No Keith, you're still talking rot.

The figures just don't add up for you. England has about 52m people on about 130,000km2. If you look at comparable populations then you get to places like Congo, Burma, South Africa. All have very low densities. As I said at the beginning of this argument the reason for that is these places are inhabitable by humans. You do get Italy, which has 500/km2 - a lot more than "England" but as anyone knows, this is not a country bulging at the seams with people hanging onto coastal clifftops under the groaning pressure of the bloated population. The same as this country is a largely empty, green and welcoming place, as is Holland (also a greater density than England.) So your point is what?

You get S. Korea at about 48.5m people and 100,000km2; quite a lot denser than England and quite harmonious.

So no, there is just no evidence that England is more densely populated than comparable land-masses or geo-political units or whatever. If you seek to compare England with deserts, jungles and rocky mountain ranges then I will call you very much more than just stupid.

We can agree on the current immigration rate issue. We can agree that there is presently no rate of net migration that is unusual, high, unprecedented. We can agree that net migration is reducing, dramatically and that migration is not a "problem". So WTF did you start all this shit for?

We can agree that you were wrong to say there is a contemporary "record" or "unprecedented" rate, we can agree that the Telegraph were talking bollocks when they said it was a contemporary issue in 2007.