Bill Oddie

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:53 am

Bill Oddie says large British families need to be 'contained' - Telegraph

Is he right or wrong ? Or just plain barking mad ?

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:02 am

Neither, in my opinion, as I've always thought of him as a bit of a berk.

ETA I'm not in favour of uncontrolled immigration or of people having more children than they can afford

ETA 2 I was watching the programme but didn't bother paying attention when he was talking.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:12 am

He has a very good point. Even if the average family remains at being the typical 2.2 children, the population will continue to increase as lifespans get longer. Once upon a time, not so long ago, it would be a rarity for anyone to meet their Great Grandparents. These days it's not uncommon for Great Grandparents to still be having even more kids.

The problem is that it's one thing to be able to see what the problem is. It's quite another to come up with an acceptable solution to it. I have said before that I am not in favour of fertility treatments, and immediately got flamed for it. Just as Bill Oddie says, the country - or, more to the point, the world, is vastly overpopulated as it is, without developing more & more ways to help increase the problem. It would make more sense if there was to be some sort of incentive to encourage people to undergo a vasectomy / tubal ligation.

If, as with China, who at least recognise the problem and are doing their best to at least minimise the growth level, if anything like that were even to be suggested over here the protests for Human Rights would soon be in the air.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:16 am

Oscar Namechange;1466527 wrote: Bill Oddie says large British families need to be 'contained' - Telegraph

Is he right or wrong ? Or just plain barking mad ?

I watched it, and that is not the way it was intended.

He is to say the least an eccentric weirdo, the way I heard it he was comparing how we might limit an increase in population by choosing only elite immigrants to boost our country.......meanwhile the chavs are knocking out under achieving chav kids, to me he was asking if, it might be better to be looking at the chav families.

He never mentioned forcing the chavs to be neutered or denied the right to knock out kids after kids, he raised the question that if we are really worried about increased population why not look at all the options.

Are we to be banned from considering that point of view in this new PC world?

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:22 am

What's a "chav family?"

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:23 am

Bruv;1466532 wrote: I watched it, and that is not the way it was intended.

He is to say the least an eccentric weirdo, the way I heard it he was comparing how we might limit an increase in population by choosing only elite immigrants to boost our country.......meanwhile the chavs are knocking out under achieving chav kids, to me he was asking if, it might be better to be looking at the chav families.

He never mentioned forcing the chavs to be neutered or denied the right to knock out kids after kids, he raised the question that if we are really worried about increased population why not look at all the options.

Are we to be banned from considering that point of view in this new PC world? Define ' Chav ' Family

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:26 am

theia;1466533 wrote: What's a "chav family?"

I've never known the definition but I know one when I see it

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:27 am

Snap, Oscar!

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:28 am

The initial term "Chav" was originally given to the boy within a group of Gypsies whose duty it was to tend to the horses, as with "Chevuax".

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:40 am

FourPart;1466530 wrote: He has a very good point. Even if the average family remains at being the typical 2.2 children, the population will continue to increase as lifespans get longer. Once upon a time, not so long ago, it would be a rarity for anyone to meet their Great Grandparents. These days it's not uncommon for Great Grandparents to still be having even more kids.

.
The average birth rate of British Is not 2.2. That's a myth. That Is the figure a civilisation needs to survive as a race. This has actually been dangerously low In the UK for some years, It currently stands at 1.84 which Is an Increase over the past decade when It was 1.56... America Is also trailing at around 1.8 and Italy has the lowest at 1.2

It Is the very fact that due to advancements In medical science, people live longer but that does not save a race or country as a whole. One In 6 of the population Is pensionable age. In just 10 years, there are 90,000 more pensioners than a decade ago.

Census results: one in six are now pensioners - AOL Money UK

Most of these people don't or can't work.

Meanwhile, the number of under-18s fell from 13,119,654 to 13,111,023 over the same time period.

BBC NEWS | UK | Children outnumbered by over-60s

Take out the figures for pensioners and the number of under 18's and you are left with a dangerously low level of tax payers needed to support both groups.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:46 am

Oscar Namechange;1466535 wrote: Define ' Chav ' Family

You what?

I have found a space in your knowledge base ?

The term 'chav' is a derogatory term for the type of person you would prefer lived in another town rather than next door to you.

Oscar's neighbours, her with the tattoos who want to borrow all the time are chavs.

Chavs children wear designer trainers, but wouldn't know where the local library is. The parents all wear track suits and hang massive St George flags from the bedroom windows every time England plays football.They all have pitbulls, live on benefits and have pizzas and indian takeaway on speed dial and know the delivery drivers by name.

We all know at least one chav family, some of us have chav relatives.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:47 am

Chavs are people who have more kids than teeth

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:31 pm

Bruv;1466543 wrote: You what?

I have found a space in your knowledge base ?

The term 'chav' is a derogatory term for the type of person you would prefer lived in another town rather than next door to you.

Oscar's neighbours, her with the tattoos who want to borrow all the time are chavs.

Chavs children wear designer trainers, but wouldn't know where the local library is. The parents all wear track suits and hang massive St George flags from the bedroom windows every time England plays football.They all have pitbulls, live on benefits and have pizzas and indian takeaway on speed dial and know the delivery drivers by name.

We all know at least one chav family, some of us have chav relatives.

I know exactly what a Chav Is... I was just curious as to what you defined one as.

theia · Post by **theia** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:48 pm

Oscar Namechange;1466545 wrote: I know exactly what a Chav Is... I was just curious as to what you defined one as.

Well, I'm still struggling with it...is it about class, wealth, education, taste?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 1:07 pm

theia;1466548 wrote: Well, I'm still struggling with it...is it about class, wealth, education, taste?

Simple answer.......Yes.

Here you go

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 1:13 pm

Oscar Namechange;1466541 wrote: The average birth rate of British Is not 2.2. That's a myth. That Is the figure a civilisation needs to survive as a race.

Define 'British'

Define 'Civilisation'

How did race come into this ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 1:28 pm

Bruv;1466550 wrote: Define 'British'

Define 'Civilisation'

How did race come into this ?

Ahhhh here we go again folks ... Bruv leaps to the defensive that the Far Right member MUST be excluding ethnics... yawn same old same old... go do some research... the figure and term defines British and that chummy Includes British born ethnics.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 1:29 pm

So Ner

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 1:33 pm

Oscar Namechange;1466552 wrote: Ahhhh here we go again folks ... Bruv leaps to the defensive that the Far Right member MUST be excluding ethnics... yawn same old same old... go do some research... the figure and term defines British and that chummy Includes British born ethnics.

No clear answer from the far right though....................par for the course.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 1:47 pm

Bruv;1466554 wrote: No clear answer from the far right though....................par for the course. Go do some research. I can back my figures up. You just have nothing to say, nothing to offer except the same old defensive rhetoric... Yawn

Back to topic please... I think Bill Oddie Is wrong.

When you take children, pensioners and the unemployed out of the equation, working tax payers get less and less.

I don't actually define what a Chav Is... a bit sneaky but I told Bruv I knew what one was just to see what he'd come back with and It was as I expected. Typical stereo-typing of unemployed, low Income, large family.

Even those Bruv defines as Chav play a part of society. They may not become high flyers but they can work and contribute to the country.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 2:54 pm

British National Party

7 hours ago

Garden gnome Bill Oddie has sparked controversy during a BBC debate on Immigration.

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:09 pm

Oscar Namechange;1466556 wrote: Go do some research. I can back my figures up. You just have nothing to say, nothing to offer except the same old defensive rhetoric... Yawn Have an early night girl.............give us all a break.

Back to topic please... I think Bill Oddie Is wrong.

When you take children, pensioners and the unemployed out of the equation, working tax payers get less and less.
Kinda what old odd Bill was saying in his own way...........perhaps you didn't grasp that.

I don't actually define what a Chav Is... a bit sneaky but I told Bruv I knew what one was just to see what he'd come back with and It was as I expected. Typical stereo-typing of unemployed, low Income, large family.

You told everybody......this is a public forum........can we ever believe anything you say now you have admitted such a thing?

Even those Bruv defines as Chav play a part of society. They may not become high flyers but they can work and contribute to the country.

Contribute ? contribute what ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:24 pm

Is there something wrong with you ?

For any civilisation to continue you must replace old with new ie babies. If the national stats show 900,000 more pensioners over 10 years and less under 18's... who's doing the work to pay the tax to pay pensions and child welfare?

It's simple maths dear boy.

What happens when those working tax payers reach old age If there's a drop In birth rates? Some historians argue that Is why the Aztecs and Mayans died out...no, before you ask, you do the research like me.

The entire country Is not having ten babies per couple. Those who do merely compensate for those who have one or none.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:31 pm

You don't get this In the Tory Party

Adam Walker

8 hours ago

Garden gnome Bill Oddie has sparked controversy during a BBC debate on Immigration.

Hairy birdwatcher Mr Oddie asserted

:yh_rotfl

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:21 pm

The average number of children has nothing to do with maintaining a race. That is a typical Nationalist view ("Ve must breed to ensure ze survival of ze Master Race").

The statistics of average number of children peaked at 2.4 for women born in the 30s & 40s - possibly due to the introduction of Child Benefit? Since then the average number of children in the typical family has dropped, yet the population has risen.

You are correct in saying that for a species to survive (more than a race) it must replace those that die, but that is the problem. If it were simply that, then the average number of children required to maintain the population, for a typical age of, say, 80, would probably remain as something like 1 child for every 3 families. Anything more moves to an increase in population.

It's not a simple matter of 1 in, 1 out. In more a matter of fractals - much like a tablet countng tray at the chemists. There are more people alive on the earth now than the total of those who have lived & died before us.

In order to maintain or, better stil, reduce the population, there are 2 possible solutions.

1. Reduce reproduction of new stock.

2. Increase disposal of old stock.

The latter has been used in several Sci-Fi stories, such as by euthanising elders once they reach a certain age. Fiction, yes, but mathematically it does make sense. Mathematically, that is.

I think the Matrix described the Human Race very well. We are a Virus that continues to grow beyond its means, feeding on limited resources before moving on to colonise another host.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Oct 21, 2014 5:16 am

Oscar Namechange;1466564 wrote: Is there something wrong with you ?
Moi ? Au contraire

For any civilisation to continue you must replace old with new ie babies. If the national stats show 900,000 more pensioners over 10 years and less under 18's... who's doing the work to pay the tax to pay pensions and child welfare?

It's simple maths dear boy.

It's simple logic dear girl, we need to stand on each other shoulders to survive? Where will we plant our food crops, and walk our dogs, when there is standing room only ?

What happens when those working tax payers reach old age If there's a drop In birth rates? Some historians argue that Is why the Aztecs and Mayans died out...no, before you ask, you do the research like me.

What was the Aztec Tax structure like ?.........you do the research I don't care to know, it is after all irrelevant to this topic.

The entire country Is not having ten babies per couple. Those who do merely compensate for those who have one or none.

We will have to look at other ways of sustaining humanity then wont we ?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:25 am

It used to be a single generation that was reproducing. Now it's not uncommon for there to be 3 generations actively reproducing.