News from around the globe that the newspapers seldom print

Disclaimer and fair comment

While I agree with most of the material passed on I may not be in agreement with all. However there is much we can learn from some that we disagree with. Remember it was once thought that the earth was flat.

It is left to your judgment to determine what you agree with and what to act upon.

Hiding the facts in Britain
15th April 2005

The 2001 Census revealed that in only two inner London boroughs were ‘whites’ in a minority. However researched figures of the Census, and particularly its definition of “white”, concludes that in fact in 2001 indigenous Britons were in a minority in 10 London boroughs and throughout the inner London area.

The majority of Londoners visiting the Office of National Statistics (ONS) website (http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk) seeking information on the “whiteness” of their boroughs are not interested in the number with pale skins but really want to know the number of indigenous Britons still remaining. It is this confusion between the terms “White” and “Indigenous-British” that the government and its agencies, such as the ONS, have cynically exploited to mask the real extent of the colonisation of our country in general, and metropolitan centres such as Greater London in particular.

Question 8 of the Census form was entitled “Count Me In” and told the form filler to “Choose ONE section from A to E, then tick the appropriate box to indicate your cultural background”. The all important Section A was “British, Irish, Any other White Background”.

Broad definition of “white”

Now those who decided to “count me in” under “Any other White Background” appeared to include anyone who did not want to be classified as Afro-Asian-Caribbean ! Apart from those obviously ‘white’, i.e. of true European ancestry, it included ( which was confirmed through phone calls to the ONS) Turks, Kurds, Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, Kosovars, Albanians, and Latin Americans – who can be anything from full white to full black. Any of these who have become British citizens could opt for “White-British” or “White-Other” on the form.

So, why was this question worded in such a vague and statistically useless way? It would appear that it was part of deceitful government propaganda to hide the true nature of this colonisation of not just our capital city but of this country as a whole.

Doctoring the figures

It was found that the ONS used a strange “masking” formula for doctoring the “White-British” and “White-Other” classifications. The London Borough of Hackney was chosen as an example of how this doctoring worked with the ONS Neighbourhood statistics database, which stated that in 2001 it was 59.4% White. But ignoring their doctoring formula, the raw statistics showed the “White” group as being 47.1% “White-British” and “White-Irish” and 12.3% “White-Other”.

The London Census figures were examined again, but this time making allowances for the minimum of 350,000 illegal immigrants the capital has acquired over the past fifty years and who, for obvious reasons, are not included in Census returns. We also took into account the “white flight” from London which decreased the “Indigenous-British” group by just 2% - again a conservative figure compared with MigrationWatch’s latest figures, who go for a figure of 6%. His new data model shows that today the “Indigenous-British” Group are in a minority in at least 12 London Boroughs and represent only just over 50% of the population throughout Greater London.

Although these figures were derived from the London 2001 Census returns, it is a safe bet that a similar mass distortion took place in reporting the demographic balance for Birmingham, Greater Manchester, Glasgow, and the West Riding towns and cities.

Obviously as the study reports “The Government and its agencies conspired prior to the 2001 Census and subsequently to utilise facets of the 2001 Census to deliberately mislead the public over the actual extent of colonisation.”