Guess the 'Top' English Baby Name for the 5th Year Running...

[Zippyjuan]

That's true! Here's another fun tidbit!



Just passing along facts. Fun facts!

Some of those are in people's apartments where a few friends may stop by. There are less than 50 you would recognize as a mosque. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...United_Kingdom

For comparison, there are over 50,000 churches. Just five percent of the UK is Muslim. Fun facts you can share with your friends.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7476526.html

British people hugely overestimate the number of Muslims in the UK, says new survey

Britons think country is more conservative, more miserable and more Muslim than it actually is

British people have a heavily skewed perspective on the reality of life in the UK, a new survey suggests – but are still more accurate in their evaluations than the populations of most countries.

The poll reveals Britons hugely overestimate the number of Muslims in the UK, think people are unhappier than they really are and believe homophobia is more widespread than it is.

IPSOS Mori’s ‘Perils of Perception’ survey found people’s answers were closer to the mark when they were asked about inequality in the UK and the size of the country’s population.

Despite the perception gap, the international study found British people were more accurate in their assessment of their country than people in 38 of the other 40 nations polled. Only the population of the Netherlands was more informed about national life. Citizens of South Korea, the Czech Republic and Malaysia were also particularly knowledgable.

In contrast, citizens of India and China were the least accurate in their guesses, while the US population was the fifth worst informed.

British people were especially far from the mark when asked what proportion of the UK population is Muslim. The real answer is just one in twenty – but Britons believe it to be almost one in six. That would mean there were almost 10 million Muslims in the UK when in reality there are 2.8 million.

Britons also think the UK’s Muslim population is growing much faster than it is. Those surveyed believed 22 per cent of the population will be Muslim by 2020 – suggesting they expect the number of Muslims in the UK to increase to 14 million in the next three years.

This was a common mistake across the world, with many countries significantly overestimating their Muslim population. French people think 31 per cent of their country is Muslim while Americans believe the figure for the US is 17 per cent. The real numbers are 7.5 per cent and 1 per cent respectively.

Figures for Europe:



http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...ion-in-europe/

[juleswin]

That's true! Here's another fun tidbit!



Just passing along facts. Fun facts!

In my boarding school in Nigeria, we had 6 mosques in the school but we only had 7 muslims. One mosque for every house in the school. It was a federal school so every house must have a mosque and a church/chapel. The point I am making is that number of mosques is not exactly the best way to gauge the increase population of muslims in England. I think that number reflects more of their spread in the country than actual numbers. Just so my many scared american friends understand, a mosque can be a one room where muslims come to pray. It is not always the big dome structure with a bell tower that announces prayer time.

How about you find the actual population increase of muslims since 1961. And I would bet you that it is far less than the %age increase in number of mosques in England.

[helmuth_hubener]

You two are falling right into my trap, I want you to know. I'm trying to decide whether to give you one more shocking but explain-awayable fact, or finally drop the bomb. Hmm, decisions, decisions....

OK, here's another figure: 1,000,000. One million.

From at least the mid-1980s onwards, organized 'grooming gangs' of predominately Muslim men in Britain (and the Netherlands) have systematically lured non-Muslim underage girls into lives of sexual slavery and prostitution. This danger lurks in places such as outside school gates, takeaway restaurants, shopping centres, bus stations and taxi ranks. Typically, an alluring Muslim youth flatters a schoolgirl with compliments, plies her with money and gifts, and positions himself as her 'boyfriend'. Her naive emotional attachment is then abused as he introduces her to drugs and alcohol, and persuades or coerces her into also having sex with his friends or relatives. From there a downward spiral of rape and prostitution is established, with the gang controlling the girl through various forms of physical and mental abuse, threats, intimidation, and brutality. If the victim is not already estranged, the gang will deliberately drive a wedge between the girl and her parents or carers by, for example, exploiting teenage rebellion and bandying around accusations of 'racism' against them. The girl's family and friends are often directly threatened with violent reprisals if they try to intervene or report the abuse.

The industrial scale of the Muslim grooming gangs' criminality and the significance of the disparity in ethnicity between the perpetrators and their victims are now proven beyond reasonable doubt. We are witnessing probably the biggest child-protection scandal in Britain in a century, covered-up by authorities, media and professionals obsessed with political correctness, multiculturalism and kowtowing to Islam. It is very likely that the grooming gangs have made hundreds of millions of pounds in profits through pimping. Despite convictions, there is evidence that their crimes are continuing on a large scale all over the country. We summarize below the main points about the grooming gang phenomenon, mostly extracted from Peter McLoughlin's book Easy Meat, which is thoroughly recommended. (This is the only comprehensive investigation available, and you may access his convictions data online.)

• Perpetrators are Muslim, not 'Asian': Muslims are approximately 5% of the UK population, but they are 90% of those convicted for grooming gang crimes. It is deeply offensive to Sikhs (especially as their girls were the first victims), Hindus, Buddhists, etc that the generic term 'Asian' is constantly being used to conceal appalling Muslim criminal behaviour. A Muslim man in the UK is 170 times more likely than a non-Muslim man to commit this crime. Most offenders are Pakistani, but Muslims from various other countries, for example, Iraqi Kurds, Somalis and Kosovans, have also been perpetrators. For a glimpse into the terrifying mentality of a grooming gang leader, read how he ranted during his trial.

• The kafir victims: The essential characteristic of a victim is that she is a non-Muslim or 'kafir', to use the derogatory term used by Muslims themselves. Young Sikh girls were apparently the earliest targets of the grooming gangs, and the Sikh community took various steps to warn its youngsters and provide the police with evidence of Muslim involvement. Frustrated at the lack of police action, there were violent confrontations between Sikhs and Muslims in Wolverhampton as far back as 1988. Since then, the vast majority of victims have been white girls. Extrapolating the conviction data for grooming offences provides an estimate of between 100,000 and 350,000 victims across the nation (that's at a given time, not total over multiple years). The MP for Rotherham called the situation a "national disaster" and suggested that as many as one million girls could have been abused. 14% or so of victims were 'in care' at the time.

Whatcha think, Juan-boy? Jules? Bring on the 'pooh-pooh's! Just the price we pay for... remind me what were the wise words of Mayor Sadiq? What are we paying for, again?

[Danke]

"None of us did that. White people trained those girls to be so much advanced in sex. They were coming without hesitation to Rochdale,Oldham, Bradford, Leeds and Nelson and wherever."

he might have a point.

[Swordsmyth]

Ah, the plaintive bleat of the xenophobe is heard in the land. But these people left the place where they were because they wanted to find something better. Is it possible that a person could migrate looking for something better and still be resistant to change? Of course it is. And if the people who know how to do it better refuse to teach them what is better, because they're afraid to associate with them or be seen with them, then assimilation is not possible.



And if our institutions are as corrupt as the ones they left behind, then guess what? We allowed our culture to be appropriated and made extinct, and we can't even blame them. Because it was our own elected psychos that did it, and our own complacency that permitted it.

The U.S. allowed in one hell of a lot of immigrants before and during Coolidge's presidency. They taught us how to make burritos, and we taught them how to breathe free and be entrepreneurial. If we can't teach those things any more, it isn't because of anything immigrants did. It's because we allowed our own to grind us under the boot heel so long we forgot how to do them ourselves.

OR because we let in too many too fast.

OR both, but the second just made things far worse.

[juleswin]

You two are falling right into my trap, I want you to know. I'm trying to decide whether to give you one more shocking but explain-awayable fact, or finally drop the bomb. Hmm, decisions, decisions....

OK, here's another figure: 1,000,000. One million.

From at least the mid-1980s onwards, organized 'grooming gangs' of predominately Muslim men in Britain (and the Netherlands) have systematically lured non-Muslim underage girls into lives of sexual slavery and prostitution. This danger lurks in places such as outside school gates, takeaway restaurants, shopping centres, bus stations and taxi ranks. Typically, an alluring Muslim youth flatters a schoolgirl with compliments, plies her with money and gifts, and positions himself as her 'boyfriend'. Her naive emotional attachment is then abused as he introduces her to drugs and alcohol, and persuades or coerces her into also having sex with his friends or relatives. From there a downward spiral of rape and prostitution is established, with the gang controlling the girl through various forms of physical and mental abuse, threats, intimidation, and brutality. If the victim is not already estranged, the gang will deliberately drive a wedge between the girl and her parents or carers by, for example, exploiting teenage rebellion and bandying around accusations of 'racism' against them. The girl's family and friends are often directly threatened with violent reprisals if they try to intervene or report the abuse.

The industrial scale of the Muslim grooming gangs' criminality and the significance of the disparity in ethnicity between the perpetrators and their victims are now proven beyond reasonable doubt. We are witnessing probably the biggest child-protection scandal in Britain in a century, covered-up by authorities, media and professionals obsessed with political correctness, multiculturalism and kowtowing to Islam. It is very likely that the grooming gangs have made hundreds of millions of pounds in profits through pimping. Despite convictions, there is evidence that their crimes are continuing on a large scale all over the country. We summarize below the main points about the grooming gang phenomenon, mostly extracted from Peter McLoughlin's book Easy Meat, which is thoroughly recommended. (This is the only comprehensive investigation available, and you may access his convictions data online.)

• Perpetrators are Muslim, not 'Asian': Muslims are approximately 5% of the UK population, but they are 90% of those convicted for grooming gang crimes. It is deeply offensive to Sikhs (especially as their girls were the first victims), Hindus, Buddhists, etc that the generic term 'Asian' is constantly being used to conceal appalling Muslim criminal behaviour. A Muslim man in the UK is 170 times more likely than a non-Muslim man to commit this crime. Most offenders are Pakistani, but Muslims from various other countries, for example, Iraqi Kurds, Somalis and Kosovans, have also been perpetrators. For a glimpse into the terrifying mentality of a grooming gang leader, read how he ranted during his trial.

• The kafir victims: The essential characteristic of a victim is that she is a non-Muslim or 'kafir', to use the derogatory term used by Muslims themselves. Young Sikh girls were apparently the earliest targets of the grooming gangs, and the Sikh community took various steps to warn its youngsters and provide the police with evidence of Muslim involvement. Frustrated at the lack of police action, there were violent confrontations between Sikhs and Muslims in Wolverhampton as far back as 1988. Since then, the vast majority of victims have been white girls. Extrapolating the conviction data for grooming offences provides an estimate of between 100,000 and 350,000 victims across the nation (that's at a given time, not total over multiple years). The MP for Rotherham called the situation a "national disaster" and suggested that as many as one million girls could have been abused. 14% or so of victims were 'in care' at the time.

Whatcha think, Juan-boy? Jules? Bring on the 'pooh-pooh's! Just the price we pay for... remind me what were the wise words of Mayor Sadiq? What are we paying for, again?

Yea, if you know me, you would know that I don't believe these sort of sensational stories. You might as well tell me that 6 million jews died in the WWII death camps without any proof and expect me to believe it. So no, I don't believe the 1 million number bandied about by white nationalist. Now had you used a more realistic but still heart breaking number like 30k girls then I can believe it without evidence.

But I will still keep my mind open if you can show me more evidence to back up your case. Regardless, this whole conversation started with me trying to argue that the growth of total number of mosques in a country doesn't necessarily translate to the growth in population of Muslims. You then countered this my completely moving the goal post to telling me that 1 million English girls were trafficked by Muslim men. How am I supposed to react to this totally left field point that you made? you made no attempt at all to debunk what I said, all you did was abandon your old argument and started a new one.

[helmuth_hubener]

I could make a post making you look really bad for showing insufficient sympathy to these girls, being awfully cold-hearted toward their situation. If you were Juan that had replied, I would.

But, I like you, you're on my side, so I won't.

Regardless, this whole conversation started with me trying to argue that the growth of total number of mosques in a country doesn't necessarily translate to the growth in population of Muslims. You then countered this my completely moving the goal post

I said exactly what I was going to do, and then I did it. There should be no confusion.

Here is the structure I created in the conversation. First, there's back-and-forth about the significance of top baby names. "Oh, doesn't mean anything." "It's the end of the world!" "Is not!" "Is too." So, next let's insert another alarming fact that will be interpreted the same way by the same groups. "This indicates nothing!" "This indicates increasing Mohammedization of England." OK, now let's insert another fact. There's an epidemic of Mohammedans kidnapping young girls into sex slavery. It is exclusively, 100% Mohammedans who are doing this (much as they are the only ones raping young boys in public pools, too). And again we play: "This means nothing, it's probably 'only'[??? seriously?] 30,000 young girls." "Well, 30,000 is a significant percentage of the total young girls in England! This is a horrific outrage, it is being covered up, and it is only happening because of all the Mohammedans who have been let in."

The next line in the play is "But the fact that they're kidnapping and prostituting tens of thousands of young girls 'doesn't necessarily translate to the growth in population of Mohammedans.' You're 'moving the goal posts' or somehow otherwise not playing fair: waaahhh!"

Indeed, it doesn't "translate to" or prove that England is on its way to becoming Mohammedan. These are all just little illustrative vignettes (that happen to be psychologically more powerful than raw, boring numbers and statistics).

The way to prove demographic assertions is through demographics.

And so here is where I drop the hammer. Demographic projections very clearly show that the Mohammedan population of England is increasing at a breakneck pace. These people are fertile! They are, Jules, what we call "rabbits." R-selected, see. They will reproduce in maximum number until, well, until nothing. They just reproduce maximally. Just like rabbits. Like rabbits, or like mushrooms, they are only constrained by external environmental factors. As long as the wolves are feeding them and building hospitals for them to nurse their owwies rather than killing them and eating them, their numbers will increase. Exponentially.

The average birth rate for the Mohammedan trash in France is 8.1 or so. Average! Average! Is this, like, sinking in?

• Mohammedans in UK top 3 million for first time -- Number in country doubles in a decade as immigration and birth rates soar
• In some parts of London, close to half of the population are now Mohammedans
• On current trends they will be the majority in those areas within a decade
• More are under ten years old than any other age group, indicating future generations
• England is home to more than three million Mohammedans for the first time ever, new figures show.
• The number in the country has doubled in just over a decade as a result of soaring immigration and high birth rates.
• In some parts of London, close to half the population are now Mohammedans, according to detailed analysis by the Office for National Statistics. On current trends they will be the majority in those areas within a few years.

Demographic projection is certainly never exact -- no one can predict the future for sure. But.... adult humans do not pop out of nowhere of a sudden. They give us years and years of advance warning that they're coming. Yes? When over 10% of the kids 0-10 in a country are Mohammedan peasant trash, that means -- get out your calculators! -- over 10% of the adults 20-30 are going to be Mohammedan peasant trash in 20 years. Check my work!

Actually, I'll check my own and tell you that in the case of England, it's going to be higher unless something changes. For not only are the trashlings going to grow up, massive, massive waves of trash are inundating the country, washing up on shore in greater and greater quantities every single day.

The Mohammedans have more than doubled from ~2% to 5% in less than 10 years. They will more than double again in ten years to 10%+, it's quite certain, unless something majorly changes. Then, after that, can they keep doubling every ten years? Well, that all depends on how evil and xenophobic the English people want to be, doesn't it? There is an unlimited supply of Pakistani trash that will happily shack up in London. It could double every one year if George Soros is able to increase his person-transport budget to accommodate the demand. Even if that flow of new enrichment is shut down, though, due to hatred and bigotry, the ones that are there are going to keep doing their rabbit thing, and that will put them in the majority in just a couple-few generations.

So, the big urban area, London, is clearly on it's way to becoming majority Mohammedan, and indeed is almost there. From there, it will become a more and more overwhelming majority. Within 20 years, London will never again have a non-Mohammedan mayor.

Eventually, the trash will branch out and establish trash heap outposts in other smaller urban areas. Actually, this already happened a decade ago. The heaps have been rapidly growing and will become majorities in most cities either within one generation (50 years) with immigration, or a few generations (150 years) without.

Demography is destiny. England is already lost. Unless something seriously, seriously changes

[juleswin]

I could make a post making you look really bad for showing insufficient sympathy to these girls, being awfully cold-hearted toward their situation. If you were Juan that had replied, I would.

But, I like you, you're on my side, so I won't.



I said exactly what I was going to do, and then I did it. There should be no confusion.

Here is the structure I created in the conversation. First, there's back-and-forth about the significance of top baby names. "Oh, doesn't mean anything." "It's the end of the world!" "Is not!" "Is too." So, next let's insert another alarming fact that will be interpreted the same way by the same groups. "This indicates nothing!" "This indicates increasing Mohammedization of England." OK, now let's insert another fact. There's an epidemic of Mohammedans kidnapping young girls into sex slavery. It is exclusively, 100% Mohammedans who are doing this (much as they are the only ones raping young boys in public pools, too). And again we play: "This means nothing, it's probably 'only'[??? seriously?] 30,000 young girls." "Well, 30,000 is a significant percentage of the total young girls in England! This is a horrific outrage, it is being covered up, and it is only happening because of all the Mohammedans who have been let in."

The next line in the play is "But the fact that they're kidnapping and prostituting tens of thousands of young girls 'doesn't necessarily translate to the growth in population of Mohammedans.' You're 'moving the goal posts' or somehow otherwise not playing fair: waaahhh!"

Indeed, it doesn't "translate to" or prove that England is on its way to becoming Mohammedan. These are all just little illustrative vignettes (that happen to be psychologically more powerful than raw, boring numbers and statistics).

The way to prove demographic assertions is through demographics.

And so here is where I drop the hammer. Demographic projections very clearly show that the Mohammedan population of England is increasing at a breakneck pace. These people are fertile! They are, Jules, what we call "rabbits." R-selected, see. They will reproduce in maximum number until, well, until nothing. They just reproduce maximally. Just like rabbits. Like rabbits, or like mushrooms, they are only constrained by external environmental factors. As long as the wolves are feeding them and building hospitals for them to nurse their owwies rather than killing them and eating them, their numbers will increase. Exponentially.

The average birth rate for the Mohammedan trash in France is 8.1 or so. Average! Average! Is this, like, sinking in?

• Mohammedans in UK top 3 million for first time -- Number in country doubles in a decade as immigration and birth rates soar
• In some parts of London, close to half of the population are now Mohammedans
• On current trends they will be the majority in those areas within a decade
• More are under ten years old than any other age group, indicating future generations
• England is home to more than three million Mohammedans for the first time ever, new figures show.
• The number in the country has doubled in just over a decade as a result of soaring immigration and high birth rates.
• In some parts of London, close to half the population are now Mohammedans, according to detailed analysis by the Office for National Statistics. On current trends they will be the majority in those areas within a few years.

Demographic projection is certainly never exact -- no one can predict the future for sure. But.... adult humans do not pop out of nowhere of a sudden. They give us years and years of advance warning that they're coming. Yes? When over 10% of the kids 0-10 in a country are Mohammedan peasant trash, that means -- get out your calculators! -- over 10% of the adults 20-30 are going to be Mohammedan peasant trash in 20 years. Check my work!

Actually, I'll check my own and tell you that in the case of England, it's going to be higher unless something changes. For not only are the trashlings going to grow up, massive, massive waves of trash are inundating the country, washing up on shore in greater and greater quantities every single day.

The Mohammedans have more than doubled from ~2% to 5% in less than 10 years. They will more than double again in ten years to 10%+, it's quite certain, unless something majorly changes. Then, after that, can they keep doubling every ten years? Well, that all depends on how evil and xenophobic the English people want to be, doesn't it? There is an unlimited supply of Pakistani trash that will happily shack up in London. It could double every one year if George Soros is able to increase his person-transport budget to accommodate the demand. Even if that flow of new enrichment is shut down, though, due to hatred and bigotry, the ones that are there are going to keep doing their rabbit thing, and that will put them in the majority in just a couple-few generations.

So, the big urban area, London, is clearly on it's way to becoming majority Mohammedan, and indeed is almost there. From there, it will become a more and more overwhelming majority. Within 20 years, London will never again have a non-Mohammedan mayor.

Eventually, the trash will branch out and establish trash heap outposts in other smaller urban areas. Actually, this already happened a decade ago. The heaps have been rapidly growing and will become majorities in most cities either within one generation (50 years) with immigration, or a few generations (150 years) without.

Demography is destiny. England is already lost. Unless something seriously, seriously changes

I have to say that even though I don't usually agree with you especially when it comes to race and culture, I think you are smart and a formidable debater that I get on my A game every time I planned on challenging you. But when you post numbers without any link for me to verify it, then I cannot debate you.

Also, if you want to bury me in this debate, show me raw numbers of demographic shift with Muslims in the UK. How many %age growth are we looking at? and that is best way you can convince me.

[helmuth_hubener]

I have to say that even though I don't usually agree with you especially when it comes to race and culture, I think you are smart and a formidable debater that I get on my A game every time I planned on challenging you.

Well thanks, that's really nice of you!

But when you post numbers without any link for me to verify it, then I cannot debate you.

I kind of know too much and am too lazy. But this should not be an insurpassable road block. Cannot debate me? Sure you can! You can just do the same thing I did (it's only fair) at some point in the misty distant past: research! Look things up! Almost all developed countries have great statistics and censii, for better or worse (definitely for worse). England is no exception. You're going to have to do the work yourself this time. You'll see the demographic picture I've put forward is substantially right (I don't rule out the possibility of some minor quibbles here and there).

Also, if you want to bury me in this debate, show me raw numbers of demographic shift with Muslims in the UK. How many %age growth are we looking at? and that is best way you can convince me.

Over 10% of the new models rolling off the assembly line are Mohammedans. In demographics, that's kind of (in broad strokes) the only number you need to know.

The little guys grow up to be big guys. This is the Facts of Life. So unless a plague hits that's focused on killing off Mohammedans at a disproportionate rate,.... as Miss America says: "I care a lot about children. Children are, like, our future!"

[juleswin]

Well thanks, that's really nice of you!

I kind of know too much and am too lazy. But this should not be an insurpassable road block. Cannot debate me? Sure you can! You can just do the same thing I did (it's only fair) at some point in the misty distant past: research! Look things up! Almost all developed countries have great statistics and censii, for better or worse (definitely for worse). England is no exception. You're going to have to do the work yourself this time. You'll see the demographic picture I've put forward is substantially right (I don't rule out the possibility of some minor quibbles here and there).

Over 10% of the new models rolling off the assembly line are Mohammedans. In demographics, that's kind of (in broad strokes) the only number you need to know.

The little guys grow up to be big guys. This is the Facts of Life. So unless a plague hits that's focused on killing off Mohammedans at a disproportionate rate,.... as Miss America says: "I care a lot about children. Children are, like, our future!"

We are more alike than you can imagine because I am also lazy when it comes to researching but I don't know much. If you notice, I generally come in after people have already made their points and then try to poke holes in their arguments. Anyway, who knows I am on a mini vacation from work so maybe I will try and put in some work soon

Why do you say 10% of the babies are Mohammeds? I did the tally myself for the top 100 names and only 4.4% are Muslims names. And you know what? this is also in line with the %age of Muslims in England. Isn't that weird? I think your side have greatly exaggerated the problem

[helmuth_hubener]

Why do you say 10% of the babies are Mohammeds?

Because that's the number I remember. It may be slightly more or less at this point -- almost certainly more, if anything, given the trend. But it is definitely around 10%.

Counting names is (obviously) a highly non-rigorous way of counting babies' religion and origin, given that

1. Most importantly: their religions and origins are already counted! It's not a Top Secret (yet) -- this isn't France! You don't have to try to reverse-engineer it in some haphazard way. Just read the official gov stats!
2. The naming market is incredibly fragmented in this current age. Time was, over half the male babies in England were named John. That time is not now. The top 100 names might only account for 40% of the babies. Or maybe 10%, I don't know! But it'll be low.
3. You are forgetting about one very important thing: IMMIGRATION! However many of the babies are there who have been born in an English hospital, there are approx. an equal quantity who were born elsewheres and lugged through the Chunnel. I mean, they're fertile, but they're not doubling once per decade solely from organic growth, come on! That would be approaching the limits of physical impossibility for a species with a 9 month gestation. Only Palestinians can pull off those kind of numbers.

[helmuth_hubener]

Oh, never mind, I see your confusion. "Mohammeds" =/= Mohammedans.

[Swordsmyth]

Muhammad was the most popular name for baby boys in English regions London, the West Midlands, and Yorkshire and the Humber in 2017, government statistics show, with spelling variations in the name taking it to first place across England and Wales.

Officially Oliver remains the most popular name for newborn boys across the country, with 6,259 born last year. However, it is pushed into second place by Muhammad when slight spelling variations including Mohammed and Mohammad are included, which achieve 6,510 newborns between them.

The one-letter differences in spelling of the name between the three top-100 variants stem from the transliteration of مُحمّد‎ from Arabic into the Latin alphabet, which can be imprecise.
Even alone, Muhammad was the 10th most popular name in England and Wales last year, having slipped two places since 2016 but rising 28 places since 2007.

Muhammad Is Top English Baby Name for Fifth Year Running
https://t.co/v0hDgJYAcP

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) September 20, 2017

Taking the three English translations of the same Arabic name as one has left Muhammad the most popular boy’s name in England and Wales every year since 2011, as previously reported by Breitbart London.

More at: https://www.breitbart.com/london/201...-year-running/

[Zippyjuan]

Most popular boy's names- London. https://www.today.com/parents/these-...w-york-t123128

London parents are more likely to use time-honored first names than parents in our other cities, but also more likely to explore obscure sources in search of distinctive choices. Some of the favorite names of Londoners are inspired by the heavens, for instance: Aurora, Astrid, Andromeda. Londoners also are partial to names associated with Ancient Greece and Rome: Cassius, Penelope, Cressida. And they draw from names rooted in other European cultures that urban parents outside Europe largely ignore, such as the German Ottilie and Otis, the Italian Cosmo, the French Elodie, and the Irish Rafferty and Orla.

London boys:

1. Atticus

2. Arthur

3. Rafferty

4. Theodore

5. Otis

[enhanced_deficit]

Won't be surprised if London's Islamic mayor could be preparing to run for British PM's office like the Mayor before him.

London mayor, a Muslim, joins Jewish Labour group in solidarity with community

Sadiq Khan laments ‘depressing collapse of trust between Labour and Jewish community,’ day after Corbyn is heard admitting evidence of Jew hatred in party may have been ignored

15 April 2019

• 188 shares

Newly elected London Mayor Sadiq Khan is greeted by well wishers outside City Hall in London, on his first day as mayor, May 9, 2016. (Jonathan Brady/PA via AP)

London mayor Sadiq Khan announced Monday that he has joined the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) as an affiliate member and encouraged his colleagues and “decent members” of the Labour party to do likewise.
In a statement, the London mayor, who is a Muslim, said the party “has been too slow at stamping out appalling anti-Semitism” and decried “a depressing collapse of trust between Labour and the Jewish community,” the Jewish Chronicle reported.

[Zippyjuan]

Won't be surprised

In other words, promoting a fake rumor.