we need immigrants is because theyre the only people willing to do the low paid jobs we don't want[/QUOTE] This is actually true. The problem is with finding employment these days is that you have to be prepared to move around in order to work - the work won't come to you, and this is especially true with low-income, low-skilled jobs. The immigrants are the ones willing to do so in order to earn terrible wages. They aren't 'stealing' the jobs as such, they're just the only ones prepared to do them.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;47762035]lol the main reason we need immigrants is because theyre the only people willing to do the low paid jobs we don't want[/QUOTE] My father recently lost his job because a Hungarian was willing to do it for half the wage. Immigrants can afford to work cheaply as they often lodge together as a group, have tax breaks and can apply for benefits easily. Citizens who pay more taxes and have higher living standards cannot afford to flip burgers at McDonalds.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47760380]No, there is a limit, but not necessarily on "number of immigrants" per-say. This is going to sound harsh, but the "limits" are determined by the class of the immigrant. Too many lower class/ unskilled immigrants WILL put a strain on a country because until they move past minimum wage, etc., they take more out of the system than they put in. However, this can be offset by bringing in more higher class/skilled immigrants who start off productive and put more into the system than they take out. However, too many skilled immigrants pushes down middle class citizens who are trying to work their way up. So there is a "limit", but it's more like a balance. You can't let too many of one type in without negative consequences. And you really shouldn't be letting people in if your current economy can't keep up with the amount of people in it.[/QUOTE] I don't think that is what's happening though. [url=http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service]A big big chunk of our NHS, for example, relies on immigrant workers, for example.[/url] So there's plenty of immigrants coming and directly supporting public services, and doing relatively well paid work in the process. And besides, I don't know if what you're saying is strictly true anyway. More low-skilled, low income workers coming into the country should theoretically displace other low income workers into slightly higher income, since more higher income jobs should be created to provide high skilled services for the new low income workers. The amount of work available in each bracket of income should be proportional to the population. Look at what's happened with building work like plumbing and electricity, it's very well paid, there's a lot of it to go around, and it's surprisingly easy to get the training for it. If a company particularly needs someone to come and work in a high skilled position, but is somehow struggling to find someone to do that work, it's not too expensive for that company to simply offer to pay for that training. With more immigrants, there's more potential customers for businesses small and large to make money out of, driving up their profits, thus driving up the amount of taxes they should be paying, as well as creating more opportunities for more businesses to be created, meaning more potential for high income work at the top of those businesses, meaning more taxes get paid. So the reality is, there shouldn't be anything stopping new middle and high income jobs becoming available through greater immigration, and there shouldn't be anything stopping those jobs getting filled, either by British nationals or by immigrants. We do have an issue of there being far too much low income work in proportion to higher income work, though, in fact a study that came out the other day said that we have the worst income equality in Europe, but that's a broader thing than being because of immigrants. [url=http://news.sky.com/story/1164087/immigrants-contribute-25bn-tax-boost-to-uk]Ultimately, Immigrants actually make a net contribution overall in public money.[/url]

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47762616]I never said countries don't need immigrants. However, they need to make sure that they aren't ONLY bringing in people for these low paying jobs. They need to bring in higher paid skilled ones as well to help offset the burden they place on the country.[/QUOTE] People doing low paid jobs aren't a burden on society, lol. They put in more than they get out collectively, as stated in the post above.