Talk:Britain is full

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Template

I'm torn between Template:pundits and Template:media. Thoughts, anyone? SJ ^Debaser 16:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not pundits. That's for people, not what they say. Media is better, if it needs one at all. Is there one for false arguments? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah. I just thought maybe a template would be better as I can't shrink down the Express page and the picture of Posh makes me want to gorge so I never get that thin, and I can't currently afford a lot of food. SJ ^Debaser 17:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The World and the Isle of Wight

'It is said' that the entire population of the world could be fitted on the IOW (at what state of the tide and what point in time is not made clear). Without getting to such standing room only density levels, what could the theoretical maximum population of the UK be - assuming that sufficient food could be imported, and other essential services could be provided? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you make the assumption that services could be provided and food could be imported or grown, the hypothetical upper bound is far higher than your "standing room only" situation would imply because you can build up. You know, hive world or arcology style. ADK^{...I'll pull your dog!} 18:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the land area of the Isle of Wight is 384 km², which is 384,000,000 m². At a population of about 7 billion, that's 18 people per square metre. From what I remember reading about crowd sizes, 2 per square metre is a comfortable crowd, 3 per square metre is a rock concert. So the maximum "standing room only" population of the Isle of Wight is ca. 1 billion. So that adage was true around 1804. ADK^{...I'll condense your gun!} 18:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So what 'named geographical area' (country, state, island etc) would be the minimum size to be covered at 'standing-room only' levels? And why don't Nick Griffin suggest a population switch and/or development investment in the originating countries so that the inhabitants see no reason in coming to the UK. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Zanzibar (1968)? Pippa (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Take the population and divide it by however many are comfortable per sq metre. So if it's 2 for a comfortable crowd, you need 3.5 billion sq meters, or 3500 sq km. 10 times the Isle of Wight. Looking at the size of UK counties, Cornwall is a good bet. There are islands that would fit the bill too. ADK^{...I'll jostle your snorkel!} 18:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Immigration

Why is that pile of statistics in the article? How does it relate to the "britain is full" argument? the presence of that section seems to imply that all ethnic minorities in the uk are immigrants, which isn't so. What annoys me is that I'm explaining my edits, while some bunch of letters (Psygremlin? Ty? Are those really your names?) just reverts because I'm just a bunch of numbers. There isn't even a reason given for this. How rude. Please address the issue rather than dismiss the editor. 86.173.12.152 (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this article needs an all-round rethink. I'd go for turning it into an article on the general subject of immigration in the UK; if it's going to stay "Britain is full" then someone really needs to turn it into a coherent argument... Balaam (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not meant to argue that "britain is full" - it's meant to argue that the B.I.F. argument is an excuse used by racists. I agree though that the whole article is disorganised and scrappy. Perhaps the site could do with an article on immigration policy (use and misuse of), but I don't feel that this article is the place for it. 86.173.12.152 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the premise of the article? That the population should continue growing until the country categorically IS full? This doesn't seem like a very prudent way to manage a nation's resources and living space, to say nothing of social cohesion. By any sane standard, the country (England certainly, Scotland and Wales arguably) is more than full. Quality of life would be vastly improved if the population were far lower than it currently is.

The empty houses: some are accounted for by "churn" - if no house were ever unoccupied then no one would ever move house or be able to. Many are delapidated. Many are second homes that are infrequently occupied (this is a separate issue which also needs addressing - in a country with a short of affordable housing, second home ownership should be taxed punitively). But even accounting for all that, we have the reality that England (which is my main concern) is already heavily over-urbanised. We could do with as much of our cities and towns as is practicable being returned to some form of nature, not packed to the rafters with people and inevitably forced ever further into the countryside each year. 86.20.255.1 (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The premise of the article is that the slogan is inherently racist. I edited the page to clarify that point. The fact is, people who shout "Britain is full" only want to close the borders and deport people, not actually control population growth. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 03:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Statistics and Survey Judgements

I seem to recall Marsh from the Merseyside Skeptics discussing a survey on Skeptics with a K about how Brits surveyed vastly overestimated the number of immigrants and Moslems in the UK. I'll see if I can dig it out. Noir LeSable (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This article has a very strong anti environment bent

There is good reason not to have urban sprawl and force people to live in cities. Objective (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)