Population Replacement Watch

One in five schoolchildren is from an ethnic minority - almost double the figure a decade ago.

The annual school census reveals a Britain where one in eight pupils speaks a language other than English at home.

The record figures include more than 40,000 children from Eastern Europe who have enrolled at schools since the enlargement of the European Union in 2004.

The statistics emerged as the race relations watchdog warned that Britain's segregated schools are a "ticking timebomb".

The Commission for Racial Equality's director of policy said parents must stop sending their children to schools where most pupils come from similar religious or racial backgrounds.

Nick Johnson also suggested schools should be given more money to admit a racially mixed intake. He said: "We're in fear of turning into a mini-America with racially determined schools.

"Schools are where our children first learn how to get along with people from other cultures and backgrounds. Racially segregated schools prevent this from happening. This is a ticking timebomb."

Calling people "subhuman" for finding this kind of thing worrying is also a bit of a bar to community cohesion, isn't it, Nick? Perhaps you should take that up with your boss, eh?

His comments came as figures published by the Department for Education and Skills showed the biggest year- on-year increase in ethnic minority pupils for a decade.

They account for just under a fifth (19.8 per cent) of England's 6.5million primary and secondary pupils, up from 11 per cent when Labour came to power.

Meanwhile, the number of primary pupils alone who do not speak English as their first language increased by seven per cent from last year to 448,000 - or about one child in seven. Overall, it is around one in eight.

But the Commission for Racial Equality is concerned that there are not enough resources to integrate pupils from such diverse backgrounds. Mr Johnson said he was particularly worried about Tony Blair's controversial city academies and trust schools.

Well done Nick. Never miss a chance to push a leftist cause, no matter how irrelevant.

He added that some of these are using their extra freedoms to "cream off pupils from certain ethnic backgrounds or religions, thus ... increasing racial tensions".

The Conservatives said ministers had been caught off-guard by the increase in non-native English speakers in schools.

Tory education spokesman David Willetts said: "The Government has completely failed to keep up with the rate of change in our school population."

A DfES spokesman said: "The Education and Inspections Act 2006 placed a new duty on the governing bodies of all maintained schools, including faith schools, to promote community cohesion."

How wonderful. Of course, if successive governments had not embarked on the lunatic scheme of bringing people from all over the world to live together in one country, while at the same time continually undermining and belittling the native population and their culture, then we might not have problems with community cohesion on the scale that we do now. But that's wicked hate speech, and having read it, you must now say three Hail Trevs and genuflect repeatedly before a picture of Mandela, in order that your soul may be cleansed of the stain of "prejudice".

Immigration: "Tipping Point reached"

Immigration could lead to the political break-up of Britain, according to right-wing think-tank Civitas.

A pamphlet by the group suggests that Britain may have reached a "tipping point" beyond which it could no longer be seen as a single nation.

Shadow home secretary David Davis has called on the government to put a cap on those coming to the UK.

Quite sensible. If only one could believe that the Tories would actually do anything about the situation, should they come to power. However, the views of their vice-chair on what should be done with failed "asylum seekers" render laughable the idea that the Tories could be the party to stop mass immigration .

The Civitas pamphlet - A Nation of Immigrants? - said the "seemingly reckless pace and scale" of immigration was bound to cause concern for people who saw the UK as a model of tolerance and freedom.

The 100-page booklet said Britain may have already reached a tipping point beyond which it could not longer be said to be a single nation.

"Once such a point is reached, political disintegration may be predicted to be not long in following," the report said.

Indeed, and I am reminded of Paul Weston's article on the possibility of pan-European civil war. Of course, Mr Weston only considered the prospect of a war that would be, in essence, Muslims against infidels. What could happen is a war in which many different sides face off against one another. Muslims and natives will be the two largest groups, of course, but there will be others. Take blacks, for example. A small number might side with the natives in any conflict, a larger number will side with the Muslims, on the premise that they're not white, and are therefore good, while a still larger number would be likely to just fight both sides with equal aggression. As the report by Civitas suggests, we could well see Britain (and Western Europe as a whole) dissolve into a large number of tribal lands, of various size, existing in an almost constant state of war with one another.

All this is no more than the almost inevitable consequence of mass immigration, which brings people of completely different cultures and beliefs into close and unwelcome proximity, and of multiculturalism, which then encourages these groups - or at least the immigrant ones - to maintain the very differences which make that proximity so unwelcome, while constantly running-down and disparaging the native population, their culture, and history. Now the natives are angry, the immigrants are grasping, the politicians are too cowardly to do anything, and sooner or later something is going to snap.

The Rewards of Charity

A 42-year-old man is recovering in hospital after being beaten up as he tried to help a woman who was being attacked by her partner in Lancashire.

The football fan had been watching Accrington Stanley play on Saturday evening when he saw a man abusing his girlfriend outside the club's ground.

He intervened to help the woman but was punched to the ground by the man who kicked him until he was unconscious.

A 35-year-old man from Accrington was arrested in connection with the attack.

What might have improved this situation? More police on the street? Well, it would certainly have reduced the chances of this happening. Accrington Stanley play in League Two (the old Third Division, and before that the old Fourth Division - in English football, if you wait long enough and don't get relegated, you find that your team is in a higher division, or at least one with a more impressive name). 1,808 people saw them beat Peterborough 3-2 yesterday - surely a few police must have been around?

Even if they weren't, there were nearly 2,000 people, presumably overwhelmingly decent enough, and many of them young and fit. Perhaps they could have intervened? Just two or three of them would easily have been enough to stop both the original attack, and the subsequent attack on the one man who was brave enough to get involved. Maybe they were all busy jumping up and down. (Note: It seems that the match had in fact ended two hours before. See update below).

But, of course, people don't like to get involved these days. Back in February there was a piece by Jeremy Vine in the Telegraph describing how he, and 30 other people, sat back and watched as a man was beaten up on the tube. There was only one assailant; the other passengers could have torn him limb from limb. But none of them had the stomach. And then, via Laban Tall, this piece, from last November, by London-based American blogger Jackie Danicki, describing her mugging on a packed tube train. No one intervened, with one passenger justifying his inaction on the grounds that "he didn't want to make things worse for her".

Why don't we intervene anymore? Well, partly because the police would be as likely to arrest us as they would the actual criminal. And also because people have, in large part, become so decadent that they would rather cower in a corner than risk becoming involved in anything savouring of - whisper it - violence! But there is also the breakdown of any sense of community. This was a point made by Gareth at BNP and Me the other day, and it is entirely correct. These days we have little connection with one another, and often very little in common. Perhaps in an ideal world we would be prepared to put ourselves at risk for people to whom we have no connection, but in the real world, this usually will not happen. And this, I think, is another consequence of the war waged by the liberal-left on Britain, its culture, its society, and all the ties that bind its citizens together. It's also the reason why, when brave people like the man in Accrington do get involved, they all too often end up getting badly hurt.

Update: A commenter has alerted me to the fact that, contrary to the impression given by both the BBC report and this blog, the attack in Accrington took place two hours after the end of the game. So there probably weren't too many people about. Apologies, therefore, are in order: first, to Accrington Stanley fans, for casting aspersions on them, and second, to readers of this blog, for publishing an inaccuracy.

The criticisms of the London tube travellers stay, however.