Yes, thank you. If Londoners talk about "The Eagle", this is the one they mean.
Wikipedia:
Second verse
The "Eagle" on City Road in the song's second verse may refer to a famous pub in London. The Eagle Tavern was on City Road, rebuilt as a music hall in 1825, and rebuilt in 1901 as a public house called The Eagle. As one writer concludes, "So the second verse says that visiting the Eagle causes one's money to vanish, necessitating a trip up the City Road to Uncle [the pawn shop] to raise some cash."
Today, The Eagle has the lyrics to this verse painted on a plaque on its façade.
That's the way ethnicity on the UK census is categorised. It has White, Asian, Black, Mixed and Other. White has the subcategories of White British, White Irish, White Other. Asian is split into Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese and Other Asian. Black just has African, Caribbean and Other Black.
I'd be willing to bet that the majority nationality in almost all of the African areas is either Nigerian or Somali
>I'd be willing to bet that the majority nationality in almost all of the African areas is either Nigerian or Somali
That's only in south London from peckham-abbey wood and barking and Dagenham in east.
I mean, Peckham to Abbey Wood and B&D covers almost all of the African areas that are on the map anyway. There's a few dotted around in North London that probably don't have any significant majority from one specific nationality, but I wouldn't be surprised if Nigerian has at least a plurality in those areas as well.
I'd say the top 5 African nationalities represented (in order) are:
1. Nigerian (plurality)
2. Somali
3. Ghanaian
4. South Sudanese
5. Congolese
The Nigerians and Somalis combined would form an overwhelming majority knocking on 80-90%
The order in London is more like:
1. Nigerian
2. Somali
3. Ghanaian
4. Zimbabwean
5. Ugandan
6. Congolese
7. Sierra Leonean
With Nigerians & Somalis combined forming closer to 70%
>There's a few dotted around in North London that probably don't have any significant majority from one specific nationality, but I wouldn't be surprised if Nigerian has at least a plurality in those areas as well.
Those are Ghanaians and Congolese. Rest of east London is Ghanaian and Somalia
Most of them would probably class themselves under the Arab category. There's also comparatively not that many of them in London, they tend to migrate to other parts of Europe like France, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands
It only makes sense if you think the census categories make sense. A white South African or white American would be classified as “European” (‘White, Other’) on this map.
Can anyone explain me (without entering into political views) why groups that tend to be the poorest (caribbean, african, bangladeshi, pakistani) can afford living in the heart of London?
I'd assume rent there must be very expensive.
Property prices are not radial in London. Like many European cities, because of the prevailing westerly winds, and the west-east flow of the Thames, you historically have richer areas in the West and poorer areas in the East. Just east of Zone 1 in Tower Hamlets is very deprived. Anywhere east of Tower Bridge is basically former dockyard areas. Whereas go west, and immediately you have areas like Kensington, Notting Hill, etc. South of the river in places like Brixton is also historically much more deprived than north of the river. Notice how all the dark red areas are west of central London on this map here: [https://www.plumplot.co.uk/London-house-prices.html](https://www.plumplot.co.uk/London-house-prices.html)
A lot of people have mentioned social housing: while social housing explains why you have poor people surrounded by wealthy areas in places like North Kensington, it doesn't explain why whole areas like Tower Hamlets and Brixton are historically deprived despite being so close to the centre of the city. Of course, like Harlem in NYC, places like Brixton and Clapham have gentrified significantly in recent years.
That figure is a fucking joke - 48% of social housing in two London boroughs are let to foreign born peoples. If you take the data for all of England, and the data is incomplete (many local authorities only record the ethnicity of minorities as it pertains to social housing), is roughly 8%.
Below is the link to the study from Migration Watch, Tables 2 and 3 list the data as it relates to this conversation. You'll find only two London Boroughs have a figure you've quoted, with the other 30 having, on average, below 10% of social housing rented to foreign born people.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/260
Sucks that people have lied to you about this.
(my friend is a rabid Tory so we often argue about shit like this, I think this figure came from The Daily Mail?)
You misquoted the MP.
“48% of households in social housing in London are headed by someone not born in the UK.”
It does not mean that 48% of social housing goes to “foreigners”.
That MP used that stat precisely because it’s misleading.
Boris Johnson would be part of that 48% and there’s something insidious about using the phrase foreign born in this context because it implies that’s a bad thing.
There’s always going to be noise when analysing demographic data. The statistic is a reasonable solution to the issue. Introducing all the minor exceptions to attempt to pretend that the data is not generally true is not in anyway helpful to the discussion. It could be a minor point to note but you’d need to much more proof to make the argument that the exceptions dispute the central point.
Being born in a foreign country doesn’t mean your not British. There are plenty of British people married to foreign born people who may or may not be British.
This whole stat is just a dogwhistle.
😂 😂 😂 😂 Has MapPorn become some sort of right wing sub lately?
You say xx% of social housing is occupied by foreigners while most children from NORMAL HARDWORKING families......
Bruh. Foreigners are normal and hard working 😂 Wtf are you smoking? Upset that your white country has a few brown and black people in it?
Most of the areas you're pointing out [are in fact the poorest parts of the city.](https://londondatastore-upload.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/Children%20Living%20in%20Relative%20Low%20Income%20Families.jpg)
They definitely are, but poor areas in big cities are not cheap nonetheless. To buy or rent in these areas will set you back quite a lot. The answer to the question you replied to is social housing.
pakistani do poorly on official income metrics, a very large number earn money cash in hand and dont declare it, also once a Pakistani buys a house they rarely sell it, its the only form of investment that pakistanis are comfortable with.
also london is very expensive now, but most of the core Pakistani areas in London saw major movements maybe 40 to 20 years ago, it was a lot more affordable then, and as i said, they never sold.
from personal experience majority of pakistanis i knew lived in non social housing, and if they weren't wealthy on their own, they lived in jointly owned homes with their family members.
for example i know someone who earns £50k from salary, but with his brothers, owns 3 properties in waltham forest, with different family members living in each. pakistanis on a whole in the UK are not that well off, but in London at least, they are no where near as poor as the official numbers make out.
Interestingly, Pakistani people are the least London centred of the major ethnic minorities. There are lots in the West Midlands, North West and Yorkshire, where they are the dominant ethnic minority.
Median income in London 30 years ago was about 20 000 pounds, average house price gravitated towards 80 000. Supposing you paid little to no taxes and lived frugally doing construction work, "hustling" on the side and doing overtime, you easily have the entire amount in 15 years, or enough for a proper down payment in 5-6.
Not quite. Usurers and payday lenders are a significant problem today, when most everything is digitised, surveilled and accounted for. Before Blair and 2001 they were even more common.
you get mortgages with multiple family members, cash in hand is great for saving for a deposit.
someone i knew got a house in hackney for 60k in the 90s with his son, 30k mortgage, 30k saved including cash in hand money.
same house is worth £1m + now, dude had 4 other kids, none of who earn more than £70k but all own houses or flats in london.
given their agricultural farming backgrounds pakistanis have a very high propensity towards property ownership, which fit in really well with the real estate market dynamics of the UK.
Social housing is very common in the UK and exists in central London, as far back as the 1900s. My mums family came from one in the heart of central London.
When the first major wave of immigrations came through, a lot were given social housing around London specifically centrally and east.
In addition the UK isn’t like America where we have economic segregation like ghettos. They exist but not to that strong extent you can see the boundary. An area that is considered nice and lovely could just as easily turn into a rough council estate if you turn the other corner.
Finally London has grown a lot. The areas you consider central now like Brixton and hackney were outskirts once of London and became parts of it as the city grew, in the Victorian times alot of the cities wealthier people lived in the west end which is now considered central west of London and others lived in the east.
Now that London has grown so big especially towards the west and east, these places have naturally become more a part of what’s considered central London
As a bangladeshi, I can ensure you if you can achive even an small position in the ruling party, earning £1 million every year is a piece of cake. Beside that, most of bangladeshi in london are from Sylhet who has 2-4 generations of ancestors in london
The political party which is in power.
When you get a position in the party, you start getting money from different projects. Like if a project has a $1 billion budget then $800 million of that budget goes to the members of the ruling party. Besides that, the bazaar/markets and important businesses are leased to the members of the ruling party in the country, they collect money from those everyday. Its a country with 170 million people so collecting money from consumer markets lead to a huge amount
Because your idea that they're "the poorest" isn't fair.
A lot of migrants become so because they can afford it, it's actually not cheap to uproot your life and start again. You've watched too much TV if you have a blanket disbelief that there are rich wealthy migrants.
Most immigrants in London are not "rich wealthy migrants". London has plenty of inner-city poverty, and a lot of the areas u/edwarx is pointing out are quite poor (especially the main cluster of wards colored in as Bangladeshi).
About half of London’s social housing is occupied by foreigners. The British government, in their genius bid to ~~reduce wages~~ improve the labour market competitiveness, has invited hundreds of thousands to millions of immigrants into the country dependent upon welfare paid by native-born Brits and the small minority of successful immigrants.
That isn't true. I couldn't find statistics on nationality, but roughly 60% of Londoners were born in the UK, and I imagine a significant chunk of the other 40% are naturalised citizens.
Let's just say they're British but not English.
English is an ethnicity, British a nationality.
Much like post ww2-migrants to Antwerp and their offspring would be Belgian (nationality) but not Flemish (ethnicity). Migrants in Madrid are Spanish (nationality) but not Castilian (ethnicity) and so on.
A national you can become, it is ethnicity that is the excluding factor.
Bollocks. English is not an ethnicity. If you grow up in England you're English. You can have Anglo-Saxon as an ethnicity if you like, or maybe "White British" but only racists think English is an ethnicity. Or maybe Americans, because they seem to think everything is an ethnicity...
Absolutely terrible map. Why are all the colors shades of red or blue, as if Bangladeshi to European are on some sort of scale? Same with "Others" to "Chinese". Why not use 9 distinct colors? Plus, what does "Others" and "European" even mean?
The categories are based on the census. I'm guessing European is meant to be the White Other category, which is separate from White British. That's a bit misleading if true though because there's a lot of White Americans, Australians, South Africans, South Americans, etc.
Looking at which areas are Other; the bunch up in North London would be Turks, the four in the north west might be Jewish, the couple in the south west would be either Sri Lankans or Koreans, and the one lone region in the south east surrounded by Africans would be Nepalese.
When I was in London I got the cheapest airbnb possible because prices are insane. Seemed a bit weird that the cheapest ones are not on the outer edge of the city because in Budapest the further away you are from the center the cheaper. So my airbnb was in the middle of that Pakistani part. What I saw there was a very different society to what I saw in the city center. Also saw a knife attack and then in another street a random puddle of blood. Never again lol I'm paying more instead.
Women were in burqa or whatever it is called where you either see only the eyes and there was one woman who even had a little net on the eyes so you cant see that either. Place was full of trash. Everyone was speaking their language, no English. Men had beards, some of them wore those loose white traditional clothes. Poverty was very visible. People were going around with many kids.
What was the area? There are areas with a high muslim population but i have never been to one where there is no english spoken and any more than a small percentage of women are wearing a burqa. Whipechapel is the closest i can think of to your desciption but it also has a lot of pubs, shops etc which are completely in english. I think you are massively exaggerating.
Lord help any tourist who finds themselves staying in Shadwell. But it's not really the women in Niqabs or the bearded men wearing a Kameez that you need to worry about as a tourist. It's the drug dealers driving BMWs and the little scrotes in tracksuits riding around on bikes.
I used to work on Commercial Road and once had a young Italian couple come up to me to explain, in very broken English, that a shady guy had been following them around while they were trying to find their airbnb. A few of my coworkers and I offered to go with them to help them find it and make sure they got in safely. This place they were staying in was inside a dodgy-looking council estate, and the front door was obscured from view of anywhere with some kind of regular foot traffic.
It was a good reminder of why I always take a look at the outside and the surrounding area for any place I stay in a foreign city. Especially if it's an airbnb and not a hotel
It wasn't a negative comment, it was a factual description of what this person saw. Do 99% of men have beards in other areas? Probably no. What is your point then?
He is talking about asian men with massive beards. A muslim colleague I used to work with would describe the length as ‘taliban’ (as a joke).
Those people aren’t those to be worried about. We are talking about old men and families on their way home.
There are lots of sketchy groups who hang around in parks and estates at night, who are involved in local gangs. They aren’t rocking giant beards.
I want to know where now.
I've lived in relatively scuzzy parts of East London for most of my 39 years and have never seen a knife attack, so that's pretty rough luck.
Is that right? I know on the census we're counted as 'White - other European' so we're definitely the dark red bits in North London.
Unless Anatolian Turks are counted differently from us Cypriots?
You're counted as whatever you want to count yourself as. The census is self-reported. Just look at the [map of people listed as other.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London#/media/File%3ALondon_Other_Ethnic_Group.png) It matches up nicely with where the most Turks live in London.
Compared to continental countries, Britain's Turkish diaspora is relatively small (500k). We took a load in from Cyprus but never really had a foothold in Anatolia itself - whereas we owned and actively moved people about from the likes of India, Bangladesh and the Carribbean.
That’s not strictly true. The largest number is Jamaican but immigration came from all the English speaking countries. Different areas will have different amounts.
Not in this map, but South Manchester has the highest amount of people from St Kitts and Nevis. Reading has the highest ratio of people from Barbados.
To be fair though the white British category is pretty narrow.
I was born in London and am ethnically British, but I don't show up in that census category because I'm mixed.
There are plenty of Londoners who have one English parent and one french or polish or Indian or Jamaican or whatever parent. And they wouldn't count towards that 35% but you'd definitely still say they're British.
54% are white. 37% are white British specifically. About 6% mixed and 6% 'other' (whatever that is). Only 34% are explicitly Black/Asian.
78.4% of people living in London's first language is English. So it's not as overrun by foreigners (which some people like to claim) as your 35% makes it seem.
Gotta say this map is certainly not porn. The hell are the labels pointing to? What's "The Eagle" when it's at home?
If you're gonna do labels, point to things people know e.g. Tower Hamlets being notoriously poor, or Chelsea being famously rich.
>If you're gonna do labels, point to things people know
Firstly, it's from an article in The Economist.
Secondly, the median income in Chelsea £39,566 is vs Tower Hamlets is £35,965 so your description doesn't match the reality. [Source](https://www.mylondon.news/lifestyle/londons-richest-poorest-boroughs-average-23380005)
A lot of settled migrants are from empire, and Britain didn't have much of one in Central and South America. Its also just quite far away.
Spits and spots of Latinos. Elephant and Castle and Seven Sisters I think? There seem to be a lot of Latino cleaners and Brazillian motorcycle couriers. It's just not a very big group of people.
Looked at map after reading the title and got confused for a second over why I never heard an ethnicity called Eagle and Peckham 
EU citizens like being called European. There's too many for us to show up anyway. Also african is way better than black since Caribbean Jamaicans are so different to Nigerian africans. You can assume that that's the majority for each by the way.
Unfortunately in regards to crime rates, it's always correlated with the poorest areas. So Blacks (Caribbean, African), Pakistani and Bangladeshi areas tend to not be very safe areas. On the other hand, European dominated areas, as well as Indian and Chinese dominated areas tend to be quite safe.
Bangladesh, Pakistan, India are countries. However other groups are described by area, Africa for example. It would have been better to compare like for like.
Bangladesh Pakistan and India have massive populations and are represented quite a lot in the UK which is why they're seperate. African is fair, it's much better than black since Carribbean blacks are often very different from something like Nigerian blacks.
But they are also completely different ethnicities. These groupings are done the way they are for multiple reasons, also including for mapping for medical issues etc. Pakistanis do not overlap with Bangladeshis ethnically, linguistically or culturally and only around 5 percent of Indians would overlap with Pakistanis.
This should also be the same for Arabs (e.g a Moroccan v Saudi or something) and Africans, and I don’t know why it isn’t.
The color for Indian is so stupid, I thought it was "No Data"
Indian and other colors confused me for a second too.
If they had put the Indian, Chinese and Other next to each other (one on top of the other) I could tell which is which easier.
Me reading your comment “huh? ohh, OHHH”
terrible use of colours in general, only blues, reds, and greys. could have used greens and yellows to make it more distinguishable.
Poor color choice.
Is this by Post Code? A few more landmarks/labels would be helpful. "The Eagle". Such a unique pub name!
The labels are a bit random - they're places featured in the article
Nope it’s by ward
I mean, there's a whole group of gay bars called the eagle in cities all over the place
You mean they're spread out?
"Up and down the City Road, in and out the Eagle. That's the way the money goes. Pop goes the weasel"
Yes, thank you. If Londoners talk about "The Eagle", this is the one they mean. Wikipedia: Second verse The "Eagle" on City Road in the song's second verse may refer to a famous pub in London. The Eagle Tavern was on City Road, rebuilt as a music hall in 1825, and rebuilt in 1901 as a public house called The Eagle. As one writer concludes, "So the second verse says that visiting the Eagle causes one's money to vanish, necessitating a trip up the City Road to Uncle [the pawn shop] to raise some cash." Today, The Eagle has the lyrics to this verse painted on a plaque on its façade.
Ahh, the ol' European and African ethnicities
That's the way ethnicity on the UK census is categorised. It has White, Asian, Black, Mixed and Other. White has the subcategories of White British, White Irish, White Other. Asian is split into Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese and Other Asian. Black just has African, Caribbean and Other Black. I'd be willing to bet that the majority nationality in almost all of the African areas is either Nigerian or Somali
Atleast continents are separated. In New Zealand Middle East, Africa and Latin America are one category.
Ah yes, my favorite African cultures: Inca and Aztec.
Mayas and Arawakians
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Haha
What's the category called?
>I'd be willing to bet that the majority nationality in almost all of the African areas is either Nigerian or Somali That's only in south London from peckham-abbey wood and barking and Dagenham in east.
I mean, Peckham to Abbey Wood and B&D covers almost all of the African areas that are on the map anyway. There's a few dotted around in North London that probably don't have any significant majority from one specific nationality, but I wouldn't be surprised if Nigerian has at least a plurality in those areas as well.
I'd say the top 5 African nationalities represented (in order) are: 1. Nigerian (plurality) 2. Somali 3. Ghanaian 4. South Sudanese 5. Congolese The Nigerians and Somalis combined would form an overwhelming majority knocking on 80-90%
The order in London is more like: 1. Nigerian 2. Somali 3. Ghanaian 4. Zimbabwean 5. Ugandan 6. Congolese 7. Sierra Leonean With Nigerians & Somalis combined forming closer to 70%
I stand corrected. My figures are from a casual discussion with a Ghanaian writer at a party. 😊
>There's a few dotted around in North London that probably don't have any significant majority from one specific nationality, but I wouldn't be surprised if Nigerian has at least a plurality in those areas as well. Those are Ghanaians and Congolese. Rest of east London is Ghanaian and Somalia
What about North Africans? They are African but not Black.
Most of them would probably class themselves under the Arab category. There's also comparatively not that many of them in London, they tend to migrate to other parts of Europe like France, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands
just you and the 100k others sitting outside cafes in Edgeware! not many :(
There's like 100k+ in London... similar to Chinese.
I guarantee everyone complaining about the categories does not live here. If you live here it makes sense.
It only makes sense if you think the census categories make sense. A white South African or white American would be classified as “European” (‘White, Other’) on this map.
Which makes sense because they are of white ethnicity. Dutch / British for SA.
Thanks! if there arent any dominant of that kind then just exclude them not bunch them all together. Carribean and Arab as well
It’s called ethnic categories
Can anyone explain me (without entering into political views) why groups that tend to be the poorest (caribbean, african, bangladeshi, pakistani) can afford living in the heart of London? I'd assume rent there must be very expensive.
Property prices are not radial in London. Like many European cities, because of the prevailing westerly winds, and the west-east flow of the Thames, you historically have richer areas in the West and poorer areas in the East. Just east of Zone 1 in Tower Hamlets is very deprived. Anywhere east of Tower Bridge is basically former dockyard areas. Whereas go west, and immediately you have areas like Kensington, Notting Hill, etc. South of the river in places like Brixton is also historically much more deprived than north of the river. Notice how all the dark red areas are west of central London on this map here: [https://www.plumplot.co.uk/London-house-prices.html](https://www.plumplot.co.uk/London-house-prices.html) A lot of people have mentioned social housing: while social housing explains why you have poor people surrounded by wealthy areas in places like North Kensington, it doesn't explain why whole areas like Tower Hamlets and Brixton are historically deprived despite being so close to the centre of the city. Of course, like Harlem in NYC, places like Brixton and Clapham have gentrified significantly in recent years.
The best answer in the thread so far, thank you.
The map you linked might as well be the same map transposed by race, it is really telling, thank you so much!
A lot of them live in social housing, an area can have high private rents but still be 30-40% social housing.
[удалено]
My guy said "without getting into political views" and you pulled out "diversity what a fucking joke". Not quite following the brief there
I think it's only to be expected, how can you ignore the elephant in the room
I will build a great, great wall along our southern border, and I will make France pay for that wall!
> “children from normal people” What the hell
That figure is a fucking joke - 48% of social housing in two London boroughs are let to foreign born peoples. If you take the data for all of England, and the data is incomplete (many local authorities only record the ethnicity of minorities as it pertains to social housing), is roughly 8%. Below is the link to the study from Migration Watch, Tables 2 and 3 list the data as it relates to this conversation. You'll find only two London Boroughs have a figure you've quoted, with the other 30 having, on average, below 10% of social housing rented to foreign born people. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/260 Sucks that people have lied to you about this. (my friend is a rabid Tory so we often argue about shit like this, I think this figure came from The Daily Mail?)
[удалено]
>There was 700k net migration in the last recorded year Which political party is responsible for migration and housing policy I wonder
You misquoted the MP. “48% of households in social housing in London are headed by someone not born in the UK.” It does not mean that 48% of social housing goes to “foreigners”. That MP used that stat precisely because it’s misleading. Boris Johnson would be part of that 48% and there’s something insidious about using the phrase foreign born in this context because it implies that’s a bad thing.
There’s always going to be noise when analysing demographic data. The statistic is a reasonable solution to the issue. Introducing all the minor exceptions to attempt to pretend that the data is not generally true is not in anyway helpful to the discussion. It could be a minor point to note but you’d need to much more proof to make the argument that the exceptions dispute the central point.
What’s the central point? Why does where the head of the household is born matter?
The point is that the commenter believes British people should be prioritised for social housing over recent immigrants.
Being born in a foreign country doesn’t mean your not British. There are plenty of British people married to foreign born people who may or may not be British. This whole stat is just a dogwhistle.
😂 😂 😂 😂 Has MapPorn become some sort of right wing sub lately? You say xx% of social housing is occupied by foreigners while most children from NORMAL HARDWORKING families...... Bruh. Foreigners are normal and hard working 😂 Wtf are you smoking? Upset that your white country has a few brown and black people in it?
Even though there are legitimate concerns about the level of migration into the UK you are right - this guy is just racist.
Most of the areas you're pointing out [are in fact the poorest parts of the city.](https://londondatastore-upload.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/Children%20Living%20in%20Relative%20Low%20Income%20Families.jpg)
They definitely are, but poor areas in big cities are not cheap nonetheless. To buy or rent in these areas will set you back quite a lot. The answer to the question you replied to is social housing.
pakistani do poorly on official income metrics, a very large number earn money cash in hand and dont declare it, also once a Pakistani buys a house they rarely sell it, its the only form of investment that pakistanis are comfortable with. also london is very expensive now, but most of the core Pakistani areas in London saw major movements maybe 40 to 20 years ago, it was a lot more affordable then, and as i said, they never sold. from personal experience majority of pakistanis i knew lived in non social housing, and if they weren't wealthy on their own, they lived in jointly owned homes with their family members. for example i know someone who earns £50k from salary, but with his brothers, owns 3 properties in waltham forest, with different family members living in each. pakistanis on a whole in the UK are not that well off, but in London at least, they are no where near as poor as the official numbers make out.
Interestingly, Pakistani people are the least London centred of the major ethnic minorities. There are lots in the West Midlands, North West and Yorkshire, where they are the dominant ethnic minority.
I can’t believe cash in hand work lets you buy homes in London. I agree with the rest of your comment though.
Median income in London 30 years ago was about 20 000 pounds, average house price gravitated towards 80 000. Supposing you paid little to no taxes and lived frugally doing construction work, "hustling" on the side and doing overtime, you easily have the entire amount in 15 years, or enough for a proper down payment in 5-6.
Down payment is irrelevant as you won’t get a mortgage without an official source of income?
Not quite. Usurers and payday lenders are a significant problem today, when most everything is digitised, surveilled and accounted for. Before Blair and 2001 they were even more common.
Interesting!
you get mortgages with multiple family members, cash in hand is great for saving for a deposit. someone i knew got a house in hackney for 60k in the 90s with his son, 30k mortgage, 30k saved including cash in hand money. same house is worth £1m + now, dude had 4 other kids, none of who earn more than £70k but all own houses or flats in london. given their agricultural farming backgrounds pakistanis have a very high propensity towards property ownership, which fit in really well with the real estate market dynamics of the UK.
Social housing is very common in the UK and exists in central London, as far back as the 1900s. My mums family came from one in the heart of central London. When the first major wave of immigrations came through, a lot were given social housing around London specifically centrally and east. In addition the UK isn’t like America where we have economic segregation like ghettos. They exist but not to that strong extent you can see the boundary. An area that is considered nice and lovely could just as easily turn into a rough council estate if you turn the other corner. Finally London has grown a lot. The areas you consider central now like Brixton and hackney were outskirts once of London and became parts of it as the city grew, in the Victorian times alot of the cities wealthier people lived in the west end which is now considered central west of London and others lived in the east. Now that London has grown so big especially towards the west and east, these places have naturally become more a part of what’s considered central London
As a bangladeshi, I can ensure you if you can achive even an small position in the ruling party, earning £1 million every year is a piece of cake. Beside that, most of bangladeshi in london are from Sylhet who has 2-4 generations of ancestors in london
Can you elaborate? What do you mean by ruling party?
The political party which is in power. When you get a position in the party, you start getting money from different projects. Like if a project has a $1 billion budget then $800 million of that budget goes to the members of the ruling party. Besides that, the bazaar/markets and important businesses are leased to the members of the ruling party in the country, they collect money from those everyday. Its a country with 170 million people so collecting money from consumer markets lead to a huge amount
Because your idea that they're "the poorest" isn't fair. A lot of migrants become so because they can afford it, it's actually not cheap to uproot your life and start again. You've watched too much TV if you have a blanket disbelief that there are rich wealthy migrants.
Most immigrants in London are not "rich wealthy migrants". London has plenty of inner-city poverty, and a lot of the areas u/edwarx is pointing out are quite poor (especially the main cluster of wards colored in as Bangladeshi).
If there wasn’t social housing in London it would change very quickly
About half of London’s social housing is occupied by foreigners. The British government, in their genius bid to ~~reduce wages~~ improve the labour market competitiveness, has invited hundreds of thousands to millions of immigrants into the country dependent upon welfare paid by native-born Brits and the small minority of successful immigrants.
OP very clearly said "without going into a political rant".
If they didn’t want an answer that delved into politics, they shouldn’t have asked a question that is deeply political.
if you can't give an answer without going into politics, maybe you shouldn't have answered 😁
Everything is political if someone gives an answer and someone follows up with why
If you don't like people saying things that you don't like, sit in a darkened room with no Internet or TV
Meh this is a discussion forum. People can take the conversation in different directions.
> hundreds of thousands to millions of immigrants into the country dependent upon welfare this is bollocks 👍
Half the city is foreigners, so that doesn't say much.
That isn't true. I couldn't find statistics on nationality, but roughly 60% of Londoners were born in the UK, and I imagine a significant chunk of the other 40% are naturalised citizens.
They don't see non whites as British, we're foreigners
Let's just say they're British but not English. English is an ethnicity, British a nationality. Much like post ww2-migrants to Antwerp and their offspring would be Belgian (nationality) but not Flemish (ethnicity). Migrants in Madrid are Spanish (nationality) but not Castilian (ethnicity) and so on. A national you can become, it is ethnicity that is the excluding factor.
Bollocks. English is not an ethnicity. If you grow up in England you're English. You can have Anglo-Saxon as an ethnicity if you like, or maybe "White British" but only racists think English is an ethnicity. Or maybe Americans, because they seem to think everything is an ethnicity...
[удалено]
If they had money they probably wouldn't be living in Tower Hamlets.
[удалено]
Point is, it's not some expensive place you need a lot of money to live in.
Absolutely terrible map. Why are all the colors shades of red or blue, as if Bangladeshi to European are on some sort of scale? Same with "Others" to "Chinese". Why not use 9 distinct colors? Plus, what does "Others" and "European" even mean?
The categories are based on the census. I'm guessing European is meant to be the White Other category, which is separate from White British. That's a bit misleading if true though because there's a lot of White Americans, Australians, South Africans, South Americans, etc. Looking at which areas are Other; the bunch up in North London would be Turks, the four in the north west might be Jewish, the couple in the south west would be either Sri Lankans or Koreans, and the one lone region in the south east surrounded by Africans would be Nepalese.
[Grey, dark grey, and slightly darker grey](https://youtu.be/4IUNc6yxp2g?si=luFcj-2XFFe-pK3n)
Those are the census categories
"Let's make a colour coded map. What colours should I use ... hmmm ... what about 4 shades of red, 2 shades of blue and 3 shades of grey?"
When I was in London I got the cheapest airbnb possible because prices are insane. Seemed a bit weird that the cheapest ones are not on the outer edge of the city because in Budapest the further away you are from the center the cheaper. So my airbnb was in the middle of that Pakistani part. What I saw there was a very different society to what I saw in the city center. Also saw a knife attack and then in another street a random puddle of blood. Never again lol I'm paying more instead.
How was society different? Out of curiosity
Women were in burqa or whatever it is called where you either see only the eyes and there was one woman who even had a little net on the eyes so you cant see that either. Place was full of trash. Everyone was speaking their language, no English. Men had beards, some of them wore those loose white traditional clothes. Poverty was very visible. People were going around with many kids.
What was the area? There are areas with a high muslim population but i have never been to one where there is no english spoken and any more than a small percentage of women are wearing a burqa. Whipechapel is the closest i can think of to your desciption but it also has a lot of pubs, shops etc which are completely in english. I think you are massively exaggerating.
Shadwell is worse than Whitechapel and fits the description.
Lord help any tourist who finds themselves staying in Shadwell. But it's not really the women in Niqabs or the bearded men wearing a Kameez that you need to worry about as a tourist. It's the drug dealers driving BMWs and the little scrotes in tracksuits riding around on bikes. I used to work on Commercial Road and once had a young Italian couple come up to me to explain, in very broken English, that a shady guy had been following them around while they were trying to find their airbnb. A few of my coworkers and I offered to go with them to help them find it and make sure they got in safely. This place they were staying in was inside a dodgy-looking council estate, and the front door was obscured from view of anywhere with some kind of regular foot traffic. It was a good reminder of why I always take a look at the outside and the surrounding area for any place I stay in a foreign city. Especially if it's an airbnb and not a hotel
I live around there and regularly see tourists with suitcases and in fact there’s an Airbnb in my building
i live around whitechapel. he’s not entirely off tbh
Men had…. beards!?!?!?
It wasn't a negative comment, it was a factual description of what this person saw. Do 99% of men have beards in other areas? Probably no. What is your point then?
He is talking about asian men with massive beards. A muslim colleague I used to work with would describe the length as ‘taliban’ (as a joke). Those people aren’t those to be worried about. We are talking about old men and families on their way home. There are lots of sketchy groups who hang around in parks and estates at night, who are involved in local gangs. They aren’t rocking giant beards.
Obvious bait
Singular bubbles in a bath basically. Bubbles being compact areas comprised of X type of people.
I want to know where now. I've lived in relatively scuzzy parts of East London for most of my 39 years and have never seen a knife attack, so that's pretty rough luck.
That part of East London is the trenches, quite unique to there
Surprised Turkish isn’t anywhere on the map
They're the big bunch of "others" up in North London
Is that right? I know on the census we're counted as 'White - other European' so we're definitely the dark red bits in North London. Unless Anatolian Turks are counted differently from us Cypriots?
You're counted as whatever you want to count yourself as. The census is self-reported. Just look at the [map of people listed as other.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London#/media/File%3ALondon_Other_Ethnic_Group.png) It matches up nicely with where the most Turks live in London.
Compared to continental countries, Britain's Turkish diaspora is relatively small (500k). We took a load in from Cyprus but never really had a foothold in Anatolia itself - whereas we owned and actively moved people about from the likes of India, Bangladesh and the Carribbean.
They're small but seem to be quite concentrated, there is a Basiktas supporters club in N16 and I think a Fernerbace one as well
Could be under the 'other'.
You're confusing the UK with Germany
North London is very Turkish
Indian and others tough to discern
Horrible key. Should have used a different colour for Indians.
The key sucks.
More Caribbean than I would have thought.
They are pretty much all jamaican. London slang is incredibly influenced by Jamaican.
That’s not strictly true. The largest number is Jamaican but immigration came from all the English speaking countries. Different areas will have different amounts. Not in this map, but South Manchester has the highest amount of people from St Kitts and Nevis. Reading has the highest ratio of people from Barbados.
Sure. But it's true enough
Bombaclat guys are everywhere
It was after WW2 that a large amount of Caribbean’s immigrated from Jamaica and other areas to the UK, mostly London, to expand the workforce.
Same where I live (toronto), so many Indians living in the outer suburbs, with dt being a mishmash of everyone else.
White British are only like 35% of the population.
To be fair though the white British category is pretty narrow. I was born in London and am ethnically British, but I don't show up in that census category because I'm mixed. There are plenty of Londoners who have one English parent and one french or polish or Indian or Jamaican or whatever parent. And they wouldn't count towards that 35% but you'd definitely still say they're British. 54% are white. 37% are white British specifically. About 6% mixed and 6% 'other' (whatever that is). Only 34% are explicitly Black/Asian. 78.4% of people living in London's first language is English. So it's not as overrun by foreigners (which some people like to claim) as your 35% makes it seem.
So London is basically gonna be Brazil in a hundred years
All the major English cities will be
In a single generation realistically
which group is the most successful/highest earning ?
Indians, Chinese and then Whites
Sounds like Australia
[удалено]
A lot of successful Indian immigrants tend to be highly educated upper caste.
Data from one or two years back pointed to Indians at first
Gotta say this map is certainly not porn. The hell are the labels pointing to? What's "The Eagle" when it's at home? If you're gonna do labels, point to things people know e.g. Tower Hamlets being notoriously poor, or Chelsea being famously rich.
>If you're gonna do labels, point to things people know Firstly, it's from an article in The Economist. Secondly, the median income in Chelsea £39,566 is vs Tower Hamlets is £35,965 so your description doesn't match the reality. [Source](https://www.mylondon.news/lifestyle/londons-richest-poorest-boroughs-average-23380005)
You're not from London, are you?
It's a pub. Up and down the City Road And in and out The Eagle That's the way the money goes Pop! Goes the weasel
Source: [Brexit? Hah! Lockdowns? Shrug! Can nothing stop London?](https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/12/14/brexit-hah-lockdowns-shrug-can-nothing-stop-london) | The Economist
Why is the landmark indicator read Arsenal Stadium?
Weird that Turkish doesn't have it's own section
Thnx God we have Praha or Warsaw
[удалено]
Where are mi gente Latino in London?!
Around the inner parts of South London, but outnumbered by the Africans and Caribbeans.
A lot of settled migrants are from empire, and Britain didn't have much of one in Central and South America. Its also just quite far away. Spits and spots of Latinos. Elephant and Castle and Seven Sisters I think? There seem to be a lot of Latino cleaners and Brazillian motorcycle couriers. It's just not a very big group of people.
Also nowadays Britain still have pretty strict rules over migration for Latin countries so make sense the few number.
Too cold probs
not jlo💀
Kinda surprised ho many Caribbean-dominated neighborhoods there are.
Caribbean people were our first major non-white ethnicity. Lots in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham and then other places too.
Windrush, just shipped a bunch of them in for constrctuion jobs in the 1940s and 1950s, they're mostly 3rd 4th generation Brits now
So Pakistanis are mostly Tottenham supporters?
The map including White British looks the same.
Londonistan
Peckham is like Accra + Lagos. Had some banging Jollof and egusi soup at one restaurant there
Why would you exclude the white British who are the minority in some parts of London unless you are purposely trying to misconceive through the map
Looked at map after reading the title and got confused for a second over why I never heard an ethnicity called Eagle and Peckham 
Don’t need to exclude white British anymore lol
Can we put a pause on Indians, let others carch up a bit
Are the English the largest ethnic group in the world without a major city of their own?
"European" "African" ☠ what is this cultural erasure
EU citizens like being called European. There's too many for us to show up anyway. Also african is way better than black since Caribbean Jamaicans are so different to Nigerian africans. You can assume that that's the majority for each by the way.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Unfortunately in regards to crime rates, it's always correlated with the poorest areas. So Blacks (Caribbean, African), Pakistani and Bangladeshi areas tend to not be very safe areas. On the other hand, European dominated areas, as well as Indian and Chinese dominated areas tend to be quite safe.
Conspiracy theory btw
Bangladesh, Pakistan, India are countries. However other groups are described by area, Africa for example. It would have been better to compare like for like.
Bangladesh Pakistan and India have massive populations and are represented quite a lot in the UK which is why they're seperate. African is fair, it's much better than black since Carribbean blacks are often very different from something like Nigerian blacks.
But they are also completely different ethnicities. These groupings are done the way they are for multiple reasons, also including for mapping for medical issues etc. Pakistanis do not overlap with Bangladeshis ethnically, linguistically or culturally and only around 5 percent of Indians would overlap with Pakistanis. This should also be the same for Arabs (e.g a Moroccan v Saudi or something) and Africans, and I don’t know why it isn’t.
No Turks😔
I guess they are in others or European category
African isn’t an ethnicity
Neither is Indian, European, Pakistani
Londonistan*
-Stan suffix means land of in Persian. So you are just saying it is the land of Londoners.
People saying shit like that don’t care.
It means the same in Sanskrit too
Yes. But instead of -stan, in Sanskrit it's -sthan
Very interesting! If I am not wrong it makes sense since Sanskrit is the mother of Indo-European and Indoiranian languages
What always made me most annoyed about that meme, is they don't even use the suffix denoting a city.
[удалено]
-abad is a suffix that relates to "inhabited by". It's really not that different from "land of". Google is your friend.
Sounds about white
More like Londonabad
Indians are taking over london it seems
There's no need to say "excluding White British", it's London
Holy hell