2nd most popular boys name in the UK

[Jusoda Kid 1]

Fuck off Mo, it does, it's not even our country any more.

Since when is it your country? Fuck off back to Narnia!

 

 

Fuck off back to Bradford

 

Glad my avatar quote has been vindicated by this thread

 

Gettiing a mention in someone's sig or avatar is a sure sign you own them...thanks KD

[Park Life 71]

Ridiculous thing to highlght. I can't find the raw data for 2009, but the 2008 data is here.

 

 

And it shows that 209,234 babies made up the top 100 names.

 

Of those, traditionally English (Western/White) names were given to 202,643 (96.85%)

 

The reamining 6591 (3.15%) got called Mohammad (or some variation).

 

If you click the link, you'll see they weren't reported as a combined figure that year. If they had been Mohammad would have come in third place.

 

1,591,000 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census, forming 3% of the population. (source)

 

8 Years ago.

 

 

 

Mind you that's a 1% growth to 4% in the last 8 years (est), or a whopping 25% increase in the total UK Muslim population in <8 years (and of course the total UK population has rise in that time by about 2 million).

 

 

Statistics are lying whores.

 

 

Interestingly Chris, did you see that Bill Gates now agree with Fop on population reduction? The all break in the end.

 

He's been at it a lot longer than you....What do you think his foundation in Africa is all about??

[Happy Face 29]

Ridiculous thing to highlght. I can't find the raw data for 2009, but the 2008 data is here.

 

 

And it shows that 209,234 babies made up the top 100 names.

 

Of those, traditionally English (Western/White) names were given to 202,643 (96.85%)

 

The reamining 6591 (3.15%) got called Mohammad (or some variation).

 

If you click the link, you'll see they weren't reported as a combined figure that year. If they had been Mohammad would have come in third place.

 

1,591,000 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census, forming 3% of the population. (source)

 

8 Years ago.

 

 

 

Mind you that's a 1% growth to 4% in the last 8 years (est), or a whopping 25% increase in the total UK Muslim population in <8 years (and of course the total UK population has rise in that time by about 2 million).

 

 

Statistics are lying whores.

 

 

Interestingly Chris, did you see that Bill Gates now agree with Fop on population reduction? The all break in the end.

 

He's been at it a lot longer than you....What do you think his foundation in Africa is all about??

 

I'm yet to see how anyone can "agree with Fop on population reduction" when he's never stated a view on population reduction.

[Monkeys Fist 39254]

Do you reckon you'd get away with saying it to Darcus Howe?

Bet you his nickname at school wasn't Howey.

[Fop 1]

Mind you that's a 1% growth to 4% in the last 8 years (est), or a whopping 25% increase in the total UK Muslim population in <8 years (and of course the total UK population has rise in that time by about 2 million).

 

 

Statistics are lying whores.

 

...and just to go back to this. You're the lying whore in this case.

 

You can't say based on what proprtion of the population was muslim 8 years ago, and what proportion is now. How much that population has increased. You can only say how much the proportion has increased.

 

So even if your 4% IS a reported best guess. In no way shape or form does that correlate with a 25% increase in muslim population.

 

If the entire UK population has grown by 0.5% and the Muslim population grew by (say) 1% in the same time it might have caused the jump from 3% to 4% as a proportion.

 

That assumes your 4% is a researched figure.

 

Yes you can, you can do anything with statistics, it's all in how you present them (as you should well know).

 

You can if you make them up as you go along...as you did just then.

 

Again only if Fop make up your figures too

 

What?

 

Indeed.

 

I'm sorry Fop but if you seem to have real trouble with expressing yourself clearly.

 

Are you still insisting that the muslim population of the UK has grown 25% in the last year?

 

Or are you disagreeing with something I've said? If so, what exactly, I'll be happy to discuss it in more detail sensibly and concede wherever I've made a mistake (which is often the case).

 

If your point is that ALL statistics are useless, then you're more of a dunce than anyone could have imagined. The national office of statistics produce very accurate data, that when interpreted correctly illuminate many issues.

 

When you come along and bastardise the numbers to come up with 25% bollocks, I agree it's useless. It's as bad as those fuckwit scientists in The Sun who come up with an imaginary formula for the perfect penalty, or the best pair of tits to advertise a new beer.

 

 

Fop is saying that you don't pay attention (you really don't, as this thread shows to those paying attention) and then get cross about it , that you don't seem to be sure about what you quote for what, and that statistics never lie, however how you present them can be disingenuous to say the least.

 

Does that about cover it?

 

Not really. But I never expected you to.

 

 

Fop can't make up for your own lack of attention and random quoting, it's a battle you must take on yourself.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Fop

[Fop 1]

there'd have to be a watertight set of rules of what "fopped" was, of course. Just look at how much trouble NSFW causes.

like the water tight rules on what is a racist comment?

 

There's just not enough rules.

[Fop 1]

Ridiculous thing to highlght. I can't find the raw data for 2009, but the 2008 data is here.

 

 

And it shows that 209,234 babies made up the top 100 names.

 

Of those, traditionally English (Western/White) names were given to 202,643 (96.85%)

 

The reamining 6591 (3.15%) got called Mohammad (or some variation).

 

If you click the link, you'll see they weren't reported as a combined figure that year. If they had been Mohammad would have come in third place.

 

1,591,000 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census, forming 3% of the population. (source)

 

8 Years ago.

 

 

 

Mind you that's a 1% growth to 4% in the last 8 years (est), or a whopping 25% increase in the total UK Muslim population in <8 years (and of course the total UK population has rise in that time by about 2 million).

 

 

Statistics are lying whores.

 

 

Interestingly Chris, did you see that Bill Gates now agree with Fop on population reduction? The all break in the end.

 

He's been at it a lot longer than you....What do you think his foundation in Africa is all about??

 

 

Selling windows in Africa.

[Fop 1]

Ridiculous thing to highlght. I can't find the raw data for 2009, but the 2008 data is here.

 

 

And it shows that 209,234 babies made up the top 100 names.

 

Of those, traditionally English (Western/White) names were given to 202,643 (96.85%)

 

The reamining 6591 (3.15%) got called Mohammad (or some variation).

 

If you click the link, you'll see they weren't reported as a combined figure that year. If they had been Mohammad would have come in third place.

 

1,591,000 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census, forming 3% of the population. (source)

 

8 Years ago.

 

 

 

Mind you that's a 1% growth to 4% in the last 8 years (est), or a whopping 25% increase in the total UK Muslim population in <8 years (and of course the total UK population has rise in that time by about 2 million).

 

 

Statistics are lying whores.

 

 

Interestingly Chris, did you see that Bill Gates now agree with Fop on population reduction? The all break in the end.

 

He's been at it a lot longer than you....What do you think his foundation in Africa is all about??

 

I'm yet to see how anyone can "agree with Fop on population reduction" when he's never stated a view on population reduction.

 

 

You really don't pay attention do you.

[Gejon 2]

I am pretty sure we had this thread a while back (maybe over a year ago).

 

Stevie is gutted someone got away using a racist term, desperately wants to use some himself.

 

I love the fact he has had a "discussion" on how racist certain terms are, I can just imagine him down the pubs with his mates, they are chatting about women, football, what was on tv last night etc... then Stevie pipes up "So nigger or darky, which ones worse" and the conversations stop dead followed by 10 minutes of uncomfortable silence

[JawD 47]

Fuck off Mo, it does, it's not even our country any more.

Since when is it your country? Fuck off back to Narnia!

 

And yet peole throw the term " retard" around here and nobody bats an eyelid. Hypocrisy complaining really.

 

Probably find even the chinkies and pakis use it. Not to mention the darkies.

You think calling someone a retard is the same as calling someone a darkie? You fucking spastic.

 

Which one do you think is worse?

[Park Life 71]

Ridiculous thing to highlght. I can't find the raw data for 2009, but the 2008 data is here.

 

 

And it shows that 209,234 babies made up the top 100 names.

 

Of those, traditionally English (Western/White) names were given to 202,643 (96.85%)

 

The reamining 6591 (3.15%) got called Mohammad (or some variation).

 

If you click the link, you'll see they weren't reported as a combined figure that year. If they had been Mohammad would have come in third place.

 

1,591,000 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census, forming 3% of the population. (source)

 

8 Years ago.

 

 

 

Mind you that's a 1% growth to 4% in the last 8 years (est), or a whopping 25% increase in the total UK Muslim population in <8 years (and of course the total UK population has rise in that time by about 2 million).

 

 

Statistics are lying whores.

 

 

Interestingly Chris, did you see that Bill Gates now agree with Fop on population reduction? The all break in the end.

 

He's been at it a lot longer than you....What do you think his foundation in Africa is all about??

 

 

Selling windows in Africa.

 

Think inoculations, think airborne aids, think butterfly strategy, think gold, thin viaduct, think permeate, think eugenics, think......

 

 

Anyway here is some cud,

 

 

 

 

Gates Foundation: Ethically Challenged

 

The do-gooder reputation of the Gates Foundation has just taken a major hit.

 

In a major investigative piece, the Los Angeles Times is reporting that the foundation "has holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices."

 

Here’s another excerpt:

 

 

 

The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio andmeasles immunization and research worldwide, including in the NigerDelta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations toprotect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni,

Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France— the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the deltawith pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States orEurope.

 

This quote from a foundation representative suggests a see-no-evilapproach: "Because we want to maintain a focus on the programmaticwork, we have made it a policy to not comment on individual investmentholdings."

 

Indeed, the foundation reportedly has a "firewall" between investing and services.

 

Let me play devil’s advocate here. Let’s say the Gates Foundationonly invested in "good" companies. Would it make as much money? Isethical investing as profitable over the long run as investing in justabout anything? What financial price, if any, might the foundation pay to do the rightthing?

Edited September 12, 2009 by Park Life

[Park Life 71]

I am pretty sure we had this thread a while back (maybe over a year ago).

 

Stevie is gutted someone got away using a racist term, desperately wants to use some himself.

 

I love the fact he has had a "discussion" on how racist certain terms are, I can just imagine him down the pubs with his mates, they are chatting about women, football, what was on tv last night etc... then Stevie pipes up "So nigger or darky, which ones worse" and the conversations stop dead followed by 10 minutes of uncomfortable silence

 

"Pipes up"??

[Guest Stevie]

I am pretty sure we had this thread a while back (maybe over a year ago).

Stevie is gutted someone got away using a racist term, desperately wants to use some himself.

 

I love the fact he has had a "discussion" on how racist certain terms are, I can just imagine him down the pubs with his mates, they are chatting about women, football, what was on tv last night etc... then Stevie pipes up "So nigger or darky, which ones worse" and the conversations stop dead followed by 10 minutes of uncomfortable silence

You genuinely haven't got a clue about me you stupid offensive cunt. I find that as offensive, as you would me saying your mother is a southern whore. Tired stereotypical brainless shite what I've become accustomed to over the years with your posting style.

 

That's the sort of thing you should say to someones face not hide using the anonymity of the internet.

 

It's interesting how The Fish's net pals have rallied round to paper over what have to be the most baffling comments by a moderator I've seen on the internet. Even Trophyshy, a confirmed Fishite, had to point out what a total gimp he ended up looking with his comments.

[Guest Stevie]

I am pretty sure we had this thread a while back (maybe over a year ago).

 

Stevie is gutted someone got away using a racist term, desperately wants to use some himself.

 

I love the fact he has had a "discussion" on how racist certain terms are, I can just imagine him down the pubs with his mates, they are chatting about women, football, what was on tv last night etc... then Stevie pipes up "So nigger or darky, which ones worse" and the conversations stop dead followed by 10 minutes of uncomfortable silence

 

"Pipes up"??

?

[Tom 13915]

Parky man are you still on the salvia?

[Park Life 71]

I am pretty sure we had this thread a while back (maybe over a year ago).

 

Stevie is gutted someone got away using a racist term, desperately wants to use some himself.

 

I love the fact he has had a "discussion" on how racist certain terms are, I can just imagine him down the pubs with his mates, they are chatting about women, football, what was on tv last night etc... then Stevie pipes up "So nigger or darky, which ones worse" and the conversations stop dead followed by 10 minutes of uncomfortable silence

 

"Pipes up"??

?

 

Just highlighting the general braggadocio of such a remark, knowing as I do you would let loose the fists of fury if within earshot of such and outlandish liberty.

[Fop 1]

Ridiculous thing to highlght. I can't find the raw data for 2009, but the 2008 data is here.

 

 

And it shows that 209,234 babies made up the top 100 names.

 

Of those, traditionally English (Western/White) names were given to 202,643 (96.85%)

 

The reamining 6591 (3.15%) got called Mohammad (or some variation).

 

If you click the link, you'll see they weren't reported as a combined figure that year. If they had been Mohammad would have come in third place.

 

1,591,000 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census, forming 3% of the population. (source)

 

8 Years ago.

 

 

 

Mind you that's a 1% growth to 4% in the last 8 years (est), or a whopping 25% increase in the total UK Muslim population in <8 years (and of course the total UK population has rise in that time by about 2 million).

 

 

Statistics are lying whores.

 

 

Interestingly Chris, did you see that Bill Gates now agree with Fop on population reduction? The all break in the end.

 

He's been at it a lot longer than you....What do you think his foundation in Africa is all about??

 

 

Selling windows in Africa.

 

Think inoculations, think airborne aids, think butterfly strategy, think gold, thin viaduct, think permeate, think eugenics, think......

 

 

Anyway here is some cud,

 

 

 

 

Gates Foundation: Ethically Challenged

 

The do-gooder reputation of the Gates Foundation has just taken a major hit.

 

In a major investigative piece, the Los Angeles Times is reporting that the foundation "has holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices."

 

Here’s another excerpt:

 

 

 

The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio andmeasles immunization and research worldwide, including in the NigerDelta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations toprotect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni,

Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France— the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the deltawith pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States orEurope.

 

This quote from a foundation representative suggests a see-no-evilapproach: "Because we want to maintain a focus on the programmaticwork, we have made it a policy to not comment on individual investmentholdings."

 

Indeed, the foundation reportedly has a "firewall" between investing and services.

 

Let me play devil’s advocate here. Let’s say the Gates Foundationonly invested in "good" companies. Would it make as much money? Isethical investing as profitable over the long run as investing in justabout anything? What financial price, if any, might the foundation pay to do the rightthing?

 

 

Aye that is one of iffy things, the other is (much like Assley) it's very easy to be flash when your worth XXX amount, because you can throw away obscene amounts of money and still have the income to make up for it, if you're suddenly brought down to XX or X amount, although you might still have more than 98% of the world can ever even dream about, you're suddenly a lot less flamboyant.

[The Fish 9340]

I am pretty sure we had this thread a while back (maybe over a year ago).

Stevie is gutted someone got away using a racist term, desperately wants to use some himself.

 

I love the fact he has had a "discussion" on how racist certain terms are, I can just imagine him down the pubs with his mates, they are chatting about women, football, what was on tv last night etc... then Stevie pipes up "So nigger or darky, which ones worse" and the conversations stop dead followed by 10 minutes of uncomfortable silence

You genuinely haven't got a clue about me you stupid offensive cunt. I find that as offensive, as you would me saying your mother is a southern whore. Tired stereotypical brainless shite what I've become accustomed to over the years with your posting style.

 

That's the sort of thing you should say to someones face not hide using the anonymity of the internet.

 

It's interesting how The Fish's net pals have rallied round to paper over what have to be the most baffling comments by a moderator I've seen on the internet. Even Trophyshy, a confirmed Fishite, had to point out what a total gimp he ended up looking with his comments.

 

 

Fucking hell Stevie, you're hilarious. Intentionally or otherwise.

[Fop 1]

I am pretty sure we had this thread a while back (maybe over a year ago).

Stevie is gutted someone got away using a racist term, desperately wants to use some himself.

 

I love the fact he has had a "discussion" on how racist certain terms are, I can just imagine him down the pubs with his mates, they are chatting about women, football, what was on tv last night etc... then Stevie pipes up "So nigger or darky, which ones worse" and the conversations stop dead followed by 10 minutes of uncomfortable silence

You genuinely haven't got a clue about me you stupid offensive cunt. I find that as offensive, as you would me saying your mother is a southern whore. Tired stereotypical brainless shite what I've become accustomed to over the years with your posting style.

 

That's the sort of thing you should say to someones face not hide using the anonymity of the internet.

 

It's interesting how The Fish's net pals have rallied round to paper over what have to be the most baffling comments by a moderator I've seen on the internet. Even Trophyshy, a confirmed Fishite, had to point out what a total gimp he ended up looking with his comments.

 

 

Fucking hell Stevie, you're hilarious. Intentionally or otherwise.

 

Lying again?

[Meenzer 14178]

The fact that Stevie insists on making this about "a moderator" rather than me says everything about his real agenda tbh. It's my fault that this whole thing started in the first place, so lay into me instead.

[Park Life 71]

The fact that Stevie insists on making this about "a moderator" rather than me says everything about his real agenda tbh. It's my fault that this whole thing started in the first place, so lay into me instead.

 

An offer and no mistake.

[Park Life 71]

Ridiculous thing to highlght. I can't find the raw data for 2009, but the 2008 data is here.

 

 

And it shows that 209,234 babies made up the top 100 names.

 

Of those, traditionally English (Western/White) names were given to 202,643 (96.85%)

 

The reamining 6591 (3.15%) got called Mohammad (or some variation).

 

If you click the link, you'll see they weren't reported as a combined figure that year. If they had been Mohammad would have come in third place.

 

1,591,000 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census, forming 3% of the population. (source)

 

8 Years ago.

 

 

 

Mind you that's a 1% growth to 4% in the last 8 years (est), or a whopping 25% increase in the total UK Muslim population in <8 years (and of course the total UK population has rise in that time by about 2 million).

 

 

Statistics are lying whores.

 

 

Interestingly Chris, did you see that Bill Gates now agree with Fop on population reduction? The all break in the end.

 

He's been at it a lot longer than you....What do you think his foundation in Africa is all about??

 

 

Selling windows in Africa.

 

Think inoculations, think airborne aids, think butterfly strategy, think gold, thin viaduct, think permeate, think eugenics, think......

 

 

Anyway here is some cud,

 

 

 

 

Gates Foundation: Ethically Challenged

 

The do-gooder reputation of the Gates Foundation has just taken a major hit.

 

In a major investigative piece, the Los Angeles Times is reporting that the foundation "has holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices."

 

Here’s another excerpt:

 

 

 

The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio andmeasles immunization and research worldwide, including in the NigerDelta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations toprotect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni,

Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France— the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the deltawith pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States orEurope.

 

This quote from a foundation representative suggests a see-no-evilapproach: "Because we want to maintain a focus on the programmaticwork, we have made it a policy to not comment on individual investmentholdings."

 

Indeed, the foundation reportedly has a "firewall" between investing and services.

 

Let me play devil’s advocate here. Let’s say the Gates Foundationonly invested in "good" companies. Would it make as much money? Isethical investing as profitable over the long run as investing in justabout anything? What financial price, if any, might the foundation pay to do the rightthing?

 

 

Aye that is one of iffy things, the other is (much like Assley) it's very easy to be flash when your worth XXX amount, because you can throw away obscene amounts of money and still have the income to make up for it, if you're suddenly brought down to XX or X amount, although you might still have more than 98% of the world can ever even dream about, you're suddenly a lot less flamboyant.

 

I rarely study people, of more interest is the friends they keep isn't it??

[Park Life 71]

Parky man are you still on the salvia?

 

I am still the king of various Little Chef's, dotted as they are like little Buddhist shrines, sanctuaries of little England before the darkies came.

[Fop 1]

Ridiculous thing to highlght. I can't find the raw data for 2009, but the 2008 data is here.

 

 

And it shows that 209,234 babies made up the top 100 names.

 

Of those, traditionally English (Western/White) names were given to 202,643 (96.85%)

 

The reamining 6591 (3.15%) got called Mohammad (or some variation).

 

If you click the link, you'll see they weren't reported as a combined figure that year. If they had been Mohammad would have come in third place.

 

1,591,000 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census, forming 3% of the population. (source)

 

8 Years ago.

 

 

 

Mind you that's a 1% growth to 4% in the last 8 years (est), or a whopping 25% increase in the total UK Muslim population in <8 years (and of course the total UK population has rise in that time by about 2 million).

 

 

Statistics are lying whores.

 

 

Interestingly Chris, did you see that Bill Gates now agree with Fop on population reduction? The all break in the end.

 

He's been at it a lot longer than you....What do you think his foundation in Africa is all about??

 

 

Selling windows in Africa.

 

Think inoculations, think airborne aids, think butterfly strategy, think gold, thin viaduct, think permeate, think eugenics, think......

 

 

Anyway here is some cud,

 

 

 

 

Gates Foundation: Ethically Challenged

 

The do-gooder reputation of the Gates Foundation has just taken a major hit.

 

In a major investigative piece, the Los Angeles Times is reporting that the foundation "has holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices."

 

Here’s another excerpt:

 

 

 

The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio andmeasles immunization and research worldwide, including in the NigerDelta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations toprotect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni,

Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France— the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the deltawith pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States orEurope.

 

This quote from a foundation representative suggests a see-no-evilapproach: "Because we want to maintain a focus on the programmaticwork, we have made it a policy to not comment on individual investmentholdings."

 

Indeed, the foundation reportedly has a "firewall" between investing and services.

 

Let me play devil’s advocate here. Let’s say the Gates Foundationonly invested in "good" companies. Would it make as much money? Isethical investing as profitable over the long run as investing in justabout anything? What financial price, if any, might the foundation pay to do the rightthing?

 

 

Aye that is one of iffy things, the other is (much like Assley) it's very easy to be flash when your worth XXX amount, because you can throw away obscene amounts of money and still have the income to make up for it, if you're suddenly brought down to XX or X amount, although you might still have more than 98% of the world can ever even dream about, you're suddenly a lot less flamboyant.

 

I rarely study people, of more interest is the friends they keep isn't it??

 

He was apparently meeting with a very interesting bunch of people when they were discussing world population reduction.

[Gejon 2]

Sorry you are right Stevie, I have just using the stereotype of knuckle dragging, ignorant hard man wannabe you have created for yourself on these forums.

 

Now go tell us how you refuse to use anything that comes from America, France, Italy, Scotland or whatever country you have decided to have an irrational hatred for this week