Immigrants dying in the Mediterranean

[evil woman]

Isn't this what the refugees are claiming to be escaping from?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/16/italian-police-arrest-migrants-alleged-to-have-thrown-christians-overboard

 

Police in Sicily have arrested 15 people for allegedly throwing 12 migrants overboard during what appeared to be a Muslim assault against Christians on the high seas amid Italy’s migration crisis.

 

Palermo police said in a statement on Thursday that they learned of the incident while interviewing tearful survivors from Nigeria and Ghana who arrived in Palermo on Wednesday morning after being rescued at sea.

 

The survivors said they had boarded a rubber boat with 105 passengers aboard on Tuesday on the Libyan coast. During the crossing, the migrants from Nigeria and Ghana, believed to be Christians, were allegedly threatened with being abandoned at sea by some 15 other passengers from Ivory Coast, Senegal, Mali and Guinea-Bissau.

 

A fight broke out and 12 passengers were allegedly thrown overboard to their deaths.

 

The statement said the motive was that the victims “professed the Christian faith while the aggressors were Muslim”, Associated Press reported.

[geared]

Isn't this what the refugees are claiming to be escaping from?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/16/italian-police-arrest-migrants-alleged-to-have-thrown-christians-overboard

 

Most of them aren't refugee's, they're not escaping from anything - thats the problem.

[L00b]

The housing bubble was the cause of increased wealth, although immigration played its part in causing that bubble it isn't a good thing. Claiming that people are wealthy just because their house as doubled in value is nonsense.

The 4.1% annualised rate is for total net wealth, which is computed from dwellings, net financial assets and other non-financial assets:

* the dwellings-alone equivalent rate annualised since 2004 is 3.75%

* the net financial assets-alone equivalent rate annualised since 2004 is 4.5%

* the non-financial assets-alone equivalent rate annualised since 2004 is 5.25%

 

Though the dwellings values constitute, unsurprisingly, the largest portion of the total net worth, they have appreciated the least relative to the other two. So, you is wrong.

 

But, by all means, feel free to follow the link, grab the spreadsheet and double- or triple-verify yourself

The average figure is also very likley skewed by Britain's richest whom have increase their wealth by 'phenomenal' £69bn

You're right to use quote marks for 'phenomenal': at the scale of the figures in the spreadsheet (trillions), £69bn is less than a mouse fart. So much for your statistical 'skewing'

 

I suggest you look at that spreadsheet first, if you're going to comment about it further.

Edited April 22, 2015 by L00b

[loraward]

The 4.1% annualised rate is for total net wealth, which is computed from dwellings, net financial assets and other non-financial assets:

* the dwellings-alone equivalent rate is 3.75%

* the net financial assets-alone equivalent rate is 4.5%

* the non-financial assets -alone equivalent rate is 5.25%

 

Though the dwellings values constitute, unsurprisingly, the largest portion of the total net worth, they have appreciated the least relative to the other two. So, you is wrong.

 

But, by all means, feel free to follow the link, grab the spreadsheet and double- or triple-verify yourself

 

From your link In 2013, the net worth of the economy as a whole (of households, businesses and the government) increased 4.4%, to £7.6 trillion

 

I think you will find it is you that is wrong, the average British person is no wealthier now than they were ten years ago, the wealth of some as increased dramatically and the wealth of most is tied up in an house or a pension they have no access to for now, and then there are the people with no house that haven't benefited at all from Britains increased wealth.

 

Total increase is £334bn and £69bn of that increase is from the top 1%

 

The total value of the UK's housing stock has risen from £3.6 trillion to £5.2 trillion over the past ten years. So most of the wealth is tied up in property.

Edited April 22, 2015 by loraward

[L00b]

I think you will find it is you that is wrong, the average British person is no wealthier now than they were ten years ago, the wealth of some as increased dramatically and the wealth of most is tied up in an house, and then there are the people with no house that haven't benefited at all from Britains increased wealth.

I'm just quoting the ONS' own dataset, which I have linked. It's all there in black and white, not biased by my opinion in any way. So...you are therefore holding the ONS dataset as wrong. Okayyy...

 

You are Mecky and I claim my £5! :hihi:

Edited April 22, 2015 by L00b

[loraward]

I'm just quoting the ONS' own dataset, which I have linked. It's all there in black and white, not biased by my opinion in any way. So...you are therefore holding the ONS dataset as wrong. Okayyy...

 

You are Mecky and I claim my £5! :hihi:

 

The ONS data is very likley correct, but your interpretation of it is not and whilst immigration will have made the wealthiest wealthier it hasn't had the same affect on the poorest, it as made them poorer.

Edited April 22, 2015 by loraward

[alchresearch]

Police in Sicily have arrested 15 people for allegedly throwing 12 migrants overboard during what appeared to be a Muslim assault against Christians on the high seas amid Italy’s migration crisis.

 

I was very concerned at the news report stating that no women or children survived, yet plenty of men did. Was the "women and children first" rule non existent?

[flamingjimmy]

I was very concerned at the news report stating that no women or children survived, yet plenty of men did. Was the "women and children first" rule non existent?

 

It's not a rule, and it's pretty rare that people in disasters at sea follow it, and no, we Brits aren't any better. The Titanic was the exception, not the rule.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22119-sinking-the-titanic-women-and-children-first-myth.html

 

"Where does the notion arise that, when a ship sinks, women and children come first?

It appears to have started when the HMS Birkenhead ran aground off South Africa in 1852, but the notion became widespread after the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. The captain explicitly issued an order for women and children to be saved first. As a result, the survival rate for women was three times higher than for men.

 

This idea of chivalry at sea has gained mythological status, but you're the first person to examine if it's true for many other maritime disasters. What did you find?

We went through a list of over 100 major maritime disasters spanning three centuries to see if we could find data on survival rates of men and women. We ended up with data on 18 shipwrecks, involving 15,000 passengers. In contrast to the Titanic, we found that the survival rate for men is basically double that for women. We only have data on children for a limited number of shipwrecks, but it is evident that they have really bad survival prospects: just 15 per cent.

 

What about the noble ideal that the captain and crew put the passengers first and go down with the ship?

What we can see clearly is that the crew were more likely to survive than passengers, with 61 per cent surviving, compared to around 37 per cent of male passengers. On average, the captain was more likely to survive than the passengers.

 

So this notion of chivalry at sea is a myth?

Yes. It really is every man for himself.

 

Why do you think we bought into the "women and children first" belief?

The Titanic has been so extensively studied and it confirmed the myth. There was little empirical evidence against it. Lucy Delap of Cambridge University argues that this myth was spread by the British elite to prevent women obtaining suffrage. They said, look at the Titanic, there is no reason to give women the vote because men, even when facing death, will put the interests of women first.

 

In fact, you've found that, in general, women fare worse on British ships?

Yes, It has been claimed that "women and children first" is just a British phenomenon. But we found a lower survival rate for women on British ships than on ships of other nations."

Edited April 22, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[L00b]

From your link In 2013, the net worth of the economy as a whole (of households, businesses and the government) increased 4.4%, to £7.6 trillion

 

I think you will find it is you that is wrong, the average British person is no wealthier now than they were ten years ago, the wealth of some as increased dramatically and the wealth of most is tied up in an house or a pension they have no access to for now, and then there are the people with no house that haven't benefited at all from Britains increased wealth.

 

Total increase is £334bn and £69bn of that increase is from the top 1%

 

The total value of the UK's housing stock has risen from £3.6 trillion to £5.2 trillion over the past ten years. So most of the wealth is tied up in property.

It would be helpful if you were consistent with terminology, statistical basis and, basically, kept to a comparison of apples with apples rather than with a whole supermarket's worth of fruit and veg, to try and bury your mathematical ineptitude under redundant verbage

 

So, we were talking about average UK households, a statistical measure I picked since they (as in the main composed of actual/potential employees) have the most to lose from immigration of 'have nots' under Zamo's logic, by contrast with UK businesses for which such 'have nots' are a resource. Where were we? Ah, yes.

The ONS data is very likley correct, but your interpretation of it is not

I'm not interpreting anything, I'm using basic, primary school-level maths: take the years' figure (2005), divide it by the previous year's figure (2004), work out the percentage increase or decrease (subtract 1 from the division result, time by 100). Do that for every interval in the sample (2004-2013). Add yearly rates (9 of them) and divide by number of intervals (9). Here's your average annual rate for the sample.

 

I'm all ears about where and how my 'interpretation' is incorrect.

 

And as with all math exams, you won't score any points if you don't explain your result

and whilst immigration will have made the wealthiest wealthier it hasn't had the same affect on the poorest, it as made them poorer.

Whether immigration did that or not, in whole or part, is for you (and potentially Zamo) to prove, as that is your (and potentially Zamo's) argument.

 

In the meantime, you're still wrong: the housing bubble was a lesser cause of increased wealth, relative to other assets, for the average UK household in the interval 2004-2013.

Edited April 22, 2015 by L00b

[loraward]

I'm not interpreting anything, I'm using basic, primary school-level maths: take the years' figure (2005), divide it by the previous year's figure (2004), work out the percentage increase or decrease (subtract 1 from the division result, time by 100). Do that for every interval in the sample (2004-2013). Add yearly rates (9 of them) and divide by number of intervals (9). Here's your average annual rate for the sample.

 

I'm all ears about where and how my 'interpretation' is incorrect.

 

And as with all math exams, you won't score any points if you don't explain your result

Whether immigration did that or not, in whole or part, is for you (and potentially Zamo) to prove, as that is your (and potentially Zamo's) argument.

 

In the meantime, you're still wrong: the housing bubble was a lesser cause of increased wealth than other assets for the average UK household in the interval 2004-2013.

 

Yes I did the math and you are wrong, house prices and pensions do represent most of the wealth increase, and neither are easily accessed, and that increase isn't shared out equally, therefor the wealth increase benefits some but no most and wasn't a benefit derived from high immigration.