To whom it may concern

• Comment on: Landlords call for cash to prevent homelessness

  To whom it may concern's comment | 29/02/2012 9:54 am

  Gavin Rider | 27/02/2012 11:26 am: "try reading the ONS report "Have women born outside the UK driven the rise in UK births since 2001?""
  
  Gavin Rider | 29/02/2012 0:32 am: "You say they contradict the conclusions that I draw? Could you please quote the passage and/or give a specific link to the section that says what you claim? I can't find it."
  
  Gavin Rider | 29/02/2012 0:50 am: "I cannot find any references to the claims you make about "birth rates harmonising" in the ONS documents I have been quoting from."
  
  The reference that you continually deny exists is from the very document you quoted as the basis for the claims you made.
  
  "Ethnic group is not collected at birth registration and, until recently, it has only been available from survey data. Any study of childbearing trends by ethnic group has therefore run up against sample size problems. In 2002 a new system was introduced for allocating NHS numbers at birth, providing a new opportunity to analyse births by ethnic group of the baby5. Resulting estimates showed that just under two-thirds (64.3 per cent) of all babies born (live births) in 2006 were defined by their mothers as White British, 5.6 per cent as White Other, 7.6 per cent as Asian/Asian British and 4.3 per cent as Black/Black
  British6. ONS is collaborating in ongoing work to investigate the relationship between a baby’s ethnicity and its mother’s country of birth. Fertility rates by ethnic group have also recently been estimated using the Household Sample of Anonymised records from the 2001 Census in conjunction with the Labour Force Survey7. Findings suggest fertility rates for some minority ethnic groups could be converging, but at different speeds, to levels observed among the white ethnic group. Part of a project to build projections of ethnic group populations for local areas is also exploring how differences between ethnic groups’ fertility rates can shape current and future trends8.
  Care is needed in interpreting figures relating to country of birth as it cannot be used as a proxy for these other variables. For example, the category ‘UK born women’ will include second and third generation migrants (born to earlier in-migrants) who will often not be of White British ethnicity. Similarly, the category ‘foreign born women’ will include some UK nationals and is likely to include some women of White British ethnicity, for example those born to UK service people stationed abroad.
  Although country of birth is the most robust variable for analysing the impact of international migrants on the number of births in the UK since 2001, it does not represent a precise proxy for international migrants. Childbearing trends among foreign born mothers do not just reflect trends among recent in-migrants born outside the UK. Individuals born outside the UK, who have been resident in the UK for a number of years, will also be included in the ‘foreign born’ group and this may mean that the fertility level for foreign born women lies closer to the national level than the actual fertility levels of recent migrants, if some degree of convergence is assumed."
  
  I did provide this previously, together with a request for an apology, but the post was deleted. I provide it here once more in the hope that the persistence of immigration data being contorted to support offensive views is halted.
  
  I am not providing this to provide a further excuse for another series of anti-immigration rants.
  
  I do hope that this can be taken in the spirit of termination, rather than contrary posts which appear to be simply to continue having the matter argued.
  
  Consequently, this is the last post To Whom it May Concern will be making - and I am sure many other posters will also cease to participate if this over a year long anti-immigration rant is not brought to an end.

• Comment on: Landlords call for cash to prevent homelessness

  To whom it may concern's comment | 28/02/2012 5:20 pm

  Nobody is denying immigration exists Gavin - my point is that some of the views that accompany the data offered are offensive to me. That this can not be understood is most frustrating.
  
  Having read some of the documents that you are quoting from I see that they contradict some of the conclusions you draw - for instance they state that the fertility rates are harmonising and that birth rates are indicated as in line with the current ethnicity of the population. Finally they offer caution about drawing conclusions from the data.
  
  What has been presented on these pages therefore are part facts and distortions. Being able to object to this is not therefore unreasonable.

• Comment on: First application submitted for 10,000-home town

  To whom it may concern's comment | 28/02/2012 12:39 pm

  Melvin - I think you tease rather than grapple with a serious matter; but the day needs lightening, and at least you do not set out to offend, which is appreciated.

• Comment on: First application submitted for 10,000-home town

  To whom it may concern's comment | 28/02/2012 11:59 am

  I'd prefer people did not need to have their employer subsidised yes Melvin. Either wages need to come up so that people can afford the housing at the price currently, or house prices need to come down to levels affordable at the wages available currently. It is high time that low paying employers are no longer carried by the State but made to stand on thier own feet, wouldn't you agree!

• Comment on: First application submitted for 10,000-home town

  To whom it may concern's comment | 28/02/2012 10:37 am

  Ehrm - how about at a level that people can afford to pay, without having to be added too by State Benefits.
  
  Does that seem reasonable Melvin?
  
  It does not seem any value for money to be using taxpayer cash to build much needed new homes, only to then need a never ending drain on the taxpayer for people to be able to pay the rent. No way in any rational definition can that be called 'affordable'.

• Woman jailed after riots in Manchester freed by judge

  Posts: 20

  In Legal debate | 22/08/2011 8:30 pm

  A judge has freed a woman who was jailed following last week's riots in Manchester. It is thought to be the first successful appeal against a sentence in relation to the disorder in England.
  

• Posted in: LGBT housing

  To whom it may concern's post | 27/02/2012 4:59 pm

  I've not come across 'sexual' prejudice before Paul - I recognise Gender prejudice and prejudice against sexuality though.

  Words are significant, especially in terms of discrimination.

• Posted in: LGBT housing

  To whom it may concern's post | 27/02/2012 10:48 am

  I've raised elsewhere the issue of 'this group' being made up of three sexualities and one gender so 'this group' is an appalling way to refer to individual people with individual needs. It is as poor as lumping all Black people in with persons with disabilities and then calling them 'this group'. It is offensive.

  In response to the specific question, I'm not aware of a specific housing adaptation required to meet the needs of someone's sexuality, nor even gender, so am at a loss as to why the question is asked.

  People need support for their individual needs - but this is a social matter not one of bricks and mortar - so yes, society should provide support for those who need it, and that support should be appropraite to people's needs.

• Posted in: The maddly twittering twit

  To whom it may concern's post | 03/01/2012 5:28 pm

  Would it be possible to offer the poor chap a ticket to our world as he seems so disconnected on his own little planet?

• Posted in: BBC PANORAMA ON 28TH NOV, 2011

  To whom it may concern's post | 29/11/2011 8:39 pm

  I think that you are getting confused with the fraud allegation - this is the private sector performing public sector work - they only do it if the profit level is right. 70% return out of the taxpayers' purse is a large sum, but it is what the private sector demanded to get involved.

  What is really odd though is how the Treasury believed this sort of borrowing was more cost effective than the State Borrowing Facility at a 20th of that level of interest.

  What is even odder is that the Tories, who launched PFI in the first place I understand (but Blair must lay claim to being the midwife and nanny if not the father of the Damian Child) but claimed it a tragic waste of taxpayers' money have used it so frequently since coming to power, and even today look to commit many £billions more through this high interest borrowing mechanism, as well as even more £billions at the lower rate too.

  Why not just borrow at the Government rate and have done with it - even if that meant old school chums could not earn so many million a month each via the taxpayer!

• Posted in: The new front page layout - is it Marmite?

  To whom it may concern's post | 18/11/2011 2:13 pm

  Clearer - crisper and easier to locate the latest stories.

  How about putting the forums on a scoller like the other opinion area?

  I look forward to the innovations across the other pages, although I can't imagine what they may be.

  Good work team at IH - new format is a winner.

View all posts