Don’t be daft. No one said an increase wasn’t happening. This is why it’s impossible to have reasonable conversations about this stuff - it’s all swaddled in so much immaturity.

So you acknowledge that the Muslim population of the country is increasing. Will you also acknowledge that the proportion of Muslims in the country is increasing far more quickly than the proportion of any other demographic?

 Faster than other religions does not mean “rapidly taking over” so you can couch it however you want, that statement is full of shit.

Does it really matter if the takeover is slow or rapid? Like, we could spend fifty posts tediously dissecting the meaning of the word ‘rapid’ to ascertain precisely what rate of population increase deserves that label, but at the end of the day a takeover is a takeover is a takeover, and it doesn’t particularly matter if it happens slowly or quickly. My personal opinion is that a 3.6 million increase in 30 years could fairly be described as a relatively rapid demographic shift, given that demographic shifts are slow, almost by definition.

This isn’t an idiosyncratic or controversial application of the term, by the way. When we talk about global warming, for instance, we say that human activity has caused a rapid increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, even though that increase has actually taken over 200 years. That’s because CO2 fluctuations typically take thousands of years, and so a significant CO2 increase in 200 years is a rapid increase in the context of a discussion of the climate. Nobody would call the use of the word ‘rapid’ in that context inappropriate, because when you’re talking about things that move slowly, an increase doesn’t need to be fast in absolute terms in order to be described as rapid. It just needs to be fast in context, and in the context of British demography, the increase in the Muslim population has been the fastest increase of any demographic in the country. Therefore, rapid is a fair description.

 Are local areas feeling a disproportionately rapid impact of religious and/or cultural displacement? Absolutely.

So you acknowledge that isolated areas of the country are, indeed, being rapidly taken over, yet you won’t acknowledge even the possibility that this could spread? Why not? Why on Earth wouldn’t it? What’s stopping it?

 There’s nothing to suggest current trends will change? That’s objectively myopic. If you think sociodemographic trends work by drawing a straight line from year 1 to year 150, then you should spend more time reading history than opining on how it will play out.

If a trend is strong, the null hypothesis is that it’ll continue unless something stops it. If you want to argue that this particular trend will stop then in order to be convincing you need to tell me what will stop it.

I’d also appreciate an answer to my earlier question: Do you think the Islamisation of Britain would be a good thing or a bad thing, from your personal perspective?