A new film set in the 18th century demolishes the myth about black people arriving in Britain in the 50s, with the Windrush

by Guest Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:55 am

First topic message reminder :

More important than its cinematic merits, the movie Belle, which opens in the UK this week, contradicts the persistent belief that the black presence in Britain began with the Windrush generation in the 1950s. A lush and touching period piece set in 18th-century London, the film stars Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Dido Elizabeth Belle, a young mixed-race girl and the ward of the most prominent legal figure in Britain at the time, Lord Mansfield. She is believed to have influenced some of the most crucial legal judgments of the Georgian era. But in the 18th century black people were not an unusual sight; indeed it was estimated that there were more than 15,000 in London alone, a proportion almost equal to that of today.

The sugar and slave trade were the most lucrative industries in the empire and inevitably involved the movements of thousands of black people back and forth between Britain and its colonies. Thus the British navy was replete with black sailors – some of whom fought alongside Nelson as he vanquished Napoleon – and soldiers fought in the king's army. Black personalities were also evident on the stage and in paintings, as well as on the streets, where they worked as peddlers and prostitutes, chairmen and footpads.

Above all else, as Belle demonstrates, they were in the homes of the wealthy and privileged. Indeed, possessing a black page, who represented the wealth and exotica of the Indies, was the height of fashion. Hence the dilemma of the Duchess of Devonshire who, having been given such a gift, discovered that her husband didn't relish the idea of having his wife permanently accompanied by a black boy nearing adolescence. She wrote this desperate letter to her mother: "He is 11 years old and very honest … I cannot bear the poor wretch being ill-used; if you like him … I will send him, he will be a cheap servant and you will make a Christian of him and a good boy; if you don't like him they say Lady Rockingham wants one."

That many black people living in London were, as the duchess implies, "things", slaves who did not have full agency over their lives, is evident in the two pivotal cases presided over by Mansfield. The first of these was in 1772, of the slave James Somerset, who was rescued by the abolitionist Granville Sharp from his vengeful master, who had planned to sell him back into plantation slavery. It was a crucial issue because of how much money the enslaved population represented, both in Britain and in the colonies. Freeing the slaves resident in England would have meant relinquishing thousands of pounds' worth of property. So it was no wonder that planters and merchants became anxious when rumours circulated that the judge was enthralled by his black niece. When Mansfield eventually ruled in favour of Somerset, many felt their misgivings were justified.

Even though Mansfield's intention was specifically to make it unlawful for the slave to be transported abroad and back into chattel slavery, Somerset's supporters were jubilant as they interpreted it as meaning slavery was illegal on English soil. (The ambiguity of the slaves' status remained, however, explaining why Mansfield created a legal document that explicitly stated Dido was a free subject.)

Mansfield also oversaw the even more infamous Zong case in 1781, in which more than 130 living slaves were pitched off a ship on the Atlantic passage in order to collect the insurance money. The sheer venality and inhumanity of the slave traders so disgusted the public that it would eventually help to ignite the abolition movement.

If the history of Britain were made into a movie, black people would be in virtually every scene. From Roman times to the Tudor court, from the Georgian era to the present day, we remain a constant presence. It is time to stop airbrushing us out of British history and acknowledge our long and rich contribution to this country.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/belle-shows-that-cinema-catching-up-with-black-history

by Irn Bru Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:54 pm

Summers wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I see you are running away here Sassy so I will just continue anyway......
You claimed there were about15,000 blacks in population of London throughout the 18th century, and that they were theyw same proportion of population as they are now....

Firstly I think your figure is vastly over exaggerated, there probably wasn't even a third of that let alone 15,000.

But, anyway, let's see how this figure compares to todays numbers and percentage of London population.....

In 1750 there were around 700,000 people in whole of London. Today there are ten times that figure.....

About 7,000,000.......

So let's multiply your 15,000 by ten as well which equals....
150,000

Which is The number of blacks in London for your statement to be true.

But hold on a minute....... how many blacks ARE in London today....????

Anyone...????

I'll tell you..... these's about ten times that number at about 1.5 million!!!!!!!

And if we use the more realistic figure for 1750 being probably nearer 5,000..... then today there is about thirty times that number in London today.

So what the fuck are you talking about saying they were the same proportion then as they are now....????

Either you are deliberately lying and being misleading or you are just incredibly shit at maths!!!

Which is it...????

The information you were given came from a source that was in a published article. If you believe that the information is wrong then your beef isn't with Sassy - it's with the source itself. It's like shooting the messenger.
And you really haven't said whether you believe the figures to be true or false so just for the record can you say so now?

That's a load of shit.
I personally don't give a shit about what year Africans arrived in the United Kingdom or anything like that but she clearly agrees with the article so it's absolutely not even in the realm of "shooting the messenger"
It's like saying you can't give someone who's anti-vaccine shit for posting some psuedo-science anti-vaccine study.

Then prove it wrong. You won't though because you don't give a sh!t Laughing

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:55 pm

Sassy wrote:://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

After a really good laugh like that, off to watch the match.

Do you need Irn Bru to post again so you can use his posts as a crutch?

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:55 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Summers wrote:

That's a load of shit.
I personally don't give a shit about what year Africans arrived in the United Kingdom or anything like that but she clearly agrees with the article so it's absolutely not even in the realm of "shooting the messenger"
It's like saying you can't give someone who's anti-vaccine shit for posting some psuedo-science anti-vaccine study.

Then prove it wrong. You won't though because you don't give a sh!t

I don't see how my post has anything to do with whether what was posted in the article is true or not.

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 10:57 pm

Twit.
The information Tommy was talking about was the number of black people in London, and that came from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrival_of_black_immigrants_in_London

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:01 pm

Sassy wrote:Twit.
The information Tommy was talking about was the number of black people in London, and that came from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrival_of_black_immigrants_in_London

Oh is that right?
Maybe then you could point that out instead of posting a load of smilies like an autistic 12 year old then?

Even then my point still stands. If someone posts an article to support their point then attacking them over it is not "shooting the messenger".

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:20 pm

Irn was talking about 'shooting the messenger' over the number of black people in London in the 1750s. If you had read Tommy's post properly you would have known that, and if you had read the post Tommy was referring to, you would have known that I had supplied the link. I always do, otherwise it's plagiarism, something I am very much against.

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:26 pm

Sassy wrote:Irn was talking about 'shooting the messenger' over the number of black people in London in the 1750s. If you had read Tommy's post properly you would have known that, and if you had read the post Tommy was referring to, you would have known that I had supplied the link. I always do, otherwise it's plagiarism, something I am very much against.

It's still not "shooting the messenger"
You posted the article to support your point.

I'm not arguing whether the Wikipedia article posted is factually correct or not (Although ANYONE can edit a fucking wikipedia article) but what I am talking about is that if you post something and then post something to compliment it then anyone is free to attack you for what you posted.

It's the difference between "Look at this person shouting racist shit" and "This person is saying what we're all thinking"

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:28 pm

Attacking someone for the former would be "shooting the messenger" while attacking someone for the latter isn't "shooting the messenger".

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:40 pm

Summers wrote:
Sassy wrote:Irn was talking about 'shooting the messenger' over the number of black people in London in the 1750s. If you had read Tommy's post properly you would have known that, and if you had read the post Tommy was referring to, you would have known that I had supplied the link. I always do, otherwise it's plagiarism, something I am very much against.

It's still not "shooting the messenger"
You posted the article to support your point.

I'm not arguing whether the Wikipedia article posted is factually correct or not (Although ANYONE can edit a fucking wikipedia article) but what I am talking about is that if you post something and then post something to compliment it then anyone is free to attack you for what you posted.

It's the difference between "Look at this person shouting racist shit" and "This person is saying what we're all thinking"

I posted the information that Tommy requested because he was too bone idle to look it up himself. Otherwise I would not have bothered to post the information. Frankly Tommy does that far too often and I shan't be doing it again. If he wants to know something he can find it out for himself.

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:43 pm

Looks like you posted it to back up your argument as opposed to a request for information.

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t5242-a-new-film-set-in-the-18th-century-demolishes-the-myth-about-black-people-arriving-in-britain-in-the-50s-with-the-windrush#113070

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:45 pm

Oh wait, further up, he did ask.

Still part of a larger argument though and he's asking you for information to prove your argument so again, it's not "shooting the messenger"

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:46 pm

From Tommy, previous page at 9.01

And what evidence do you have that there were 15,000 blacks in London then too..???

OK.

If not tough, going back to the footie.

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:47 pm

I made another post.
There should have been a notification that a new post had been made before you posted yours.

by Guest Sat Jun 14, 2014 11:47 pm

Summers wrote:Oh wait, further up, he did ask.

Still part of a larger argument though and he's asking you for information to prove your argument so again, it's not "shooting the messenger"

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 3:18 am

Yes I did ask, a couple of times, and looks like Sassys original answer I was replying to was changed and edited to show Wiki cut and paste.

This is still not real evidence, and already down grades your original 15,000 number by a possible third to only 10,000....

But still, even with both these numbers, your claim that blacks were the same proportion then as they are now is simply bullshit....!!!!

As shown in my calculation post.

If you are going to post up shit and then argue how accurate and factual it is, you should first make sure of its authenticity.....

Where in this case it has been easily shown to be completely false claim.

But you lefties never let the truth get in The way of a good bit of bullshit and pursuit of your agenda eh...???

by Ben Reilly Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:41 am

Why do you fucking care, Tommy, unless you're trying to make some larger bullshit racist point?

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 1:22 pm

The claim is a lie.

I am just showing that.

Don't you like the truth...?

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:32 pm

The claim is a lie? What claim is a lie? The number of coloured people can be shown from the burial records. That's not the number of people buried, but the dates and addresses and names etc. I know that's a bit difficult for you, but think about it and you might just get your head round it if you try really hard.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:46 pm

Your claim that the amount of blacks in London in 18th century was The same proportion as there are now.

Complete lie.

Maybe if you read back a few posts, you will see where I calculated the numbers.....

And if you try really hard.... you might be able to get your head around why your claim is bullshit!

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:53 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Why do you fucking care, Tommy, unless you're trying to make some larger bullshit racist point?

Please allow him to prove his racism, he neglects that fact Blacks have been here for centuries or how our descendants were black people, and that the most important thing to him in regards to humans is their skin colour, that whats racist are all about, why they have little intelligent thought processing, it based upon an unscientific ignorant belief.

by eddie Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:14 pm

Facts and figures aside, looks likes good film.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:02 pm

Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Why do you fucking care, Tommy, unless you're trying to make some larger bullshit racist point?
Please allow him to prove his racism, he neglects that fact Blacks have been here for centuries or how our descendants were black people, and that the most important thing to him in regards to humans is their skin colour, that whats racist are all about, why they have little intelligent thought processing, it based upon an unscientific ignorant belief.

"...our descendants were black people,..."

lol!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

Your theory we come from blacks is widely disputed.

But all this aside, I have shown Sassys claim to be a complete lie.

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:08 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:
Please allow him to prove his racism, he neglects that fact Blacks have been here for centuries or how our descendants were black people, and that the most important thing to him in regards to humans is their skin colour, that whats racist are all about, why they have little intelligent thought processing, it based upon an unscientific ignorant belief.

"...our descendants were black people,..."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

Your theory we come from blacks is widely disputed.

But all this aside, I have shown Sassys claim to be a complete lie.

://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:

He uses a link to the first migrants to Britain, thus neglecting where they descend from, one moment

://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:

Matti has proven again he is the village idiot, so lets ask him where all humans descend from?

It is not widely disputed, unless of course you are a creationist, what is debated more than anything is when they migrated out of Africa.

You really cannot make it up how stupid he is.

What was your IQ again Matti?

://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:39 pm

Yes dodge, that's why we are genetically different.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/the-millionyearold-family-human-footprints-found-in-britain-are-oldest-ever-seen-outside-of-africa-9114151.html

And smelly is right about your over using of smileys when you get wound up......!!!

lol!

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:44 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes dodge, that's why we are genetically different.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/the-millionyearold-family-human-footprints-found-in-britain-are-oldest-ever-seen-outside-of-africa-9114151.html

And smelly is right about your over using of smileys when you get wound up......!!!

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

So now he uses evidence of an extinct spices who are not descendants from the first migrants to this country, one moment.

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

I love it how Matti just keeps ending up with so much egg on his face.
So you used the first migrants to claim the people of today are not descended from black people of Africa, to now change your argument to a different humanoid species?

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

So again, where did the first migrants to this country descend originally from?

Take your time

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 pm

A team of researchers led by the University of Tübingen’s Professor Katerina Harvati has shown that anatomically modern humans spread from Africa to Asia and Europe in several migratory movements. The first ancestors of today’s non-African peoples probably took a southern route through the Arabian Peninsula as early as 130,000 years ago, the researchers found. The study is published by Professor Katerina Harvati and her team from the Institute for Archaeological Sciences at the University of Tübingen and the Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment, in collaboration with colleagues from the University of Ferrara, Italy, and the National Museum of Natural History, France. The study appears in the online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The scientists tested different hypothetical dispersal scenarios, taking into account the geography of potential migration routes, genetic data and cranial comparisons. They found that the first wave of migration out of Africa started earlier than previously thought, taking place as early as the late Middle Pleistocene – with a second dispersal to northern Eurasia following about 50,000 years ago.

Most scientists agree that all humans living today are descended from a common ancestor population which existed 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. The decreasing genetic and phenotypic diversity observed in humans at increasing distances from Sub-Saharan Africa has often been interpreted as evidence of a single dispersal 50,000 to 75,000 years ago. However, recent genetic, archaeological and palaeoanthropological studies challenge this scenario.

http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/en/landingpage/newsfullview-landingpage/article/homo-sapiens-zog-frueher-aus-afrika-aus-als-gedacht.html

So not widely disputed at all.....

Whoops

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:10 pm

From your own post at the bottom......

"...However, recent genetic, archaeological and palaeoanthropological studies challenge this scenario...."

Whoops!!!

Twat!

And still I have shown that Sassy's claim that blacks in London today were in The same proportion as in 15th century is a lie.

It is not a myth that they started arriving on the windrush And since.

It is historical fact.

And The mass immigration policies over the last 20 years has compounded the numbers hugely.

by Guest Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:From your own post at the bottom......

"...However, recent genetic, archaeological and palaeoanthropological studies challenge this scenario...."

Whoops!!!

Twat!

And still I have shown that Sassy's claim that blacks in London today were in The same proportion as in 15th century is a lie.

It is not a myth that they started arriving on the windrush And since.

It is historical fact.

And The mass immigration policies over the last 20 years has compounded the numbers hugely.

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

It may help if you carry on reading and the headline may give you a clue:

Models tested by Tübingen paleoanthropologists push back the date of first Homo sapiens migration out of Africa

As stated it is the timeline that is disputed, showing and proving you are a complete dummy..

Blacks have been in this country for centuries, it is documented and also now proven with genetics.

So now I see you have nothing to back your claim we are not descended from Blacks in Africa, and cannot read the whole of an article

Night dummy

by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:33 pm

Yes course we are.... that's why we are so genetically and physically different......

And there have been blacks in London before but I think the phrase we're looking for is ......

ONLY A FEW!!!!

lol!

Bellend!

by Guest Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:09 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes course we are.... that's why we are so genetically and physically different......

And there have been blacks in London before but I think the phrase we're looking for is ......

ONLY A FEW!!!!

Bellend!

Could not make much out from the incomprehensibly racist garbage, but I see now you have conceded to the point we are all originally from Africa

No suprise there and more egg on face time for Matti.

::D::

by Spindleshanks Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:24 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes course we are.... that's why we are so genetically and physically different......

And there have been blacks in London before but I think the phrase we're looking for is ......

ONLY A FEW!!!!

Bellend!

Genetically and physically different?

You and I are genetically and physically different, so exactly what are you trying to prove here?

by Irn Bru Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:02 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Your claim that the amount of blacks in London in 18th century was The same proportion as there are now.

Complete lie.

Maybe if you read back a few posts, you will see where I calculated the numbers.....

And if you try really hard.... you might be able to get your head around why your claim is bullshit!

A Black population of London between 15,000 and 20,000 in the 18th century has been consistently reported from several sources but if you think it's bullshit then show that it's bullshit by coming up with your own numbers and the sources.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:19 pm

You obviously can't read sarcasm dodge.

And iron, Sassy quoted the figure 15,000.

Then contradicted it with another quote from Wiki that said maybe 10,000-15,000.

She claimed that blacks were in The same proportion back then in London as they are now.

I have shown that to be complete bollocks by using her figure of 15,000 blacks out of the widely circulated figure of general population in 1750 to be 700,000, and then comparing this by todays figures.

Calculation shown in previous post.

by Spindleshanks Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:49 pm

Perhaps an official source (The National Archives) to the lives and loves of Black people in this country may be of use here

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/work_community/fighting.htm

by Guest Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:56 pm

It is not known whether, through the centuries, Black and Asian people in Britain were more likely to be in poverty than the White population. Elizabeth I blamed the 'great numbers of negars and blackamoors' for consuming food in time of shortage, but this tells us only about the queen's need to find scapegoats, not about Black people's poverty. However, we do know that in the 1780s there was a great deal of hardship and destitution among Black people in London.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/work_community/poor.htm

From your link Spindle, it's actually rather interesting.

Another bit from the same page:

The 'incredible number of these [poor] black men in every town and village' came to the attention of businessman and botanist Henry Smeathman. In 1786, Smeathman proposed a plan that was accepted by the Black Poor Committee and the government. He pledged to transport the 'troublesome Blacks back to Africa' - to Sierra Leone, to be precise. By doing so, he would 'remove the burthen of the Blacks from the public forever'.

To the amazement of Jonas Hanway, the chairman of the Black Poor Committee, Black people were reluctant to settle in Africa (some, initially, wanted to move to Nova Scotia). But many would not have known Africa, as they had not been born there. Their biggest fear was of being captured and taken into slavery in Sierra Leone.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:38 pm

So 15,000 out of 700,000 is The same percentage as 1.8 million out of 7,000,000 is it.....????

lol!

by Spindleshanks Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:52 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:So 15,000 out of 700,000 is The same percentage as 1.8 million out of 7,000,000 is it.....????

Actually the population of London is over eight million now.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/london-population/

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:13 pm

And The black population is higher too now......

So 15,000 out of 700,000 is The same percentage as 1.8 million out of 8,000,000 is it.....????

lol!

Funny how you are so on top of my figures but you let Sassy's bullshit claim stand.....!!!

by Spindleshanks Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:24 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:And The black population is higher too now......

So 15,000 out of 700,000 is The same percentage as 1.8 million out of 8,000,000 is it.....????

Funny how you are so on top of my figures but you let Sassy's bullshit claim stand.....!!!

Does it really matter?

The fact is that Black people have been present in this country, all over the country (and more than just a few as you claimed) since Roman times at least.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:29 pm

I never denied that there have been blacks in this country.

Mostly slaves historically.

What I'm getting at is The bullshit claim that they were in The same proportion as now, and The implication that the mass immigration since the windrush hasn't happened.

by Spindleshanks Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I never denied that there have been blacks in this country.

Mostly slaves historically.

What I'm getting at is The bullshit claim that they were in The same proportion as now, and The implication that the mass immigration since the windrush hasn't happened.

And the problem with black people emigrating here at whatever date in time is?

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:47 pm

Well here's one very important reason.....

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/britain-immigration-survey-idINDEEA0603G20140107

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:57 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Well here's one very important reason.....

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/britain-immigration-survey-idINDEEA0603G20140107

Can you do better than a poll from nearly half a year ago?

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:10 pm

That is good enough.

Views have not changed.

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:22 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:That is good enough.

Views have not changed.

You sure about that?

by Guest Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:37 pm

First-time voters want Britain to remain a haven for refugees
YouGov poll shows 8 out of 10 people are proud of Britain's legacy of protecting those fleeing violence, war and persecution

An overwhelming majority of young voters wants Britain to maintain its tradition of offering sanctuary for refugees, according to a poll that challenges the political belief that an anti-asylum ticket will woo the electorate.

Eight out of 10 people who will be eligible to vote for the first time next May said they were proud of Britain's legacy of protecting people fleeing violence, war and persecution, while three-quarters urged the government to maintain the UK's reputation for offering a haven for people, particularly children.

The poll – released to coincide with Refugee Week, which starts on Monday – examined the attitudes of the 3.3 million people who could vote for the first time next year and, with 1.35 million indicating that they will definitely vote, groups are using the findings to demand politicians reconfirm their commitment to asylum seekers.

Support for protecting child refugees is most robust among next year's potential debut voters, with 82% in favour. An accompanying poll of British adults aged over 21, also by YouGov, revealed that nearly seven in 10 believe that Britain should be proud of its history of offering protection to refugees; only 15% disagreed.

Refugee Council chief executive Maurice Wren said: "Our heritage of offering safety to those in need is just as vital today as it was in the past, with the Syrian conflict fuelling the greatest refugee crisis of our time.

"Over the last decade, some feared that Britain's commitment to protecting and supporting refugees – children and adults – might be weakening. This new poll finds that it's actually getting stronger. Protecting and helping vulnerable people is an intrinsic part of being British."

One young person who has been given a new start in Britain, Hassan Al-Mousaoy, from Iraq, who now lives in Stockwell, London, said his mother was keen for him to escape the everyday danger in Baghdad.

Al-Mousaoy, who arrived in 2006 after his father was kidnapped and killed the previous year, said: "I was lucky and came. It was tough in Iraq – no school, no work to support my family, and no future. The killing was so common it was like drinking water here; you would see 50-60 dead bodies across the city and bodies would be piled up in the backs of cars like sardines to be buried."

The 25-year-old, who is studying to become an engineer at South Bank University, said: "When I came here, I had nothing, but after eight years I have learnt photography and held two exhibitions and published two books and now I've just finished my second year of engineering."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/14/yougov-first-time-voters-refugees

Real British values.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:01 pm

The guardian......

Ask the same people if they think that all or even most asylum seekers are genuine.....

But this is not about asylum seekers, of which make up a tiny proportion of yearly numbers of immigrants.

Still nothing to say about your claim on blacks being the same proportion of London in 18th century bi they bra now Sassy?

Thought not..... but you Are a leftie so no surprise you have no understanding of numbers....

by Irn Bru Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:09 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The guardian......

Ask the same people if they think that all or even most asylum seekers are genuine.....

But this is not about asylum seekers, of which make up a tiny proportion of yearly numbers of immigrants.

Still nothing to say about your claim on blacks being the same proportion of London in 18th century bi they bra now Sassy?

Thought not..... but you Are a leftie so no surprise you have no understanding of numbers....

You said that there were about 1.5 million Blacks in London. Where did you pluck that figure from?

by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:41 pm

Black population in London is said to be around 15%.

So around 1.2 million.

Not sure where I saw the other figure earlier.

Might have mis read or mis typed.....

by Irn Bru Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:20 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Black population in London is said to be around 15%.

So around 1.2 million.

Not sure where I saw the other figure earlier.

Might have mis read or mis typed.....

So while you're demanding authenticity on numbers given by others you're just guessing on the numbers you are banding about.

Your numbers are wromg.

by Sponsored content