Charlie

I share whatever I find interesting.

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

@Milksteak23 Well his projection was by 2063, which is in 37 years time, not 25.

You may disagree with exact crossover point being 2063, so what year would you place it at?

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

Less than 60% of pupils in English schools are White British and just over half of births in England and Wales are White British.

It is very demographically plausible that White Britons will become a minority around the 2050s or 2060s.

No one is debunking this unless a combination of the following occur:

1) The White British birth rate substantially improves in the coming decades and other ethnic groups don't

2) Gross immigration (not net migration) essentially falls to zero and stays there

3) Substantial numbers of migrants end up leaving the country

[Fraser Nelson @FraserNelson]

I am no fan of the racial politics being pushed by Reform UK. But the nonsensical claim that White Brits will be a minority by 2063 could have been debunked as such in debate, not censorship.

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

We do not have free speech in this country.

All should watch this and join the Free Speech Union.

[The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion]

📣🚨 FSU VICTORY!

A Scottish FSU member was driving on the M80 with his four-year-old son after a day at an amusement park when another car cut him up, nearly causing a collision.

Under his breath, he muttered something racist. The windows were down, but the other driver wasn’t looking at him. The only witness was his young son in the back seat.

Convinced the dangerous driver had been drinking, our member contacted the police. They eventually stopped both cars and reviewed his dashcam footage.

A week later, the police contacted him to say that an offence had been committed — not by the dangerous driver, but by our member, for words he had muttered under his breath in the privacy of his own car.

He was prosecuted for allegedly causing alarm and distress, even though only he and his young son were in the car. It is extraordinary.

The Free Speech Union found him an excellent barrister, and he was acquitted by the Justice of the Peace within minutes.

This is the closest we have come to defending someone prosecuted for thought crime.

This is the extent of police overreach in speech and thought policing. They need to get their priorities straight.

Watch the Free Speech Union’s General Secretary, Lord Young, below 👇

[any other leader would be 20 points ahead @anyotherleader1]

When I see posts like this I remember that 1 in 5 brits wanted to have a permemant 10pm curfew no matter what. The uk is a country full of miserable people who's answer to everything is ban it

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

@grok Is there any confirmed cases in the UK of a child being groomed via the messaging functionality of eBay or Vinted?

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

Who has been groomed on eBay or Vinted?

[YouGov @YouGov]

The government is reportedly considering banning under-16s from online sales platforms with messaging functions - such as eBay and Vinted - in a bid to protect them from grooming

69% of Britons say they support banning under-16s from such platforms

[David Shipley @ShipleyWrites]

The petty tyrants of the Welsh Senedd want to silence discussions about the White British becoming a minority. They must be opposed by everyone who wants a real democracy in this country.

https://t.co/pYAsClLf69

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

It's incredible we are converging on a system in this country where a 16-year-old is considered mature enough to vote, but not mature enough to play Call of Duty, watch porn or use the chat functionality on some apps. And we could end up with a system where a 16-year-old is mature enough to sleep with an 18-year-old, but a 25-year-old is not mature enough to sleep with a 60-year-old.

[Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky]

I think like a lot of women - and a lot of men as well - I’ve found the last week pretty emotional.
Famous and powerful men - who abused that fame and power - finally not getting away with it. And behaviour and culture that we were all supposed to just laugh along with - well now we can actually say - this is not ok. It was never ok.
It felt like a watershed moment.

But what is a watershed moment? It’s a moment that is critical turning point or decisive event that permanently changes things.

So what IS actually going to change?
Well - there is one thing I would suggest could change - and it would be controversial - not everyone would agree with it.

Right now - if you’re a 16 year old girl having sex with another 16 year old - or the boy from the year above at school - that’s treated exactly the same as if you have sex with a 45 year old not in a position of trust.
Should it be?

Here's the thing - there’s a cliff edge on how you’re treated when you turn 16 - but not the other way round.
In England and Wales, if you’re a child, and someone has sex with you - the law treats you completely differently if you’re under 13 or if you’re between 13 and 16.

If you’re under 13 - it’s rape - consent is legally impossible. But if you’re 14 or 15 - it can be prosecuted as “sexual activity with a child” rather than rape which of course carries a lower sentence.

This was a massive issue during the grooming gang scandal - and the Gvt is looking to change it.

But right now - the law staggers the age of consent the wrong way.

It tapers the cliff edge for people who have sex with children - people that you and I would call rapists, but the law doesn’t treat as such.

But it DOESN’T taper the cliff edge when you turn 16. And maybe it should.

How about a staggered law of consent the other way instead - so you can have sex with a 16 year old - but only if you’re under 18 yourself?

Then the events of the last week really WOULD be a watershed.

[max tempers @maxtempers]

We're going to sleepwalk into introducing a staggered age of consent, complete with a whole new set of distortions, arbitrary thresholds and cliff edges. Higher marginal rates as you get older if you're in a position of power. Targeted exemptions for marginalised groups.

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

It's why talking about it is so vital. If they genuinely believed that this level of demographic change would be a net positive for the country, they would have zero hesitation in talking about it and even praising it.

The fact they all run from these statistics, downplay them, call them fake, a conspiracy; it proves, deep down, they know the change will be negative.

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

No population projection works like that. They simply look at census data, which is all self-ascribed, calculate fertility rates for each ethnic group and project those forward under a range of scenarios.

When just over half of births in England and Wales are White British, with the Baby Boomers set to die off in the 2030s and 2040s, do you seriously think it's demographically implausible to assume White Britons will become a minority around the 2050s/2060s?

[Will Solfiac @willsolfiac]

The official omerta on demographic change is genuinely Soviet. Everyone knows it's happening, official statistics confirm it's happening, but 'the regime' knows that if openly opposing it became destigmatised then their entire ideology and political project is put at risk.

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

Read the paper. Ethnicity, country of birth and religion are three distinct projections in that paper. Second gen migrants are also only counted from 2022 onwards, so even if the ethnicity aspect did define White Brits as needing two UK born parents (which it doesn't, and is not even possible to ascertain via census data), it would not exclude King Charles.

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

@Milksteak23 Would you like to explain how that excludes King Charles?

[David | Markets Talk, We Translate @Fink_Money]

You’re boring Martin.

You keep pretending these things are a one off when you have contributed over many years to an entire culture of rationing.

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

@Milksteak23 Nope, you are peddling the misunderstanding of Fraser and others.
https://t.co/KPaKT1VMqh

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

@FraserNelson @epkaufm Goodwin's paper doesn't define a White Briton under any such criteria. The BBC even had to issue a retraction on this.

You are parroting false information because you haven't actually read or understand the paper.
https://t.co/Nt7eED5N8e

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

@WinterSling @MCRReiners White British doesn't solely mean English. It will be anyone who selects "English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British".

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

For anyone not aware, read this.
https://t.co/Nt7eED5N8e

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

Is King Charles a White Briton? What about Nigel Farage’s children? Is Boris Johnson a White Briton despite being born in New York? What defines a White Briton? https://t.co/imoi4QiSG4

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

It doesn't and you embarrass yourself by continuing to lie and misrepresent what anyone can read and check for themselves.

[Fraser Nelson @FraserNelson]

@epkaufm Yes and to reach the 2063 figure the Goodwin study assumes the future Harry Kanes and Charles Windsors won’t self-identify as white British. Ergo: nonsense.

[Charlie @_charlie_cc]

People like Fraser go to great lengths to ignore *official* ONS statistics and misinterpret the projection.

The BBC even had to issue a correction, yet Fraser persists with this lie.

[Paul Morland @MorlandDemog]

@intothefuture45 @jamespriceglos @epkaufm It’s not happening. It’s good that it’s happening. Claims that it’s happening are senseless. The categories required to measure that it’s happening are offensive. The categories don’t exist. And on it goes.