My support for Keith has been 'on balance' rather than 'blanket', Jim. I am sure you are right that there are details of his arguments which will appeal to me less than others. But, on balance, as I say, I do not think he has been afforded a fair hearing, but has been ganged up on for reasons cogently expressed in Lively's recent valuable contribution ~~ "What was of concern to me was the apparent lack of interest in and failure to tackle these crimes by the authorities. And indeed whether or not, as has been suggested by a number of commentators, misguided PC sensibilities represented a hinderance to such efforts."

This is surely the point that has been at issue thruout ~~ that fear of accusations of racism has been the inhibiting factor to the whole matter's having been exposed & discussed as it should have been right from the off, as the police authorities I might also have cited in my last post have confirmed. Do you feel at all that your {& Don et al's} responses might have confirmed the validity of such apprehensions? And, if so, do you feel complacent about such an outcome?

Re our relationship: I have said before that I am used to disagreeing on public matters with all sorts of people, including my own family e.g., in the hopes that such disagreements should not adversely affect personal relationships. My feelings towards you remain, as ever, warm & respectful.

~Michael~