Actually Keith, legal, academic and political debate work this way.

A hypothesis is suggested, and if it is to be taken seriously, it needs to be supported by a stroong reliable premise, and with a sound argument corroborated by evidence.

As it stands, neither you nor anyone else has provided any of the above.

You have provided us with a flawed premise, which is based on generalizations about British Pakistani culture.

If your premise is flawed, then your argument has no basis.

Though in fact even this is slightly disingenuous.

Becaue the reality is that you didn't put up any theory, you came to defend someone elses theory.

You have tried this in various different ways, such as putting words in my mouth and making wild generalizations about British Pakistanis, to name but two.

On each of these attempts you have utterly failed to provide meaningful support for the theory you set out to defend.

But still you persist.

Why?

Why are you so desperate to defend the idea that British Pakistani culture, and the British Pakistani Connunity, and its leaders, are to be held responsible for the crimes of a criminal gang?

That is the question I would like answered.

I can thank you for creating the need for me to clearly define how it is possible to determine when an idea or theory is motivated by racism and when it isn't.

You can tell because the person who professes the racist idea persists in defending it even when it has been shown that their is neither evidential or rational argument to support it.

So Keith, while maybe it isn't my place to say that you or Ake are Racists, I can state with no shadow of a doubt, that the idea he professed, and that you have come to the defence of, is a racist one.

It is up to you whether or not you wish to be associated with it.