On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:33:06 PM UTC+1, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:38:02 +0100, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk> wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 May 2022 03:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Brian DSouza
> ><themigh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:22:58 AM UTC-4, RH wrote:
> >
> >>> OK. Explain the logic of a 70 million population (UK) compared with a 25 million population (Oz) not being able to produce 3 times the sides in their domestic FC cricket .Of course the great difference is the UK allows 50 or more foreigners in their domestic competition while Oz allows virtually none. RH
> >>
> >>Does CA not allow overseas players, or is it simply scheduling, pay and competition?
> >
> > I'll leave an Australian to comment on the Shield, although one might
> > point out that the BBL employs lots of English players, which
> > undermines the village idiot's point a little.
> >
> > What's more interesting is his quoting the population of the United
> > Kingdom being 70 million whereas when he drivels his usual bollocks,
> Actually the UK is 67.2m. England+Wales 59.1m. Australia 25.7m.
> So a proportionate ratio would be 2.3

Census results for UK population are out of date 70 million is a decent estimate. RH

On 25/05/2022 20:16, RH wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:33:06 PM UTC+1, Andy Leighton wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:38:02 +0100, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 03:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Brian DSouza
>>> <themigh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:22:58 AM UTC-4, RH wrote:
>>>
>>>>> OK. Explain the logic of a 70 million population (UK) compared with a 25 million population (Oz) not being able to produce 3 times the sides in their domestic FC cricket .Of course the great difference is the UK allows 50 or more foreigners in their domestic competition while Oz allows virtually none. RH
>>>>
>>>> Does CA not allow overseas players, or is it simply scheduling, pay and competition?
>>>
>>> I'll leave an Australian to comment on the Shield, although one might
>>> point out that the BBL employs lots of English players, which
>>> undermines the village idiot's point a little.
>>>
>>> What's more interesting is his quoting the population of the United
>>> Kingdom being 70 million whereas when he drivels his usual bollocks,
>> Actually the UK is 67.2m. England+Wales 59.1m. Australia 25.7m.
>> So a proportionate ratio would be 2.3
>
> Census results for UK population are out of date 70 million is a decent estimate. RH

The ONS projection for the middle of this year is 67.6m. It is not
projected to reach 70m until 2036.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2020basedinterim

--
David North

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 7:27:39 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 25/05/2022 20:16, RH wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:33:06 PM UTC+1, Andy Leighton wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:38:02 +0100, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 03:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Brian DSouza
> >>> <themigh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:22:58 AM UTC-4, RH wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> OK. Explain the logic of a 70 million population (UK) compared with a 25 million population (Oz) not being able to produce 3 times the sides in their domestic FC cricket .Of course the great difference is the UK allows 50 or more foreigners in their domestic competition while Oz allows virtually none. RH
> >>>>
> >>>> Does CA not allow overseas players, or is it simply scheduling, pay and competition?
> >>>
> >>> I'll leave an Australian to comment on the Shield, although one might
> >>> point out that the BBL employs lots of English players, which
> >>> undermines the village idiot's point a little.
> >>>
> >>> What's more interesting is his quoting the population of the United
> >>> Kingdom being 70 million whereas when he drivels his usual bollocks,
> >> Actually the UK is 67.2m. England+Wales 59.1m. Australia 25.7m.
> >> So a proportionate ratio would be 2.3
> >
> > Census results for UK population are out of date 70 million is a decent estimate. RH
> The ONS projection for the middle of this year is 67.6m. It is not
> projected to reach 70m until 2036.

That is a ridiculous projection when immigration, legal and illegal is so high. The number of illegals who h have reached this country and disappeared into the black economy alone is considerable. They would be largely missed by the census . This is not a recent phenomenon incidental. When I was a Revenue investigator I found for example huge numbers of illegals working in sweat shops in East London . RH
>
> https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2020basedinterim
>
> --
> David North

On Thu, 26 May 2022 07:27:36 +0100, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25/05/2022 20:16, RH wrote:

>> Census results for UK population are out of date 70 million is a decent estimate. RH
>
>The ONS projection for the middle of this year is 67.6m. It is not
>projected to reach 70m until 2036.

He's less than 5% out. Compared to his estimates of county club
revenues, which were out by a factor of at least 900%, that's almost
on target.

Cheers,

Mike

On 26/05/2022 08:56, RH wrote:
> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 7:27:39 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> On 25/05/2022 20:16, RH wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:33:06 PM UTC+1, Andy Leighton wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:38:02 +0100, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 03:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Brian DSouza
>>>>> <themigh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:22:58 AM UTC-4, RH wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK. Explain the logic of a 70 million population (UK) compared with a 25 million population (Oz) not being able to produce 3 times the sides in their domestic FC cricket .Of course the great difference is the UK allows 50 or more foreigners in their domestic competition while Oz allows virtually none. RH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does CA not allow overseas players, or is it simply scheduling, pay and competition?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll leave an Australian to comment on the Shield, although one might
>>>>> point out that the BBL employs lots of English players, which
>>>>> undermines the village idiot's point a little.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's more interesting is his quoting the population of the United
>>>>> Kingdom being 70 million whereas when he drivels his usual bollocks,
>>>> Actually the UK is 67.2m. England+Wales 59.1m. Australia 25.7m.
>>>> So a proportionate ratio would be 2.3
>>>
>>> Census results for UK population are out of date 70 million is a decent estimate. RH
>> The ONS projection for the middle of this year is 67.6m. It is not
>> projected to reach 70m until 2036.
>
> That is a ridiculous projection when immigration, legal and illegal is so high. The number of illegals who h have reached this country and disappeared into the black economy alone is considerable. They would be largely missed by the census . This is not a recent phenomenon incidental. When I was a Revenue investigator I found for example huge numbers of illegals working in sweat shops in East London . RH
>>
>> https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2020basedinterim

Whether or not the ONS figures include estimates of illegal immigrants,
I am pretty sure that they are not eligible to play FC cricket, so their
relevance seems questionable.

--
David North

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:53:38 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 26/05/2022 08:56, RH wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 7:27:39 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> >> On 25/05/2022 20:16, RH wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:33:06 PM UTC+1, Andy Leighton wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:38:02 +0100, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 03:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Brian DSouza
> >>>>> <themigh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:22:58 AM UTC-4, RH wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> OK. Explain the logic of a 70 million population (UK) compared with a 25 million population (Oz) not being able to produce 3 times the sides in their domestic FC cricket .Of course the great difference is the UK allows 50 or more foreigners in their domestic competition while Oz allows virtually none. RH
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Does CA not allow overseas players, or is it simply scheduling, pay and competition?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'll leave an Australian to comment on the Shield, although one might
> >>>>> point out that the BBL employs lots of English players, which
> >>>>> undermines the village idiot's point a little.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What's more interesting is his quoting the population of the United
> >>>>> Kingdom being 70 million whereas when he drivels his usual bollocks,
> >>>> Actually the UK is 67.2m. England+Wales 59.1m. Australia 25.7m.
> >>>> So a proportionate ratio would be 2.3
> >>>
> >>> Census results for UK population are out of date 70 million is a decent estimate. RH
> >> The ONS projection for the middle of this year is 67.6m. It is not
> >> projected to reach 70m until 2036.
> >
> > That is a ridiculous projection when immigration, legal and illegal is so high. The number of illegals who h have reached this country and disappeared into the black economy alone is considerable. They would be largely missed by the census . This is not a recent phenomenon incidental. When I was a Revenue investigator I found for example huge numbers of illegals working in sweat shops in East London . RH
> >>
> >> https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2020basedinterim
> Whether or not the ONS figures include estimates of illegal immigrants,
> I am pretty sure that they are not eligible to play FC cricket, so their
> relevance seems questionable.

You miss the point. illegal immigration is precisely that, illegal. Few are actually removed from the UK. and their e treatment encourages others to try their luck .

The UK allows thousands in each year . Large numbers come in on the family reunion ticket and the majority of asylum claiming would be immigrants are given are asylum or extended leave to remain.

RH

>
> --
> David North

On Fri, 27 May 2022 07:53:36 +0100, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 26/05/2022 08:56, RH wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 7:27:39 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>>> On 25/05/2022 20:16, RH wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:33:06 PM UTC+1, Andy Leighton wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:38:02 +0100, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 03:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Brian DSouza
>>>>>> <themigh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:22:58 AM UTC-4, RH wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK. Explain the logic of a 70 million population (UK) compared with a 25 million population (Oz) not being able to produce 3 times the sides in their domestic FC cricket .Of course the great difference is the UK allows 50 or more foreigners in their domestic competition while Oz allows virtually none. RH
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does CA not allow overseas players, or is it simply scheduling, pay and competition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll leave an Australian to comment on the Shield, although one might
>>>>>> point out that the BBL employs lots of English players, which
>>>>>> undermines the village idiot's point a little.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's more interesting is his quoting the population of the United
>>>>>> Kingdom being 70 million whereas when he drivels his usual bollocks,
>>>>> Actually the UK is 67.2m. England+Wales 59.1m. Australia 25.7m.
>>>>> So a proportionate ratio would be 2.3
>>>>
>>>> Census results for UK population are out of date 70 million is a decent estimate. RH
>>> The ONS projection for the middle of this year is 67.6m. It is not
>>> projected to reach 70m until 2036.
>>
>> That is a ridiculous projection when immigration, legal and illegal is so high. The number of illegals who h have reached this country and disappeared into the black economy alone is considerable. They would be largely missed by the census . This is not a recent phenomenon incidental. When I was a Revenue investigator I found for example huge numbers of illegals working in sweat shops in East London . RH
>>>
>>> https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2020basedinterim
>
>Whether or not the ONS figures include estimates of illegal immigrants,
>I am pretty sure that they are not eligible to play FC cricket, so their
>relevance seems questionable.

He's trying to distract the debate and he's attempting to alter his
premise to fit his conclusion.
The very fact that he does it means he must be so stupid that he
thinks everyone else is stupid enough to believe him.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 27/05/2022 07:53, David North wrote:
[Robert:]
>>>>>>>> OK. Explain the logic of a 70 million population (UK)
>>>>>>>> compared with a 25 million population (Oz) not being
>>>>>>>> able to produce 3 times the sides in their domestic FC
>>>>>>>> cricket .

That's an illogical question. Of course we're able to
produce 3x the f-c sides; the proof is that we actually do it.
Whether /our/ f-c sides are better or worse than the f-c sides
of Oz [India, WIndies, ...] is quite another matter. Is there
/any/ other sport that takes "f-c" status so seriously? I'm as
interested as anyone in cricket statistics, but the rules that
govern which matches "count" and which should be ignored are
mostly nonsensical.

More important is the structure by which the top teams
compete and supply players to national sides. Given that there
is a big step between CC and Test cricket, ISTM prudent that
before a player makes the Test side there should be a level by
which we can judge whether he has the right temperament and
technique. You could plausibly argue that a six-team top [or
only] division is stiff enough to provide that judgement, but
three or four would be better, and 18 is far too many.

>>>>>>>> Of course the great difference is the UK
>>>>>>>> allows 50 or more foreigners in their domestic
>>>>>>>> competition while Oz allows virtually none. RH

Even on that basis, there remain 13 counties worth of
"English" cricketers in the CC, surely enough from which to
select the England XI. If we ever get to 150+ "foreigners",
then you can start to worry.

[David:]
>>> The ONS projection for the middle of this year is 67.6m. It is
>>> not projected to reach 70m until 2036.>> That is a ridiculous projection when immigration, legal and
>> illegal is so high.
> Whether or not the ONS figures include estimates of illegal
> immigrants, I am pretty sure that they are not eligible to play FC
> cricket, so their relevance seems questionable.

Indeed, but the relevance has been questionable from much further
back in the thread. If we're comparing the UK [or England] with Oz, then
presumably the Oz figures are equally "ridiculous" given the amount of
immigration, legal and illegal, there. But it's still irrelevant to the
question of the number of f-c teams. If population was any sort of guide,
then China and the USA [amongst many others] would have flourishing Test
teams and [eg] NZ would be nowhere. The truth is that different countries
have different balances of sports and cultures, enabling small countries
to pull well above their weight in some activities and large countries to
underperform equally dramatically.

It's not even that hard to change the culture; compare the measly
number of Olympic medals that the UK used to get with recent levels. From
1928 to 2004, our highest position in the [summer] medal table was 8th,
and our average position 12.5; from 2008 onwards it has been 4th, 3rd,
2nd and 4th. In the most recent four, we have taken 97 golds, more than
we won in total from 1924 to 2004. All this across a huge range of
disciplines. It is a consequence of pouring money, primarily from the
lottery, into elite sports, training, research, ..., with an eye on the
[then] forthcoming London Olympics. In sport after sport, you can track
our performance over decades and relate it to how seriously that sport
had been taken by the public and by the authorities -- and, of course,
not just in the UK.

There is another factor which, IMO, is not taken seriously
enough, viz the state of employment in general. To become a county
cricketer, it is necessary not merely to be good enough at cricket,
but also to prefer cricket as a career to whatever else you're good
at, be that a different sport or "safe" employment [accountancy, or
whatever]. Any professional sportsman takes the risk of a career-
ending injury at any moment, and retirement after a few years even
if successful and injury-free. In return, there's usually a decent
salary and public recognition; so it depends on how you feel about
that balance, which changes over time and with different sports.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Goodban

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 2:19:13 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 27/05/2022 07:53, David North wrote:
> [Robert:]
> >>>>>>>> OK. Explain the logic of a 70 million population (UK)
> >>>>>>>> compared with a 25 million population (Oz) not being
> >>>>>>>> able to produce 3 times the sides in their domestic FC
> >>>>>>>> cricket .
> That's an illogical question. Of course we're able to
> produce 3x the f-c sides; the proof is that we actually do it.
> Whether /our/ f-c sides are better or worse than the f-c sides
> of Oz [India, WIndies, ...] is quite another matter. Is there
> /any/ other sport that takes "f-c" status so seriously? I'm as
> interested as anyone in cricket statistics, but the rules that
> govern which matches "count" and which should be ignored are
> mostly nonsensical.

Again you ignore the value of the CC as a competition. But you are also at sea when it comes to the number of foreigners in the CC .

Not only do they take considerable amounts of money out of CC , deny places to English players and get accustomed to English conditions , the foreigners are clustered around top order batsmen and pace bowlers. Hence, in these areas the opportunities for English players are very
limited.
RH
>
> More important is the structure by which the top teams
> compete and supply players to national sides. Given that there
> is a big step between CC and Test cricket, ISTM prudent that
> before a player makes the Test side there should be a level by
> which we can judge whether he has the right temperament and
> technique. You could plausibly argue that a six-team top [or
> only] division is stiff enough to provide that judgement, but
> three or four would be better, and 18 is far too many.
> >>>>>>>> Of course the great difference is the UK
> >>>>>>>> allows 50 or more foreigners in their domestic
> >>>>>>>> competition while Oz allows virtually none. RH
> Even on that basis, there remain 13 counties worth of
> "English" cricketers in the CC, surely enough from which to
> select the England XI. If we ever get to 150+ "foreigners",
> then you can start to worry.

If there were 150 foreigners that would mean only 48 English players. Just as a matter of interest at what point would you actually say enough foreigners?

If there are 55 foreigners (a decent average) in any full round of Championship cricket that means an average 3 players from each county are foreigners. RH
>
> [David:]
> >>> The ONS projection for the middle of this year is 67.6m. It is
> >>> not projected to reach 70m until 2036.>> That is a ridiculous projection when immigration, legal and

I have started a separate thread dealing with foreigners entering the UK last year who get leave to stay. 1 million and counting last year . This means my estimate of UK population at 70 million was on the nail. RH

> >> illegal is so high.
> > Whether or not the ONS figures include estimates of illegal
> > immigrants, I am pretty sure that they are not eligible to play FC

This is childish. It is the general shape of the population which matters. RH

> > cricket, so their relevance seems questionable.
> Indeed, but the relevance has been questionable from much further
> back in the thread. If we're comparing the UK [or England] with Oz, then
> presumably the Oz figures are equally "ridiculous" given the amount of
> immigration, legal and illegal, there. But it's still irrelevant to the
> question of the number of f-c teams. If population was any sort of guide,
> then China and the USA [amongst many others] would have flourishing Test
> teams and [eg] NZ would be nowhere. The truth is that different countries
> have different balances of sports and cultures, enabling small countries
> to pull well above their weight in some activities and large countries to
> underperform equally dramatically.

No one is claiming that size of population equals the quality of cricketers. What matters is the deep cricketing culture in countries such as the UK .. RH
>
> It's not even that hard to change the culture; compare the measly
> number of Olympic medals that the UK used to get with recent levels. From
> 1928 to 2004, our highest position in the [summer] medal table was 8th,
> and our average position 12.5; from 2008 onwards it has been 4th, 3rd,
> 2nd and 4th. In the most recent four, we have taken 97 golds, more than
> we won in total from 1924 to 2004. All this across a huge range of
> disciplines. It is a consequence of pouring money, primarily from the
> lottery, into elite sports, training, research, ..., with an eye on the
> [then] forthcoming London Olympics. In sport after sport, you can track
> our performance over decades and relate it to how seriously that sport
> had been taken by the public and by the authorities -- and, of course,
> not just in the UK.
>
> There is another factor which, IMO, is not taken seriously
> enough, viz the state of employment in general. To become a county
> cricketer, it is necessary not merely to be good enough at cricket,
> but also to prefer cricket as a career to whatever else you're good
> at, be that a different sport or "safe" employment [accountancy, or
> whatever]. Any professional sportsman takes the risk of a career-
> ending injury at any moment, and retirement after a few years even
> if successful and injury-free. In return, there's usually a decent
> salary and public recognition; so it depends on how you feel about
> that balance, which changes over time and with different sports.
>
> --
> Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Goodban

On Wed, 25 May 2022 05:54:04 -0700 (PDT), David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 16:22:58 UTC+1, RH wrote:

>> OK. Explain the logic of a 70 million population (UK) compared with a 25 million population (Oz) not being able to produce 3 times the sides in their domestic FC cricket .Of course the great difference is the UK allows 50 or more foreigners in their domestic competition while Oz allows virtually none. RH
>
>If you're reading a post on Google Groups, you might want to click those three dots to show the quoted text and check what the discussion was actually about (in this case Symonds' bluffing). That way you might avoid veering off into a completely different topic.

I wonder how many of the 50 "foreigners" were born and raised in
England. He can hardly allege that they cost the counties any more or
less than white England-qualified players.

Cheers,

Mike

On 27/05/2022 09:59, RH wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:53:38 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>> On 26/05/2022 08:56, RH wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 7:27:39 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>>>> On 25/05/2022 20:16, RH wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:33:06 PM UTC+1, Andy Leighton wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:38:02 +0100, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 03:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Brian DSouza
>>>>>>> <themigh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:22:58 AM UTC-4, RH wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK. Explain the logic of a 70 million population (UK) compared with a 25 million population (Oz) not being able to produce 3 times the sides in their domestic FC cricket .Of course the great difference is the UK allows 50 or more foreigners in their domestic competition while Oz allows virtually none. RH
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does CA not allow overseas players, or is it simply scheduling, pay and competition?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll leave an Australian to comment on the Shield, although one might
>>>>>>> point out that the BBL employs lots of English players, which
>>>>>>> undermines the village idiot's point a little.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's more interesting is his quoting the population of the United
>>>>>>> Kingdom being 70 million whereas when he drivels his usual bollocks,
>>>>>> Actually the UK is 67.2m. England+Wales 59.1m. Australia 25.7m.
>>>>>> So a proportionate ratio would be 2.3
>>>>>
>>>>> Census results for UK population are out of date 70 million is a decent estimate. RH
>>>> The ONS projection for the middle of this year is 67.6m. It is not
>>>> projected to reach 70m until 2036.
>>>
>>> That is a ridiculous projection when immigration, legal and illegal is so high. The number of illegals who h have reached this country and disappeared into the black economy alone is considerable. They would be largely missed by the census . This is not a recent phenomenon incidental. When I was a Revenue investigator I found for example huge numbers of illegals working in sweat shops in East London . RH
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2020basedinterim
>> Whether or not the ONS figures include estimates of illegal immigrants,
>> I am pretty sure that they are not eligible to play FC cricket, so their
>> relevance seems questionable.
>
> You miss the point. illegal immigration is precisely that, illegal. Few are actually removed from the UK. and their e treatment encourages others to try their luck .
>
> The UK allows thousands in each year . Large numbers come in on the family reunion ticket and the majority of asylum claiming would be immigrants are given are asylum or extended leave to remain.

.... and here's me thinking that the discussion was about cricket.

--
David North

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:59:14 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> On 27/05/2022 09:59, RH wrote:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:53:38 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> >> On 26/05/2022 08:56, RH wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 7:27:39 AM UTC+1, nos...@lane-farm.fsnet..co.uk wrote:
> >>>> On 25/05/2022 20:16, RH wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:33:06 PM UTC+1, Andy Leighton wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:38:02 +0100, Mike Holmans <sp...@jackalope.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 03:16:50 -0700 (PDT), Brian DSouza
> >>>>>>> <themigh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:22:58 AM UTC-4, RH wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> OK. Explain the logic of a 70 million population (UK) compared with a 25 million population (Oz) not being able to produce 3 times the sides in their domestic FC cricket .Of course the great difference is the UK allows 50 or more foreigners in their domestic competition while Oz allows virtually none. RH
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Does CA not allow overseas players, or is it simply scheduling, pay and competition?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'll leave an Australian to comment on the Shield, although one might
> >>>>>>> point out that the BBL employs lots of English players, which
> >>>>>>> undermines the village idiot's point a little.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What's more interesting is his quoting the population of the United
> >>>>>>> Kingdom being 70 million whereas when he drivels his usual bollocks,
> >>>>>> Actually the UK is 67.2m. England+Wales 59.1m. Australia 25.7m.
> >>>>>> So a proportionate ratio would be 2.3
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Census results for UK population are out of date 70 million is a decent estimate. RH
> >>>> The ONS projection for the middle of this year is 67.6m. It is not
> >>>> projected to reach 70m until 2036.
> >>>
> >>> That is a ridiculous projection when immigration, legal and illegal is so high. The number of illegals who h have reached this country and disappeared into the black economy alone is considerable. They would be largely missed by the census . This is not a recent phenomenon incidental. When I was a Revenue investigator I found for example huge numbers of illegals working in sweat shops in East London . RH
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2020basedinterim
> >> Whether or not the ONS figures include estimates of illegal immigrants,
> >> I am pretty sure that they are not eligible to play FC cricket, so their
> >> relevance seems questionable.
> >
> > You miss the point. illegal immigration is precisely that, illegal. Few are actually removed from the UK. and their e treatment encourages others to try their luck .
> >
> > The UK allows thousands in each year . Large numbers come in on the family reunion ticket and the majority of asylum claiming would be immigrants are given are asylum or extended leave to remain.
> ... and here's me thinking that the discussion was about cricket.
>
> --
> David North

The thread is about cricket ie, the employment of foreigners in the cc and the difference in the number of fc teams in the cc and the Sheffield Sheild.

The only reason that it has developed into the wider picture about immigration is because the comparison I made between the size populations of the UK and Australia (which was directly concerned with cricket) was challenged by the liberal bigots in the ng.

RH

On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:59:12 +0100, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>On 27/05/2022 09:59, RH wrote:

>>
>> You miss the point. illegal immigration is precisely that, illegal. Few are actually removed from the UK. and their e treatment encourages others to try their luck .
>>
>> The UK allows thousands in each year . Large numbers come in on the family reunion ticket and the majority of asylum claiming would be immigrants are given are asylum or extended leave to remain.
>
>... and here's me thinking that the discussion was about cricket.

Obviously he's moved on to trumpeting the benefits of Brexit. He voted
for it, so obviously he wanted the inevitable huge rise in immigration
it entails.

Cheers,

Mike

On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:23:12 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:59:12 +0100, David North
><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 27/05/2022 09:59, RH wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You miss the point. illegal immigration is precisely that, illegal. Few are actually removed from the UK. and their e treatment encourages others to try their luck .
>>>
>>> The UK allows thousands in each year . Large numbers come in on the family reunion ticket and the majority of asylum claiming would be immigrants are given are asylum or extended leave to remain.
>>
>>... and here's me thinking that the discussion was about cricket.
>
>Obviously he's moved on to trumpeting the benefits of Brexit. He voted
>for it, so obviously he wanted the inevitable huge rise in immigration
>it entails.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

Brexit is working very nicely in the most un-united part of the
Kingdom. However the people who kindly gifted this two way money
stream to us have decided that they don't like it now.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:38:12 +0100, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:23:12 +0100, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:59:12 +0100, David North
>><nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 27/05/2022 09:59, RH wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> You miss the point. illegal immigration is precisely that, illegal. Few are actually removed from the UK. and their e treatment encourages others to try their luck .
>>>>
>>>> The UK allows thousands in each year . Large numbers come in on the family reunion ticket and the majority of asylum claiming would be immigrants are given are asylum or extended leave to remain.
>>>
>>>... and here's me thinking that the discussion was about cricket.
>>
>>Obviously he's moved on to trumpeting the benefits of Brexit. He voted
>>for it, so obviously he wanted the inevitable huge rise in immigration
>>it entails.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Mike
>
>Brexit is working very nicely in the most un-united part of the
>Kingdom. However the people who kindly gifted this two way money
>stream to us have decided that they don't like it now.
>
>max.it

I forgot.
It's all to do with 'conceptual continuity'. It's like you can see
the re-runs before they even happen, like when you used to allow Mr
Henderson's drivel to appear upon your screen.

max.it

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus