"I did not need to quote that, because I quoted actual BPs saying the same thing."
You have worked bloody hard on this thread to prove a direct connection between Pakistani culture and paedophilia.
In order to do so, you found a quote from a British Home Secretary which appeared at first to back up your argument, except, of course, it said exactly the opposite
"Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders."
So you removed the awkward bit which undermined your objective.
Straw, (Mr Home Secretary) then went on to went on to suggest a reason why there is no direct connection between paedophelia and British Pakistani culture.
"These young men act like any other young men. They're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits. So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care, who they think are easy meat."
So once again you removed the contradictory bit, and in doing so, undermined both your 'evidence' and your credibility.
You then went on to refer to your doctored quote at least 43 times, now that the contradictory bits were no longer a problem to you.
As an excuse for doing what you did you have:
Persistantly denied that you did it: claimed that others do the same thing so it's ok for you to have done it: claimed that you removed the two passages because they took up too much space and you do not post superfluous information: said (as you do here) that there was no reason to leave it in because it has been said elsewhere......
We seem to have reached the stage where you have distanced yourself from former British Home Secretary, Jack Straw's evidence, which is now as welcome to you as a turd on a croquet lawn.
You even opened a new thread to make similar claims (only this time it was all Muslims, who you appeared to be trying to suggest were potential assassins).
Your evidence is deeply flawed, the general thrust of your argument is flawed, and you have presented a picture of yourself as being a somewhat inept racist whose technique (here and on other threads) is to cut-n-paste pieces of evidence, having first adapted them to suit your own prejudices, and repeat them ad nauseum, like Long John Silver's parrot.
Your reason for re-opening this thread - to plead that you are not a dishonest, manipulative racist, appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
Dispite your claims to the contrary, you have shown yourself a somewhat sad and distasteful individual with unpleasant and dangerous views - thank you for having made that so clear.
Jim Carroll