More PC history from the BBC

"Invasion - A number of actual Leaders of Muslim countries are on record as saying they will conquer the west demographicaly."

I haven't heard any of these quotes myself; but hard-line Islamic leaders are quite often nut-cases fond of that sort of invective - the reality is probably (if what you're saying is accurate) that they're just making it seem like the people who are leaving for somewhere nicer and more tolerant is a deliberate action rather than an indication of a poverty-stricken society and oppressive regime. They're not sending people here, it makes no sense for their economy. Speak to any Muslim immigrant and find out why they're here - you'll find that practically none of them are here to "invade" the west (if any at all). There will be a tiny tiny minority of psychos who have been brainwashed into hating their current homeland - which frankly is the height of ingratitude - but these are almost always people who have been brainwashed since arriving, and are often young Britons (by birth and citizenship) rather than immigrants. Most immigrants are here either to escape persecution or to attempt to make a better life for themselves. Not all of them take to British culture with the gratitude you might expect, but the vast majority do.

It still doesn't change the difference between an invasion and immigration either.

"Crime and race , just check out the FBI most wanted, The NYPD most wanted , the LAPD most wanted or or check out the Metropolition Police, who try and balance it out a bit.

Sorry who did most if not All of the fatal shootings and stabings in London 2007 , was it Poles , Hindu Indians or?"

Again, these are cultural and economic problems - you can't tar all black people as potential criminals. If there were 22 stabbings by black people in London, that's 22 (possibly less) unique individuals out of tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens. Like I say, check out British white collar crime - find out who's ripping off their employers, who's embezzling millions from the banks. Pretty much all white faces. Does that mean that white people are inherently greedy and fraudulent? No, of course not - they're culturally- and economically-specific crimes.

Look at the US. You never hear of black people going crazy with a gun and shooting the school or university up and killing scores of innocent people. With the exception of a recent Korean, almost always white. Does that mean America should curb its white population (who after all are none-native too) because if the murders? No of course not. It's a cultural problem, not a racial problem. White people aren't more prone genetically to mass-shootings just as black people aren't more prone genetically prone to gang warfare - there will always be ruthless and sociopathic people. Their economic and sociological situation will steer them along certain paths. The vast vast majority of any given race or culture are normal, law-abiding people.

"As you where on at some filming locations any conection to the production people. If so do you think they would have cast a black actor to play Bill Sykes even if say it had been Will Smith offering his services for free and ensuring good oversees sales."

No, I was just an extra. As for your main question, I don't quite know what your point is, so please feel free to enlighten me. I really don't know if they'd have cast a black actor as Bill Sikes - I don't know if a black criminal would have been able to garner that kind of respect in those days (Nancy was pretty much on the lowest possible rung of the ladder), or even whether period authenticity was as high on their agenda as actor performance. I certainly doubt they'd have cast Will Smith, even if he did offer, as he's just far too likeable and cuddly. But it would certainly have been interesting to have seen that portrayal and whether he could have pulled off an English psycho convincingly.

"As to the Polish people does this mean that in a decade or so we will get Polish history month promoted in our schools."

I don't know, maybe. I take it you find something objectionable about a black history month? What about the other 10 white history months? (August of course being the summer holidays).

"As far as science goes has not Poland done more for the world then the whole of Africa."

Well, the Poles gave us radiation poisoning and the potential for nuclear anhillation, so I suppose that's something to be grateful for.

But I don't see your point. Africa is generally less technologically developed than Europe and North America, so there's less opportunity for scientific advancement. Are you suggesting that Africans are of inferior intelligence? And why does coming from a nation known for its scientific discoveries make you a better person? Not all Poles are Marie Curie. Having a country full of immigrated Poles isn't going to put us to the fore-front of scientific achievement as opposed to having a country full of immigrated Africans. What point are you making?

"Are facts racist?"

Yes, they can be, depending on the context they're used in and the lack of supporting facts.

Take this as an example: when I was a student in Middlesbrough, all the burglaries were done by white people, despite a high Asian population. All of them. That's a FACT. None of the students were burgled by Asians. Therefore white people are more inherently criminal than Asians. You can't argue with facts, and facts can't be racist. Look at the crime logs and wanted posters in Middlesbrough for the mid-90s, almost all white faces (certainly not a single black face) - proportionately more than the white population. So therefore white people are criminals.

Of course, I don't really believe that, but can you see how certain facts can be used to illustrate certain stand-points. There were economic and social reasons why the burglaries were all carried out by white people; and the tiny minority of burglars don't represent the whole white population.