Fair enough, but if thats your best shot at 'humour' maybe its best not to try, eh? It isn't funny to play at 'hating the French'.

The term 'half caste' is archaic, on par with 'coloured' people. The PeeCee term is 'mixed race' or 'mixed ethnicity' and while I despise the domination of PeeCeedom, since you're are attempting to flag up your 'anti-racist' credentials, then to use such language is something of an own goal, to say the least.

See Wiki:
"Half-caste is a term for a category of people of mixed race or ethnicity. It is derived from the term caste, which comes from the Latin castus, meaning pure, and the derivative Portuguese and Spanish casta, meaning race, and is now considered offensive.
Half-caste—along with terms such as caste, quarter-caste and others—were widely used by ethnographers in British colonies in attempts to classify natives."

I find your casual racism towards the French disturbing. The BBC too, seem to think that the French are fair game, while targeting most other Europeans Poles, Spanish or even Germans, would be seen as distasteful.

Also Louise you do UKIP no favours by using the out of date, and some would now say, 'offensive' term, 'half caste', rather confirming the Labour MPs view of rural people, as well as of UKIP as being a party of elderly and out of touch .

What you should be challenging is Julie Wards use of the term 'racist' to describe rural peoples' absolutely legitimate desire to keep their areas largely ethnic British, and not to be overrun with foreigners from Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
There is nothing intrinsically 'wrong' with people preferring to live among others of their own culture and ethnic group, and its understandable that those who feel this way have not flocked to the now largely foreign colonised cities of Britain, but prefer to remain in more rural areas. The real concern is that there is increasingly nowhere where living in an ethnically homogenous society is possible and rural people should not be forced to embrace multiculturalism, nor should you be insisting that they do.

False assumption that a growing population is putting little pressure on housing. Firstly you are assuming the figures are reasonably accurate, when in reality they are guesswork, and even the census, which in reality was voluntary, was essentially a very serious undercount. Immigrants have many reasons why they do not wish to reveal their presence not least when they are overcrowding rented homes unknown to the landlord. You are right that 'students' live densely and do not take up much room, but you don't allow for the fact that they are competing in a very crowded market, mostly in inner cities, especially in inner London, where everyone but the wealthy and some of the old is forced to live densely. They are often living in conditions of unacceptable overcrowding too, with its negative impact on neihbours and public health. You mention that they bring large families, which is sometimes true, but again, while they may be willing to tolerate high density overcrowded conditons in their early immigrant years, given time they start to demand a British quality of life, and want a more spacious home for their families. It is utter nonsense to imply immigrants will be prepared to settle for a lower quality of housing indefinitely.

It is also nonsense to suggest the death of the baby boomers will free up housing for the newcomers. The death of the baby boomers will transfer wealth to their children who will naturally want to escape the cramped conditons that overpopulation has imposed on them and use the extra wealth to move into a larger property.

There is a housing shortage and it is caused entirely by mass immigration, since it is the fast breeding habits of some earlier immigrants that is fueling the now higher birth rate!

Sinc eit will prevent dubious foreigners walking into london Estate agents and paying cash fora property it isnt entirley a bad thing.