Nip it in the bud

[Professor]

Sandwell

"50% of our population are British White"

https://sandwellandwestbhamccg.nhs.uk/equality-diversity/our-population

So will be a majority.

 

[dailew]

Also Oldham.

77% White- stop digging now- you have put yourself in a hole

Bradford is about 70% white British

Err...

Never mentioned Bratford.

I'm using Wiki where do you get your figures?


Arrr. I see you're back to your old snidey goal post moving tactics and it's now white as opposed to "white British".

 

[dailew]

Sandwell

"50% of our population are British White"

https://sandwellandwestbhamccg.nhs.uk/equality-diversity/our-population

So will be a majority.

Fuck me. You now have your own special definiton of majority as well.

"The greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority):
the majority of the population."

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/majority

 

[dailew]

How could you forget Leicester when you claimed to have lived there?

Worked there. Lived elsewhere (somewhere whiter) and commuted.

Corrected for you.

 

[Professor]

Worked there. Lived elsewhere (somewhere whiter) and commuted.

Corrected for you.

Yes it was. Already lived there, my partner worked there and could commute. Funnily enough not very interested in multi-culturalism. Never claimed to. Only care about equality of opportunity.

 

[Professor]

So will be a majority.

Fuck me. You now have your own special definiton of majority as well.

"The greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority):
the majority of the population."

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/majority

49.9% is less than half. 50% cannot be a minority. If you have X, Y and Z in an election. X gets 50%, Y 30%, Z 20% that is recorded as a majority of 20%. That is also a majority population.

Not so complex. The others are minorities.

 

[dailew]

Here's what the best liked answer on the wonderful stack exchange has to say on vast majority.

I suppose I am being quite idiosyncratic, but when I use an adjective in front of "majority", I use these rankings, especially when thinking about elections:

Vast majority - means almost all or something like 90% or more, but less than unanimous.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/126654/is-vast-majority-something-to-avoid


Been very generous in allowing you 60% of the total.

Most people would say two thirds to three quarters.

 

[dailew]

Fuck me. You now have your own special definiton of majority as well.

"The greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority):
the majority of the population."

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/majority

49.9% is less than half. 50% cannot be a minority. If you have X, Y and Z in an election. X gets 50%, Y 30%, Z 20% that is recorded as a majority of 20%. That is also a majority population.

Not so complex. The others are minorities.

And there you go again.

Talking about minority.

Moving the goal posts again. Deflecting again.

 

[Professor]

77% White- stop digging now- you have put yourself in a hole

Bradford is about 70% white British

Err...

Never mentioned Bratford.

I'm using Wiki where do you get your figures?


Arrr. I see you're back to your old snidey goal post moving tactics and it's now white as opposed to "white British".

Most councils have pretty good demographic data. Oldham only records White not white British, but I suspect over 70% (includes some affluent suburbs). Lancashire CC is the most detailed. Birmingham no data on racial groups.

Never rely on Wikipedia. Full of errors and subjective opinion. We tell students that first day.

 

[Professor]

49.9% is less than half. 50% cannot be a minority. If you have X, Y and Z in an election. X gets 50%, Y 30%, Z 20% that is recorded as a majority of 20%. That is also a majority population.

Not so complex. The others are minorities.

And there you go again.

Talking about minority.

Moving the goal posts again. Deflecting again.

50% cannot be a minority. I explained that. Off now. Laters...

 

[dailew]

So according to your "logic" a town, lets call it Fulchester, could have 11% white British with the others divided equally amongst 89 different ethnic groups and you could still say


"In Fulchester white British, at 11% of the population, are the vast majority".


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[dailew]

Err...

Never mentioned Bratford.

I'm using Wiki where do you get your figures?


Arrr. I see you're back to your old snidey goal post moving tactics and it's now white as opposed to "white British".

Most councils have pretty good demographic data. Oldham only records White not white British, but I suspect over 70% (includes some affluent suburbs).

Nice try but caught out again.

The council gives the figures for the borough, not the town.

"No town. No city". Remember?

The Metropolitan Borough of Oldham is a metropolitan borough of Greater Manchester, England. The borough is named after its largest town, Oldham, but also includes the outlying towns of Chadderton, Failsworth, Royton and Shaw and Crompton, the village of Lees, and the parish of Saddleworth.

I'll add that to your moving goalpost list

• white British - white

• majority - minority

• town or city - borough
  

P.S. I think I have more proof of your duplicity which I will reveal later. I'm keeping that ace up my sleeve. It's a good one. If logically correct, of course. Which I believe it to be. I'll apologize if not.

 

[Professor]

Most councils have pretty good demographic data. Oldham only records White not white British, but I suspect over 70% (includes some affluent suburbs).

Nice try but caught out again.

The council gives the figures for the borough, not the town.

"No town. No city". Remember?

The Metropolitan Borough of Oldham is a metropolitan borough of Greater Manchester, England. The borough is named after its largest town, Oldham, but also includes the outlying towns of Chadderton, Failsworth, Royton and Shaw and Crompton, the village of Lees, and the parish of Saddleworth.

I'll add that to your moving goalpost list

• white British - white

• majority - minority

• town or city - borough
  

P.S. I think I have more proof of your duplicity which I will reveal later. I'm keeping that ace up my sleeve. It's a good one. If logically correct, of course. Which I believe it to be. I'll apologize if not.

God almighty-i said long ago you could look at a small area like electoral wards and see areas of majority for British Pakistani/Pakistani for example. Most sane people would consider at borough level the population of a town or city. In fact where is a town begin or end?

I notice you deleted a query about a source for Wikipedia being unreliable

There are many e.g.
https://libguides.exeter.ac.uk/c.php?g=658259&p=4648406
https://guides.library.ucla.edu/wikipedia/citing-wikipedia
https://libguides.library.nuigalway.ie/c.php?g=579892&p=4002374

The main issues are anyone can edit. It is a tertiary source. Most research uses primary sources (original research, parliamentary records, government departments and NGOs like PHE to APHA) or at a push secondary sources such as reviews or textbooks for overviews. That's not to say its not useful-it is and I read articles about things that interest me, but treat them very much as a magazine or newspaper. It is a useful tool into a new area. However, we see it as that, and that alone.

Perhaps the most illuminating (and contradictory to my argument) is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source


I'm off to do something useful. Suggest you do too.

 

[dailew]

Nice try but caught out again.

The council gives the figures for the borough, not the town.

"No town. No city". Remember?



I'll add that to your moving goalpost list

• white British - white

• majority - minority

• town or city - borough
  

P.S. I think I have more proof of your duplicity which I will reveal later. I'm keeping that ace up my sleeve. It's a good one. If logically correct, of course. Which I believe it to be. I'll apologize if not.

God almighty-i said long ago you could look at a small area like electoral wards and see areas of majority for British Pakistani/Pakistani for example. Most sane people would consider at borough level the population of a town or city. In fact where is a town begin or end?

I notice you deleted a query about a source for Wikipedia being unreliable

There are many e.g.
https://libguides.exeter.ac.uk/c.php?g=658259&p=4648406
https://guides.library.ucla.edu/wikipedia/citing-wikipedia
https://libguides.library.nuigalway.ie/c.php?g=579892&p=4002374

The main issues are anyone can edit. It is a tertiary source. Most research uses primary sources (original research, parliamentary records, government departments and NGOs like PHE to APHA) or at a push secondary sources such as reviews or textbooks for overviews. That's not to say its not useful-it is and I read articles about things that interest me, but treat them very much as a magazine or newspaper. It is a useful tool into a new area. However, we see it as that, and that alone.

Perhaps the most illuminating (and contradictory to my argument) is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source


I'm off to do something useful. Suggest you do too.

Desperate. Desperate. Blame the source.

Wiki is very accurate and handily collates the figures from the primary source.

Never seen anything in the figures that are proven wrong.


I never deleted anything in your post. It's still there.

I only delete stuff from the box showing your post to show the stuff I'm replying to. Makes it cleaner.

Desperate stuff again.

 

[Professor]

God almighty-i said long ago you could look at a small area like electoral wards and see areas of majority for British Pakistani/Pakistani for example. Most sane people would consider at borough level the population of a town or city. In fact where is a town begin or end?

I notice you deleted a query about a source for Wikipedia being unreliable

There are many e.g.
https://libguides.exeter.ac.uk/c.php?g=658259&p=4648406
https://guides.library.ucla.edu/wikipedia/citing-wikipedia
https://libguides.library.nuigalway.ie/c.php?g=579892&p=4002374

The main issues are anyone can edit. It is a tertiary source. Most research uses primary sources (original research, parliamentary records, government departments and NGOs like PHE to APHA) or at a push secondary sources such as reviews or textbooks for overviews. That's not to say its not useful-it is and I read articles about things that interest me, but treat them very much as a magazine or newspaper. It is a useful tool into a new area. However, we see it as that, and that alone.

Perhaps the most illuminating (and contradictory to my argument) is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source


I'm off to do something useful. Suggest you do too.

Desperate. Desperate. Blame the source.










Wiki is very accurate and handily collates the figures from the primary source.

Never seen anything in the figures that are proven wrong.


I never deleted anything in your post. It's still there.

I only delete stuff from the box showing your post to show the stuff I'm replying to. Makes it cleaner.

Desperate stuff again.

No- I am telling you why it can be unreliable. Especially in law and biomedicine. Keep you head in the sand if you wish. I try my level best to give you a fair and straight answer. You are perhaps the most arcane person I have communicated with. And that includes molecular immunologists.