BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 07:58 AM

"Prejudice against Muslims has "passed the dinner-table test" and become socially acceptable in the UK, a senior Conservative is to say.

Baroness Warsi, co-chairman of the Tory Party, will warn against dividing Muslims into moderates and extremists."


Hmmmm . . . I wonder how that could possibly have happened. She states she is anti-bigotry - good.

But, perhaps she should look at the causes and address those too. It's back to that 'old' adage.

'Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist seems to be a Muslim.'

I don't recall this level of 'ill-will' existing before the 9/11 et al attacks.

Perhaps she should put her own house in order . . . first. Then perhaps we could make a judgement based on a peaceful community just getting on with life the best they can.

We'll see.

OK, 'do-gooders' . . . off you go.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 08:16 AM

What house should she be putting in order? Do you think she can just tell terrorists to stop bombing people and expect them to stop? She can, however, persuade our society to stop looking at Muslims as a homogenous group. Perhaps that is the house she should be putting in order, the one she actually lives in.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 08:24 AM

We have a goodly amount of it here in the US, as well... It's nothin' but the same old divide-an-conquer boogie-man that Boss Hog uses to keep the masses from zeroing in on the fact that that Boss Hog has his hand sin our pockets...

Normal..

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 08:32 AM

A few tears ago it was all Irish are terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 08:48 AM

A typo, maybe, Dave, but one that is most apt.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Silas
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 08:49 AM

Was thinking exactly the same thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: InOBU
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 08:51 AM

There was a great little sign down the street here in New York... remember "they hate us for our freedom?" Someone wrote, "they hate us because we do not understand why they hate us..."

sigh

Lorcan

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 08:53 AM

She's dead right (even though she's a bloody Tory - I can never work out why she is). If you can get enough anti-words into mainstream acceptance, you're there. Islamism. Islamo-fascism. Islamic terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism (try getting the Daily Mail et al. to say "Christian Fundamentalism" or "Catholic fundamentalism"). Or just stick "Islamic" in front of any negative word or phrase (or one you've worked on to make negative). Islamic suicide bomber. The Islamic group Hamas/Hezbollah. Easy innit. "Islamic" is not automatically a race-word, so you can get away with this. Do it enough and it sticks. Sticks and stones may break bones, but words make a nice springboard for bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 08:54 AM

That, unfortunately, is the truth, Lorcan...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 09:06 AM

I also agree ... unfortunately that is the truth Lorcan

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 09:37 AM

They believe that the biggest terrorist is George W Bush. Imagine that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 12:44 PM

My husband is a Muslim and black. We expected to find a little bit of racism about his colour, but on the contrary everyone is friendly and helpful to him, and we haven't detected any racist reaction at all. BUT, when one mentions that he's a Muslim, one can see that people are a bit taken aback. I've had to explain to him that it might be best not to say what his religion is, as after the bombings etc. people are wary. He feels this is odd, as he cannot relate to terrorism in a religious cause, and is personally a very gentle African Muslim. In the town not long ago, an Evangelising Christian, a young lad, accosted us with "So, do you believe in Jesus Christ?" I explained that my husband spoke little English but was in fact a Muslim. I wanted to see his reaction to this, and I was not disappointed. He was quite unpleasant and gave us to understand that as a Muslim he was damned, and only Jesus could save him. He also added that 'Muslims' (not sure which ones he was referring to) were not good people and encouraged terrorism, and that God would 'sort them out soon'. Fortunately, my husband didn't get most of this tirade, but I was appalled. I wondered then, is this how British people actually view all Muslims? And is it fair that my husband should conceal his beliefs to avoid difficulties with bigotry etc.? And should I have said something, would it have done any good? I'm a practising Christian, and our marriage is built on tolerance and acceptance of each other's religions.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 01:17 PM

I deleted the post from "A Mudcat Christian" and the responses to that post. Please remember that we allow users to use one identity, and only one identity.
When people post under false identities, please don't respond to them.
Thanks.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 01:36 PM

Would this be the same Baroness Warsi that harped on about section 28 being repealed by the Labour Party and about homosexuality being promoted in schools?

Putting a house in order

She talks of Islamophobia being the last accepted form of bigotry. I disagree on all counts with that. No bigotry should ever be acceptable and I believe that the mass amount of people in the UK are not Islamophobes. Most would take a stance against any bigoted comment about Islam as they would other bigotries.

Now she may have since put some of her house in order, as she has supported civil partnerships, but bigotry and its language is bigotry no matter how you dress it up.

I believe her to be right about what she says about some of the comments used against Muslims. But I do not believe that most find it acceptable. Nonetheless, if she is calling for people to rid themselves of bigotry then it has to be all bigotries and not just one kind. Her language about the promotion of homosexuality in schools was wrong, and she has since admitted that, but bigotry and misinformation still exists.

She has achieved a great deal as a Muslim woman. She is bound to have her own personal feelings and want to have open dialogue about them but it should never be singled out as different from other bigotries.

Bigotry is bigotry. The semantics and battle cries may differ but the effects are often the same to their victims and targets. I do not disagree with a great deal she says. She is right to highlight it. But she also needs to be aware of cutting other minorities some slack too unless they are a bigoted minority and that is something we all need to stand up against. It seems that here on Mudcat most find that kind of bigotry totally unacceptable.

Most Muslims I know do not have the victim type mentality. They are just wanting to go about their every day lives and be integrated while allowed to practice their faith. It's not too much to ask for is it?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 01:45 PM

Guest Eliza,

You said it . . . a very gentle African Muslim. He is most welcome - in fact, any gentle race, religion, colour or creed is welcome. Hand in hand with gentleness is often respect for one's self and for others. I've no argument at all with that.

What I am appalled by, is the (let's call it well-meaning) insidious way many people are being denied the opportunity (freedom) to discuss this topic openly for fear of being labelled a racist.

I am a white male, one of our best friends is a lesbian (openly) and another a black girl - who says 'I am black', she gets mightily irritated when 'do-gooders' try and 'invent' words to describe her racial characteristics avoiding the word 'black' - what's wrong with it? Or her? Nothing. They are gentle people too - and damn good friends too.

Whether it's just the Western media, or whether it's fact, just about all the terrorist attacks in the last few years are attributed to radical Muslims - I hate them fervently - but I also hate murderers, rapists, bent politicians, priests who prey on their flocks and other perpetrators of whatever colour, creed, religion. I particularly abhor radical Christians - they are no better. The way religion (all types) is manipulated by those with a vested interest is abhorrent and more often that not flies in the face to what the religion stands for - doesn't stop it happening though.

I dislike that fact that BP have had to pay billions to the the USA when Union Carbide paid peanuts to the survivors of Bhopal, where thousands were KILLED, and only four Indians were prosecuted - where's the vicarious liability there being discharged?

The baroness appears to be addressing just part of the problem in talking about the British public's bigotry as much later in the article, almost at the end, she actually manages to say the Muslim community also have to make it clear that the radicals are not observing the tenets of that religion and are not welcome.

But their silence on these issues is deafening.

By the way, it takes a lot of courage to post, baring your soul like that. You have my respect (for what it's worth - which is quite a lot, to me).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 02:44 PM

I believe that much more truth lies in this poem than in any holy book!

Abu Ben Adam

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 03:15 PM

Brian May,
I very much agree with you that many Muslims don't speak out against the terrorism perpetrated by the fundamentalists. It might be a good thing if they did, it would distance them from such attitudes and thereby reassure the non-Muslim population. And I agree with mauvepink, most Muslims (eg those at the mosque my husband attends) just want to be left in peace to follow their religion and lead their normal lives. I have found that the vast majority of British people are the same, they just want to live in peace. Brits really are a most tolerant set of folk. But our speaking out against fundamentalism DOES carry with it the risk of being labelled racist, Islamophobic etc. It's as if one is saying (to misquote Fawlty Towers) "Don't mention the 'M' word."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: DonMeixner
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 03:28 PM

I have tried to come up with ironic and snappy replies to a lot of these posts. The end result is I can't. I am wondering however why I shouldn't be afraid of Islam because I see a religion I don't understand who appears to be of itself racist, anti feminist, bigoted and openly violent towards people of its own faith. Then I realize the same things once applied to Christianity that apply to Islam now. And to a large sense still do.

I don't understand why Union Carbide got away with murder and BP didn't. In both cases it was murder and it isn't fair but it happens. Maybe India has a greater depth of greed and corruption at the local governmental level so Union Carbide was able to pad a few local pockets. Maybe it's because the third world doesn't view the lives of the lowest economic classes as anything but expendable and Union Carbide knows this and exploits it. Maybe BP couldn't get away with it in the Gulf of Mexico while it might have in the Gulf of Aden. But they certainly tried.

I do know that Union Carbide is an American Company but it is not America. Just like BP is or was a British Company but it is not Britain. Just like I know that Al Qaeda is an Islamic origination but it is not Islam.

I don't understand why I am hated as an American where ever I go in the world. I am not Union Carbide. I am the citizen who gives freely of what I have in aid to the fisherman who lost his livelihood to a tsunami. I am not US Steel. I am the citizen who gives freely of what I have in aid to the street vendor who lost his home in Haiti. I am not The US Military. I am the little kid who gave of what I had in aid in UNICEF boxes to a mother in a refuge camp in the Congo (1960). Americans give because we can. Not because the government tells us to.

I don't understand why if I give so openly to people in need where ever there is need I am hated where ever I go. And I don't understand why I should be. And as I read these postings in numerous threads I think maybe I have done enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: mauvepink
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 03:44 PM

... and don't mention P word before that (PAEDOPHILE)
nor the I word before that (IRISH)
nor the G word before that (GAY)
nor the N word before that (NIGGER)
nor the F word before that (FEMINIST)

has there been a time we never had a certain section of the population not being ostracised and treated with great discrimination and hate? All those subjects have at some time caused great injustices and wrongdoings to be imposed because of the actions of a few. All have only ever come to be better understood and, with the exception of paedophilia, tolerated and accepted by greater education and a yearning to unite people. I would argue that while paedophiles are indeed demonised and hated, the problem will not go away on it's own. Only with tolerence, discussion on an open forum, and a willingness to resolve issues, can all these things be overcome and resolved. No one said the discussions would be easy but they are needed.

Maybe the next great attack should be on the H word itself. Hate never does any good, no matter the subject

Extreme fundamentalism of any kind seems to be the common denominator here. Christians have not been innocent in being fundamentalist themselves and willing to kill in their God's name. It could be argued we all have had blood on our hands at some stage in our (countries, societies or religious) history. That does not mean Christianity is inherently bad.Speaking out against anything that is hateful or bad should never be seen as hateful, racist, anti-religious, etc.

Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the children of God... by whoever's God. What matters is that the basic message of love, understanding and tolerence is not compromised in our quest to bring peace to this planet. Singling out one section of society will not acheive unity ever.

I'll shush

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 03:44 PM

DonMeixner, I feel the problem you outline is centred on generalisation, ie labelling an entire race or nation as bad, out of ignorance and bigotry. You sound like a very good and caring person. Please don't stop doing good things. We are all like this, making small individual efforts to help and do good. I felt your posting expressed so well that no-one should lump together all the inhabitants of a land or followers of a religion and 'hate' them. I most sincerely thank you for what you've done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 03:48 PM

mauvepink, I agree with every word.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 03:59 PM

I very much agree with you that many Muslims don't speak out against the terrorism perpetrated by the fundamentalists.

Just as the majority of "christians"[sic] don't speak out against the terrorism perpetrated by the fundagelicals.

So what's new?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: DonMeixner
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 04:09 PM

"It could be argued we all have had blood on our hands at some stage in our (countries, societies or religious) history."

Not me or anyone in my family or my immediate group of friends. I didn't sale a slave boat. I didn't lock up jews. I didn't sell small pox laden blankets to the Souix. I have committed no crimes against society and I will not accept the blame for something other white men have done for any reason. I have caused no harm in the name of God, government, or philosophy.

I am responsible only for my actions. Taking the blame for others and what they have done in the past will only cheapen the worth of all the good that you may do in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 04:22 PM

What terrorism are the Christians perpetrating in the name of their religion Greg?

If you are hinting at the abuses by the Catholic Church, most on this forum blamed the hierarchy for allowing the abuse to happen then covering it up......The church was culpable in the eyese of this forum.
The fact that the abuse itself was homosexual assault in most cases, was conveniently forgotten.

By contrast the recent Muslim abuse of young white girls in the North of England, was viewed here as "nothing to do with the muslim religion, but simply criminal acts on young girls....the perpetrators could have been anybody"

Typical "liberal" double standards.....the agenda uber alles.

Catholic religion....conservative....destroy!
Islam...religious minority....close ranks!

If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 04:38 PM

The key to overcoming prejudice is in the education of the young! Abolish private schools, religious or not and remove all religious teaching. Educate all children together from the age of 5 upwards. They will form friendships that will last a lifetime regardless of religion or race. That is the only way to keep the older generations from poisoning young minds with the bigotry existing on all sides!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 04:49 PM

I fully agree Sandy.....but in the minds of many here you have just condemned yourself as being bigotted against minority culture.

Of course the banning of Christian teaching would be perfectly acceptable.

As WE are a "Christian" nation and deserve any bigotry which comes our way.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 06:41 PM

Aketwat

The Catholic establishment DID cover the abuse up.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 06:45 PM

But more seriously, this sort of debate reminds me of the apocryphal election speech of Barry Goldwater. Or a lawyer friend of mine who used to brag that he had been told that his idea of negotiation was to put a grenade on the table, pull the pin, and walk out.

What I would actually like to do would be to read the Koran (but it's a bit long) and compare what it says, and what Muslim scholars say it says, to the received wisdom of what Islam represents.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 07:11 PM

Muslim abuse of young white girls in the North of England

Ah, the Daily Mail on Mudcat. Can you demonstrate that the young men in question performed their actions in the name of Allah, were pointing to Mecca chanting prayers during the rapes, or were following instructions in the Q'ran? Don't be so bloody daft.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Acorn4
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 07:30 PM

Support Your Neighbourhood Fanatic.

We are the instruments of God, we are the holy ones,
Heading for our destiny with holy books and guns,
I am the right hand of Allah, God bless the USA,
Vengeance is mine, Lord, go on make my day!

We live life by the book, every chapter, every verse,
But just like pictures in the clouds, we turn blessings to a
curse,
Oh, let the prophet speak as the blood runs cold,
Divine wind a coming puts a chill into the soul.

Support your neighbourhood fanatic,
Let him fix you with his gaze
On the ghost train to salvation with a smile upon his face
He can't make it to the lifeboat no matter how he tries,
Let him drag us down to doomsday on his way to paradise.

With a licence to kill just like 007,
From Drumcree up to Shankhill Road we're on our way to
heaven,
Fitted out with blinkers to make us run straight and true,
It hurts a lot to laugh when you're one of the lean and hungry
crew.

Our will it is surrendered to that great ventriloquist in the sky.
We've got one eye on God and one on home made apple pie,
We feel the need to follow, it makes us feel kinda nice,
Joyriding to Valhalla on a nuclear device...

Support your neighbourhood fanatic...

Take us to your leader so we don't have to think,
Take us to the water, duck our heads and make us drink,
Give us all the answers so we don't have to cheat.
Let's all fall in line and goosestep down the street.

Support your neighbourhood fanatic,(x2)

We are the instruments of God, we are the holy ones,

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 07:33 PM

So. It was simply coincidence that 50 out of the 53 convicted were muslim.......you are the daftie if you believe that.

Muslims are taught by their clerics that Islam is the only true religious belief.....reports from muslim women in the media state that muslim men view white women as immoral,whores, etc.

They describe these men as "monsters"

"liberal" double standards at work again?

Richard I dont see the relevance of your post, or the typically limp joke on my posting name.....if that is your best shot, I think its time you retired to the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 07:48 PM

As a point of clarification I meant "to ban all religious teaching in the public schools that all children would attend." Many aspects of minority culture are rich and vibrant and should be taught from older to younger generations. However all children would grow up spending enough time together to form their own opinions of others as they matured.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 07:55 PM

I don't think we should be banning religious teaching. There is a massive difference between religious education (imperative) and religious instruction (child abuse). Anyone not clear could look up "education" in any decent dictionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 08:07 PM


Muslims are taught by their clerics that Islam is the only true religious belief.....reports from muslim women in the media state that muslim men view white women as immoral,whores, etc.

They describe these men as "monsters"

"liberal" double standards at work again?

This whole post presupposes that the men in question were behaving in a conscious manner according to some religious edict. Where is your evidence for this? In that part of the world (which just happens to be where I come from), young Asian men tend to stick together, not least because of the racist attitudes of the white communities around them (I note that you don't address that, rather like the Daily Mail doesn't address such inconveniences). This was a despicable instance of ganging-up and I'm not about to defend what happened for one second. But it did not happen in the name of any religion. We live a country containing people-traffickers, child molesters, internet groomers of young children, drug-pushers, paedophiles and pimps. Not to speak of bankers. You have chosen to single out one particular group in one particular deprived area because it happens to fit your agenda, instead of looking at social ills in the round. Shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 11 - 08:08 PM

I'll try to get my quotes right this time. Sorry.

Muslims are taught by their clerics that Islam is the only true religious belief.....reports from muslim women in the media state that muslim men view white women as immoral,whores, etc.

They describe these men as "monsters"

"liberal" double standards at work again?

This whole post presupposes that the men in question were behaving in a conscious manner according to some religious edict. Where is your evidence for this? In that part of the world (which just happens to be where I come from), young Asian men tend to stick together, not least because of the racist attitudes of the white communities around them (I note that you don't address that, rather like the Daily Mail doesn't address such inconveniences). This was a despicable instance of ganging-up and I'm not about to defend what happened for one second. But it did not happen in the name of any religion. We live a country containing people-traffickers, child molesters, internet groomers of young children, drug-pushers, paedophiles and pimps. Not to speak of bankers. You have chosen to single out one particular group in one particular deprived area because it happens to fit your agenda, instead of looking at social ills in the round. Shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 03:26 AM

There are issues apart from terrorism.
Christians more than any other faith group are being persecuted and killed for their religion, by muslims, in places like Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philipines.
There is also the treatment of individuals who choose to leave Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 03:31 AM

Some recent examples.
Date      Subject

20-01-2011 Eritrea: Scores of Christians arrested in major crackdown
18-01-2011 Somalia: Christian mother-of-four murdered by extremists
17-01-2011 Pakistan High Commissioner receives 50,000-name petition, pledges to protect Christians
14-01-2011 Nigeria: 13 killed in Christian village as religious tensions in Plateau soar
12-01-2011 Pakistan: Release to present petition as fears rise for Pakistani Christians
10-01-2011 50,000-name petition calls for protection of Pakistan Christians as blasphemy crisis escalates
06-01-2011 Iran: Christians hit by fresh wave of arrests
04-01-2011 Release condemns New Year bomb attacks on Christians in Iraq and Egypt
04-01-2011 Egypt and Iraq: Brutal bomb attacks usher in New Year
31-12-2010 New year fears for Christians in unstable North Korea - Release names 2011 persecution hotspots
30-12-2010 Nigeria - Release calls for restraint as Christmas violence death toll rises
30-12-2010 Sudan: Tensions rise in run-up to vote on independence for south
29-12-2010 Nigeria: Scores killed over Christmas in Plateau and Borno
29-12-2010 Nigeria Christmas killings - Islamists claim responsibility
24-12-2010 THANK YOU… for your support and prayers in 2010
23-12-2010 Iraq: Christmas services cancelled due to extremist threat
21-12-2010 Vietnam: Pastors arrested in crackdown on Christians
17-12-2010 Afghanistan: Jailed Christian denied access to lawyer
14-12-2010 Vietnam: Officials bulldoze Bible school and beat beleaguered pastor unconscious
10-12-2010 Iraq: Attacks on Christians continue as general violence subsides
03-12-2010 Egypt: Four Copts killed in clashes with security forces over church building
02-12-2010 Nigeria: Three Christians killed in night raid on Jos village
25-11-2010 Egypt: Christians pray for protection amid fear of extremist attacks
23-11-2010 Blasphemy woman's family in hiding ahead of possible presidential pardon
23-11-2010 Iraq: Pastor urges Christians to stand firm amid more bloodshed
17-11-2010 China: Guangdong house churches banned from meeting during games
10-11-2010 Israel: 'Arson' guts part of Jerusalem church and injures foreign visitors
09-11-2010 Eritrean Christians face Christmas clampdown
09-11-2010 First Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan
08-11-2010 Pakistan: First woman sentenced to death for blasphemy
05-11-2010 Nigeria: Women and children killed in brutal night raid on Plateau village
04-11-2010 Iraq: More than 40 Christian hostages killed in besieged Baghdad church
29-10-2010 Bhutan: Believer jailed for three years for screening Christian films

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 04:27 AM

There may be three separate things to consider: -

1. What the Koran (and other accepted Islamic works) say.
2. What some apparent Muslims say and do in the name of thier religion
3. What some allegedly (or nominally) Islamic states so say and do.

The point is familiar in that right wing idealogues used to produce a catalogue of wrongs they stated were committed by communist states - but failed to see that a state might call itself communist but not truly reflect communism.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 04:45 AM

1. The Koran is ambiguous. People choose how to interpret it.
2. Obviously individuals in any group behave badly.
3. Little of the persecution I referred to is state sponsored.
(but some is.)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 05:33 AM

Well, Keith, we could list the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a direct result of the invasion of the Christian US and UK. Or the tens of thousands of Muslims in the Occupied Territories who have died as the direct result of the Christian US (and EU) propping up a despicable Israeli regime. But let's just stop there while we contemplate the flaw in both our arguments, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 05:45 AM

Imagine if Muslims in Europe were being arrested for nothing more than peacefully practicing their religion. Imagine if Muslims in South America were being sentenced to death for "insulting" Jesus. Imagine if mosques were being bombed and burned by terrorists in a growing list of Christian-majority countries.

Now here's what you don't need to imagine because it is all too real: In recent months, Christian churches have been bombed in Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, and the Philippines. In Indonesia a mob of 1,000 Muslims burned down two Christian churches because, according to one commentator, local Islamic authorities determined there were "too many faithful and too many prayers."

In Iran, scores of Christians have been arrested. In Pakistan, a Christian woman received the death penalty for the "crime" of insulting Islam; the governor of Punjab promised to pardon her — and was then assassinated for the "crime" of blasphemy.


I could provide dozens more examples of the persecution and, in many cases, "cleansing" of Christians in what we have come to call the Muslim world. If the situation were reversed, if such a war were being waged against Muslims, it would be the top story in every newspaper, the most urgent item at the U.N., the highest priority of all do gooder human-rights groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 05:50 AM

Steve, that is a flaw in a different argument.
I was discussing people being persecuted and killed for their religious beliefs, in the name of another religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 05:51 AM

So you think the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the persecution of Palestinians in Gaza and the almost inevitable conflict to come with Iran (who have never invaded other countries, by the way) is absolutely nothing to do with the fact that those are Muslim countries? Off with the blinkers!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 06:09 AM

You think the Iraq war was fought for religious principle?
Now I KNOW you are daft.

There have been many reasons and excuses given for our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan......but I've truly never heard that one before.

Better tell Tony, he's lookin' for a new one today!!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 06:12 AM

The war in Afghanistan is absolutely to do with Islamist Jihadists being based there.
Iraq and Gaza we could debate elsewhere perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: theleveller
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 06:19 AM

My muslim friend and colleague and I were recently working for a travel client and I asked him if he'd ever been to the USA. He told me (quite seriously) that they wouldn't let him in as he comes from Dewsbury. A cousin of his was refused entry for just that reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 06:23 AM

MEDIA STATEMENT FROM BISHOP MICHAEL NAZIR-ALI

Statement from Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali regarding comments by Baroness Warsi about prejudice towards Muslims in the UK - 20.1.11

'Diversity cannot be mere diversity. It must be consistent with the best of British values, such as human dignity, freedom and equality, which derive from the Judaeo-Christian tradition of the Bible.

'I know from personal experience that extremism as a mind-set is spreading throughout the Muslim world. We do not want it to spread here through the teaching of hate and the radicalisation of the young.

'That is why we must distinguish between those Muslims who want to live peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbours and those who wish to introduce Shari'a into this country, restrict freedom of speech and confine women to their homes, not to speak of introducing draconian punishments such as death for blasphemy recently awarded to a poor Christian woman in Pakistan.

'If relations are to improve between Muslims and other people in the world, these are the kind of issues that must be tackled.'

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 06:38 AM

I `ad that Baroness Warsi in my cab the other day. Right funny name, that. She didn`t come from Tunbridge Wells, I`ll be bound.
I said, " Morning Duchess, you`ve put the cat among the pigeons. Some posters on that Mudcat are reporting you aint too `appy with what some people may say about muslims when they`re `aving their dinner."
She said, " That`s right, Jim. If I `ad my way anybody who said nasty things about muslims would be for the chop."
I said, "Blimey girl. That dodgy restaurant up Soho, "The Islamabad Palace". If the Old Bill `ad to deal with all them that said nasty things about the cook there, the courts would be chock-a-block!!"

Whaddam I Like??

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stu
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 06:42 AM

My post was deleted, but I was replying to the original poster.

So once again, Baroness Warsi is, or course, right.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 07:34 AM

This discussion will be of a purely academic nature soon! 50 years from now, the UK will be a Islamic democracy! All the numbers point that way.
It is amazing that people have fought wars to maintain their way of life, but now the UK - and all of Western Europe - will soon be run by a Muslim creed, but before that happens ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: theleveller
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 07:56 AM

"the best of British values, such as human dignity, freedom and equality, which derive from the Judaeo-Christian tradition of the Bible."

What unmitigated, ignorance, drivel and arrogance!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 08:12 AM

This is who you are calling ignorant.
Michael Nazir-Ali was born in Karachi, Pakistan to Christian parents, James and Patience Nazir-Ali.[2] His father converted from Islam.[3] He attended the Roman Catholic-run St Patrick's school in Karachi and began attending Roman Catholic services and identifying as Christian at the age of 15; he was formally received into the Church of Pakistan aged 20.[4]

Academic career
Nazir-Ali attended Saint Patrick's High School, Karachi, studied economics, Islamic history and sociology at the University of Karachi (BA 1970) and studied in preparation for ordination at Ridley Hall, Cambridge (1970). He undertook further postgraduate studies in theology at St Edmund Hall, Oxford (BLitt 1974, MLitt 1981), Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge (MLitt 1976) (where he joined the Cambridge University Liberal Club)[5] and the Australian College of Theology (ThD 1983). He has also studied at the Center for the Study of World Religions at Harvard Divinity School and in 2005 he was awarded the Lambeth DD. He has a number of other doctorates. His particular academic interests include comparative literature and comparative philosophy of religion. In addition to teaching appointments in colleges and universities in many parts of the world, he has been a tutor in the University of Cambridge, Senior Tutor of Karachi Theological College, and Visiting Professor of Theology and Religious Studies in the University of Greenwich.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: theleveller
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 08:16 AM

Then he should know better than to make such a totally stupid statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 08:17 AM

You can say that in your opinion he is wrong, and use your own deep knowledge and experience to show why.
You can not say he is ignorant of these issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: theleveller
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 08:45 AM

Nazir-Ali's scholarship and his ideas about morality are based on the belief in a supernatural entity. Take that away and it's built on sand. It also dismisses the ideas of non-Christian moral philosophers from Confucius to Dawking.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 08:52 AM

But you can dismiss the informed opinion of a world class authority on the history of Islam, world religions and the comparative study of the literature and philosophy of religions.
OK, but tell us why we should dismiss him and listen to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 09:38 AM

"I don't understand why Union Carbide got away with murder and BP didn't."


This is a powerful and excellent point.



"But, perhaps she should look at the causes and address those too. It's back to that 'old' adage.

'Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist seems to be a Muslim.'"

This isn't an adage.

It is a Roy Chubby Brown joke.


I'm Irish.

It used to be us who were "all terrorists"


"What I am appalled by, is the (let's call it well-meaning) insidious way many people are being denied the opportunity (freedom) to discuss this topic openly for fear of being labelled a racist."


Discussing it openly and intelligently is fine.


Repeating NF slogans like the one above will get you accused of characteristics you don't like.



Ake asks: "What terrorism are the Christians perpetrating in the name of their religion Greg?"


Look at the stats Ake for America, pipe bombs, nail bombs, some in mosques, shootings etc etc


Then he talks about "muslim abuse of young white girls"


Ake you've already been thoroughly spanked on that one in another thread - have you come here to tell the same lie again?


Then you say something about "agenda above all else" whilst banging on yet again on your "liberals drum"

"ake would you like sone tea?" - "typical 'liberal' promoting your agenda" - "no I asked you if you want tea" - " you're denying me my freedom of speech"

No wonder you spend your nights wandering round the red light district.



Keith,


"The war in Afghanistan is absolutely to do with Islamist Jihadists being based there."

Wrong.

The war, overt and covert, for control of central Asia, has been going on for over a hundred years.

The rise of Islamic extremism in Afghanistan is a SYMPTOM of a hundred years of foreign interference, not the reason for it.



Richie Black says:

"Imagine if Muslims in Europe were being arrested for nothing more than peacefully practicing their religion"

You mean like wearing a headscarf?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 09:45 AM

Lox, I do not agree with your explanation for the war in Afghanistan, but that discussion has been done to death here already.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 09:48 AM

Keith - who leveller is has no relevance.

What matters is if his argument is stronger or weaker than yours.

If his argument bears scrutiny then it is as valid as anyones argument regardless of the source or the person promoting it.

It is the relative strength and weaknesss of ideas that metters, not who promotes them.


Some people resist developing their ideas and ccling on to the same ideas their whole life and bolster tyem contiuously regardless of how thoroughly they have been discredited.



And lets be clear.


The idea that Britains values aand civilization are built on Christianity is utter Twaddle, unless you BELIEVE it to be true.

Surprise surprise, a Bishop believes that the source of values and civilization is the Bible.


His credentiials have no bearing as his comments are based on FAITH as leveller has said.


Your gleefully brandished 'trump card' is nothing but a squib.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 09:50 AM

Well Keith, the war for dominance in central Asia has been going on longer than political Islamism and that is a fact regardless of whether you agree or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 10:03 AM

I do not believe in your war for dominance Lox, but our opinions can both be dismissed.
What do we know?
If you backed up your opinion with expert testimony, it could not be so easily dismissed.
The Bishop might well be wrong, but his opinions can not be said to be based on ignorance, and it is arrogant to just dismiss them because of who he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 10:25 AM

Muslims are taught by their clerics that Islam is the only true religious belief.....

As are Catholics and "christians"[sic] and every other religious sect on the face of the earth and likely throughout the galaxy.

Aain, so what?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 01:21 PM

Correct greg, but the difference is in how non believers are tolerated.
It is much more prevalent among Muslims to believe they have a duty to punish a non believer who by stating his belief blasphemes against Mohammed (peace and blessings be upon Him), or a Muslim who converts, or just a non believer.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 01:49 PM

the difference is in how non believers are tolerated...

Ahem. You've obviously not spent a lot of time in the rural United States- particularly below the Mason-Dixon line-or in Israel, or in China or in India - or, apparently, in most of the inhabited world world.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 01:55 PM

Keith,

"The Bishop might well be wrong, but his opinions can not be said to be based on ignorance, and it is arrogant to just dismiss them because of who he is."

Well done Keith.

You've mastered the principle at the centre of my point.


Now lets see if you are able to apply it in every circumstance - i.e. whether you are able to apply it to leveller, whose opinions you have disregarded because of who is is, and indeed who he isn't.


The Bishop has one view, leveller has another.


You stated that the Bishops is more reliable because of who he is, not because you had evidence to support his view, nor even an argument of your own to defend it.

You are guilty of dismissing someones view because of who they are, not me.

I dismissed his view because I disagree with it wholeheartedly.

The idea that the Bible is the root of all civil and moral behaviour in Britain does not need me to do any research to be dismissed as palpable bollocks.

It has informed our moral code and played an important cultural role, but it is not the source.

In addition, these comments presuppose the notion that England is somehow more moral and civilized than countries that are non christian which is a horrendous caricature of the British colonial mindset that I grew up amongst in Hong Kong - a mindset which I might add was not exclusive to the British, but to some of their 'properly educated' colonial subjects.


And your double standards "don't dismiss people because of who they are" rhetoric, after having dismissed Leveller specifically on the grounds of who he is do not serve to bolster the argument you have "objectively" "reported" for us.

Because after all, not being the kind of person who ever advances an argument of your own, the views you post are chosen purely out of impartial interest.

Nothing left for you to hide behind I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 01:58 PM

"Ahem. You've obviously not spent a lot of time in the rural United States- particularly below the Mason-Dixon line-or in Israel, or in China or in India - or, apparently, in most of the inhabited world world."

Or indeed lived amongst Moslems, which I have for a year and a half. And I can inform you that it is much better to be a white person living in a Moslem community than a Moslem living in a white community.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 02:12 PM

i have read many accounts of muslims persecuting christians but thankfully many muslims live peacefully alongside christians and sometimes take a stand against their fellow religionists in defense of their christian neighbours.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 02:19 PM

Timothy McVeigh was not a Muslim. Neither was Loughner. Nor were the bomb planters in Spokane.

The White Ring zealots who want to bomb mosques are not Muslims either.

Nor are the American Nazi Party, the White Citizen's Council, and the rising groups
of incoherent militias forming in places like Idaho.

You wanna' talk terrorism? Look at the US foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Pakistan, Yemen, Indonesia and Oil-pipeline-astan.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 02:24 PM

That`s nice, Stringsinger, but saying someone else is doing wrong does not necessarily make Muslims right. They have as much racism in their religion as do Christians and Jews. Good Muslims, Christians and Jews (and many other religious people) don`t buy into the bullshit. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 05:45 PM

"but saying someone else is doing wrong does not necessarily make Muslims right"

He didn't "say they were right."

He responded to the comment that "all the terrorists are muslim"

He pointed out that it isn't true.


He didn't "say they were right."

He didn't say anything about 'them.'


"they" are people, each with his/her own point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 21 Jan 11 - 05:49 PM

I think Stringsinger is able to speak for himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 06:36 AM

Lox, if I said that I was sure Stephen Hawking was arrogantly and ignorantly wrong about the physics of black holes, I think that you would dismiss me until I put up some other expert opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 06:43 AM

You think the Iraq war was fought for religious principle?
Now I KNOW you are daft.

There have been many reasons and excuses given for our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan......but I've truly never heard that one before.

Better tell Tony, he's lookin' for a new one today!!

If you insult me I'll just call you Achy Tony, OK? So, Achy Tony (or, if you're a girl, Achy Toni), I said nothing about fighting for religious principle, did I? I asked whether you thought that these wars had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the countries in question were Muslim (or, to qualify myself slightly, predominantly Muslim). Spot the subtle difference between what I actually said and what you say I said. However, water off a duck's back, no doubt. You misinterpret, disagree with your misinterpretation of my words, and insult. A common enough procedure hereabouts. Quack.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 11:40 AM

But you didn't Keith, you told me that one very well educated Bishop argued that the basis of Morality and civilization in Britain is the Bible.

In the process he ignors the influence of the Romans and the Vikings, not to mention a whole myriad of other cultural ingredients that have informed British civilization and Moral values over the centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 12:18 PM

It is about time that we collectively extended to them the rights and respect other citizens enjoy. I am not suggesting special treatment for Muslims. They should be subject to the law of the land and the same democratic scrutiny as the rest of us.

Virulent anti-Semitism or homophobia being preached in British mosques should be exposed and rooted out. But by exactly the same token, Muslims should be given the same protection from insults or ignorant abuse as other minority groups.

They are our fellow citizens, we nevertheless misrepresent them and in certain cases we persecute them. Our attitude can lead only to estrangement and alienation. And therein lies the greatest danger.

Because if we continue to demonise Muslims, we make it all the easier for Al Qaeda to find recruits from within those communities. Islamophobia will backfire on us  -  and simply magnify the very threat it presumes to address.

Also don't forget that ex- Labour foreign secretary Jack Straw suggested women who wear veils can make community relations harder. And recall Polly Toynbee of the Guardian, who likes to be thought of as a model of political correctness and a champion of the oppressed. As long ago as 1997 she wrote: 'I am an Islamophobe, and proud of it.'

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 01:04 PM

In response to the above comment,I thought "guest" posts were to be removed from this thread ?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 01:28 PM

There have been many objections to the use of the term 'Islam phobic' and arguments that the term 'antiMuslim racism' would be more accurate were it not for the obvious objection that
Muslims are not a race and that therefore hostility towards them cannot, by definition, be a form of racism.

One such objection was voiced by Polly Toynbee

In 1997 the journalist Polly Toynbee in reaction to the Runnymede report published that year wrote

'I am an Islamophobe,… I am also a Christophobe.
If Christianity were not such a spent force in this country, if it were powerful and dominant as it once was, it would still be every bit as damaging as Islam is in those theocratic states in its thrall… If I lived in Israel, I'd feel the same way about Judaism…'

It is very easy and pretty despicable to take a few words out of any context and twist them to mean something very different
If anyone has any doubts about Polly Toynbee's secular humanist and anti racist stance they would be better informed reading the whole of one of her columns

"The BNP has been allowed to make the weather by abusing Islam as a proxy for race in their vile literature. They have done it so successfully that criticising Islam seems to ignore the attacks on Muslims that have increased by nearly 50%. Robert Kilroy-Silk's mindless anti-Arab tirade only made matters worse, as his attacks on Sharia law blended nastily into racist smears. He made it harder for others to challenge some of the savage passages in the Koran, which apologists are eager to smooth over.
"Islamophobia" blurs racism and anti-religion dangerously. It's interesting to see how Christian activists are now keen to make common cause with Muslims, drawing on their heat and passion. (The far left is doing the same, even less convincingly.) Far from a Clash of Civilisations between Islam and Christianity, in Britain they join together over religious broadcasting, schools and other rights. Officialdom is easily frightened of Islam, with good reason, treading carefully in a minefield. There is an essentially craven tendency to give in to the notion that religious belief deserves some special treatment by the state. Labour has opened 60 new faith state schools - including a Seventh Day Adventist one.
Nowhere more than in schools should that be resisted. It is the state's duty to give every child an open-minded, free-thinking education, opening windows away from the cultural narrowness of each child's family background. So where is the vigorous campaign against religious schools? Parents want good schools, and might prefer not to have to get on their knees in their local church to get into them. It is extraordinary that secular Britain is rushing to re-invent religion and give state aid to promote superstitions of every hue."

Excerpt from
The Guardian, Friday 11 June 2004

lox (out of town)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 04:30 PM

A quote from the BBC website:

"Afshan Azad, 21, who played Padma Patil, a classmate of the teenage wizard, in the blockbuster Hollywood films based on JK Rowling's children's books, feared for her life during the three-hour ordeal, Manchester Crown Court heard.
She was punched, dragged around by her hair and strangled by her brother Ashraf Azad, 28, who threatened to kill her after he caught her talking on the phone to her Hindu boyfriend on May 21 last year, the court was told.
During the row at the family home in Longsight, Manchester, which also involved her mother and father, she was branded a ''slag'' and a ''prostitute'' and told: ''Marry a Muslim or you die!''
The actress, who now lives in London, had pleaded for leniency from the court, begging the judge not to jail her older brother.
But Judge Roger Thomas QC sent him to prison for six months after he pleaded guilty to the assault."

It's not just we 'bigots and racists' that are 'bigots and racists' is it? This is what he did to a family member, what would he do to us . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 07:17 PM

So, Brian, let's hear you judging the whole of white Britain on the strength of what Fred West did. Perhaps you'd care now to make the case, with full evidence of course, that Ashraf Azad was typical of male Muslims and is supported in his actions by the Muslim community.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jan 11 - 08:00 PM

Good stuff, Lox, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 05:19 AM

Another large number of exclusively Pakistani muslims appeared in court yesterday charged on 61 counts of sexual abuse and grooming os young british girls aged between 13 and 15

The story, carried by the Times, states that these are first cases in the UK to brought under section 53 of the 2003 sexual offences act, which outlaws "trafficking" within the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 05:27 AM

Once again it is evident that the "liberals" here are agenda driven.

Where is all the horror at the crimes and sympathy for the victims that we saw in the "priest abuse" threads.

This thread has shown these people for the hypocrits they are.
This thread has been all about deflecting blame from the perpetrators and the ideology which motivates their actions.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 09:18 AM

"Where is all the horror at the crimes and sympathy for the victims that we saw in the "priest abuse" threads."


Ake shows no concern for the victims or the crime.


His concern is about "moslem attitudes to white women"


That and his beliefs concerning "liberals" which he refers to in every post he makes.

i.e. his anti "liberal" agenda.

In light of these facts, it is funny to read akes unwitting self parody.

"Once again it is evident that the "liberals" here are agenda driven."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 09:23 AM

I was written to recently by a friend who has an interest in this subject, and who had this to say.

"I'm amused by Steve Shaw's reaction to 'our' post :)

How about this one - worth risking the wrath of richie for?

This thread SHOULD be about disentangling the fact that race and religion are interwoven with each other as represented in the term Islamophobia.

When European men traffic women or groom vulnerable young girls on the street they are rarely referred to as 'Christians' whereas British born men of Pakistani origin are automatically referred to as 'Muslims' in the media and posts like akes
I can't recall the recent (or earlier) English paedophile ring preying on nursery children being defined by religion

In fact, many people in the UK do not follow the strictures of the religion they may have family allegiance to
Having a Muslim or Christian name does not necessarily mean practising that religion; clearly the young Asian men mentioned in connection with grooming pubescent (British) girls are not following the teachings of Islam

What disturbs me as well as Barbara Ellen in The Observer, Sunday 9 January 2011* is the fact that much of non-Asian Britain is apparently comfortable to view many British girls as drunken, worthless, sub-human trash.
If you want corroboration of this just wade through some of the threads on mudcat where some members have parroted the media role in portraying endless coverage of drunken "ladettes" out on the lash and being sick into gutters etc

While Mohammed Shafiq's comments about Asian men not viewing white women as equal or valuable as "their own daughters, their own sisters" this applies equally to anyone, male or female, British or otherwise who implies that these 'sluttish' young women may be contributing the risk of rape etc while placing their own family on higher moral ground
As Ellen notes in her article,
"Whenever sex workers are murdered, there is an effort to frame them as daughters, sisters and mothers, precisely because this is the easiest way to humanise them.""


Link

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 09:43 AM

The victims are not all sluts.
They were not all picked up on the streets late at night.
Those ones tended to be girls within the care system.
Girls from respectable families have given their stories of being enticed away from shopping malls in daylight.
Not all white either.
Just not muslim.
They are off limits to young muslim men.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 09:45 AM

Perhaps Lox, it is the influence of pre dark age Romans and Vikings to blame?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 10:05 AM

Keith, I thought you might have understood my earlier post, but it seems I overestimated your powers of interpretation.

To spell out the point: British civilization, culture and ethics are an amalgam of accumulated influences, including the bible, but are not informed solely by the bible.

In fact, even British interpretation of the bible was informed by the numerous cultural and ethical influences of the day.

These influences include indigenous pagan culture, the work of greek philosophers, cultural inheritance from Roman times, not to mention cuktural diffusion through trade and invasion, inwards and outwards, from the vikings, the normans, etc etc etc (lots of etceteras covering hundreds of years.

This is very easy to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 10:29 AM

In this interview, Anne Cryer explains the cultural background to these crimes against children.
She was a local Labour MP and victims' families had come to her for help.
http://wn.com/Ex_Keighley_MP_Ann_Cryer_Defends_Jack_Straw's_Comments_On_UK_Muslim_Child-Rape_Gangs

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 10:41 AM

A victim describes what happened to her, aged 12.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00x97hr#p00d7f3g

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 11:08 AM

Thanks Keith, that puts things into perspective and illustrates the "liberal" double standards which I referred to earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 02:02 PM

The victims are not all sluts.

And if they were - whatever a slut is supposed to be in people's eyes and by who's definitions - would that make it okay for them to be used as sex slaves? I think not

There are all sorts of double standards and one of them is looking down on women who may provide easy or paid sex for men. They are all someone's daughter...

I hope and believe that Kieth did not mean this to look how I have taken it but I do think a distinction is drawn that need not be. They were and are all women (and I dare say it may happen to young men too if the surface was scratched deep enough). Sorry if it seems I am touchy about this but the truth is I am. The thing they all had in common is that they are women... THAT is all that is important

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 02:08 PM

So to clarify the key points in kieths video.

1st. a spokesman for Moslem group "ramadhan" expresses concern aboout the behaviour of a groop of young pakistani men.

But Ake would like us to accept his view that the young Pakistani men represent "muslim attitudes" to white girls, and not the spokesman for "Ramadhan"

2nd. The ex Keighley MP says that she was aware of young Pakistani men grooming White girls for sex ...

... but she didn't go to the police ... she went to visit some old Pakistani men and asked them what they were going to do about it.

What did she expect them to do about it?

Why didn't she go to the police?

If I had been them I would have said - "why don't you go to the police?"

How is an old man who isn't in a paedophile gang responsible for the actions of a padophile gang?

She suggests that somehow the "community elders" whetever the fuck they are meant to be, are somehow responsible for these crimes.

Is the local vicar responsible when a white christian commits a crime?

What utter bollocks.

She suggests that "community leaders" could stop organized crime and organized criminals by talking to their parents.

What planet is she from?

Keith refers to her words as an "explanation of the cultural background".

She has done nothing that even vaguely approximates any such explanation. All she has done is blame "the moslem community" for the crimes of an organized crime gang.

No doubt Keith will hide behind his facade of impartial reporting of the views of others, and no doubt he will present himself as a mere collector of relevant information, but the fact remains that on this thread, he is, in his usual disingenuous way, sticking up for the bigotted narrow minded view.


To be 100% clear about Ake's position:

He did not start a thread about Child abuse by pakistani gangsters in the context of concern for children. He brought it up as a trump card in a discussion about race.

Ake couldn't give a fuck about those girls, his motivation is to regurgitatew his "liberal agenda" theory for the millionth time and to prove his point about Moslems thinking they're better than us which he has referred to in previous threads.


What a sad pair you make.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 03:48 PM

Mauvepink, I only used that word because Lox used it a few posts before.

"While Mohammed Shafiq's comments about Asian men not viewing white women as equal or valuable as "their own daughters, their own sisters" this applies equally to anyone, male or female, British or otherwise who implies that these 'sluttish' young women may be contributing the risk of rape"

We are anyway talking about children.

Lox, Cryer said that the families had failed to get the police to take action.
Listen again on the second link, after the victim and her parents' testimonies.
Do you think she is lying about all this.
This is a repectable politician, of the Left, with extensive knowledge and first hand experience, and you dismiss her because it conflicts with you ideology that some groups are above criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 04:58 PM

Interesting that anyome assumes sluts are female.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 05:20 PM

I must say first off that I was only skimming in the hope that, in the usual Mudcat manner, the same old arguments would put me to sleep. But I must say one was new to me...

And I can inform you that it is much better to be a white person living in a Moslem community than a Moslem living in a white community.

How long have being white and moslem been mutualy exclusive? Does this meen that all white people are christian while everyone else is moslem? Or are only black people moslem? What about the Chinese? What about hindus? What colour are they?

Damn. I'll never get to sleep now...

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 06:17 PM

Thank you for clearing that up Kieth and apologies. I had missed that.

And 999, fair point, but the dictionary makes no mention of male sluts in it's definition either and there was no assumption being made... I have only ever heard it used perjoratively against women

slut [slVt] noun
    1             a dirty slatternly woman

    2             an immoral woman

    3 (Archaic)             a female dog

            [C14: of unknown origin]
        *sluttish adjective
        *sluttishly adverb
        *sluttishness noun

Personally I have never heard slut used against a man except in some way some would call humour and it usually refers to their rakishness or cad like behaviour. I could well be wrong. The urban dictionary uses several definitions.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 06:21 PM

Keith,

1. Reread Mauvepinks post. She does not object to use of the word slut, but to your distinction that not all the girls are sluts.

My post refers to attitudes toward white girls of people who see them as sluts, and points out that this is a stereotype that is promoted by the mainstream and not just by Pakistanis.

Your post suggests that while some aren't sluts, some are.

Mauvepink diplomatically and correctly points out that characterizing ANY woman as a slut, whether you are Pakistani, white, or even KEITH then you are pandering to offensive ideas.



Blimey - you really aren't very good at paying attention are you.

Equally, The reasons I criticized your Keighley MP are listed in my post.

If you can refute them then do so.

If you can't then they stand unchallenged.

Putting words in my mouth does not constitute a refutation.

In terms of substance, the second link is exactly the same as the first. Anne cryer suggests that if "community leaders" (again - whoever the fuck they are supposed to be) tell the parents of pakistani boys to respect young white girls, that organized criminals will stop forcing them into prostitution.

There is nothing new in that report except that she says that IN HER OPINION, young asian boys see young white girls as sex objects.

Does Keith really believe that a few old men giving a sermon on this subject will stop organized criminals from operating?

Come on - answer that question - because THAT is her point.

Looks like Keith really is clutching at straws to support Akes anti Islamic agenda.

In addition, judging by his cooments on the subject of "sluts", he appears to believe that he is somehow qualified to classify women as either non-sluts or sluts.

This is pretty serious as it shows that, if there are attitudes towards the alleged promiscuity and sluttishness of white women in England, that he is as guilty of having them as any Pakistani Moslem.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 06:32 PM

In essence I was simply saying that whether a slut (whatever one perceives one to be) or not, no-one deserves to be made a sex slave by anyone. By inference it could be suggested that it would be okay if they were a slut. My tetchiness reacted to that disctinction possibly being made.

In the same way as in the past I have argued that female prostitutes should be afforded the same dignity as all other women when one gets murdered/assaulted. What job they do, what morals they have, what people perceive them as, does not mean we should look down on them in any way.

Semantics, maybe, but I felt the need to point it out.

Apologies for any sidetrack to the OP

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 06:38 PM

Dave,

To clarify the post that you refer to, I lived for a year and a half in a moslem area, and of those Moslems, most were Pakistani or Bangladeshi, but there were a few Somalis and some whose racial background I didn't know.

There was also one white Moslem woman.

With the exception of her, myself, my partner at the time and my daughter, I could go for weeks at a time without seeing any white folks in that area. Consequently I tended to view the Moslems in the area where I lived as collectively being non-white.

The point of my story is that I knew the names of every person on my street, and their kids, and they knew us and invited us into their homes and shops to receive their hospitality frequently.

Most of them did not venture from that part of town because they were afraid to, and many with good reason.

A shop keeper whose curtain shop was 4 doors down from my house used to bring his kids to work when they weren't at school because they received constant abuse at home. They had faeces put through their letterbox, the kids were frequently on the receiving end of racial abuse and they were often threatened with dangerous dogs.

There were numerous people who had good reason to hate and distrust white people, but they took me and my little one into their community with modest warmth.

If anyone else on here has lived among moslems for a comparable length of tme they have not said so.

Hence, I can tell you that it is better to be white in a moslem area that moslem in a white area.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 06:52 PM

In addition to my last post to dave,

The "community" I lived in did not have "leaders". It was like any other community in Britain ie full of people living their own lives.

The idea that moslems are one big cohesive community led by bearded patriarchs is a total fantasy.

Those religious leaders who posture as community leaders have about as much power to "lead" their communities as the archbishop of canterbury does to lead young white boys.

ie - everyone is very respectful at mosque/church, but afterwards they slope off for a quick fag behind the bike sheds.

And I can't believe I have to clarify this point, but these supposed community leaders don't have the ability to control gangsters and racketeers in their community by having a word with their parents.

To have this kind of sway they would need to be in the gang.

So unless we are suggesting that all moslems are in the same gang, then we have to accept that anne cryers attempts to make Imams and prominent pakistani business men responsible for the crimes of a predominantly pakistani gang are nothing short of slander.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 06:56 PM

.



    Who likes satire?

    Here's Adil Ray satirizing the whole "community leader" lie.

    Mr Khan ..... Community leader!




.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 01:39 AM

She was an MP for an area with a large Pakistani community, and her vote largely came from that community.
A respected and knowledgeable authority on this issue.
But her testimony undermines Lox's position, so she must be lying.
I choose to believe her over you Lox.
Others must choose for themselves.
Here is the experience of a senior police officer.
Another liar Lox?
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8782968.What_Straw_said_so_carefully_is_true/?action=complain&cid=9055350

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:17 AM

Keith.

You don't know what testimony is do you.

Anne cryer gave her OPINION about the cause and the solution to the problem of organized gangs in her cnstituency.

She provides no testimony or evidence to support her opinion.

So whether she's a Liar or not is irrelevant.

Her words shine no light on the issue except to show that she blames the moslem community as a whole, led by their "community leaders", for the crimes of an organized gang.

You have not even attempted to refute that point.


As for your police inspector,


Here's the crux of his testimony. (Quoted for Keiths benefit as his english comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired)

"What no-one is saying is that the Pakistani community is responsible for the majority of sex crimes: This is just an element of sex crimes in general.

This is a specific problem within a group of people in a minority community."

Again, none of this supports the view that 1. the moslem community is in any way responsible, or 2. that so called "community leaders" have any influence over the activities of organized criminals.


The main Mafia groups in New York ar Families of Italian origin.

Should we make the "italian community" responsible for their crimes?

Should we make "italian community leaders" responsible for not preventing these crimes?

Keith, with ever post you nail your colours more firmly to the mast.


After several attempts to pretend to engage in dabate with me you have failed to even attempt to address ANY of the points I have made, much less refute them in any way.

The best you can do is put words in my mouth and state that you will not be moved.


Keith lacks the most basic powers of reasoning, english comprehension and doesn't understand the difference between the words "testimony" and "opinion".

In addition, he seems determined to support the view that this issue is not about organized crime or child abuse, but is a cultural problem concerning "moslem attitudes".

Meanwhile Ake sits dribbling on the sidelines waving his flag and chanting "keef keef" as his hero digs himself into a more and more preposterous hole.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:21 AM

Keith

The other quote from the policemans testimony,

"In recent years we have seen it specifically with victims aged just 14, 15 or 16-years-old who are out on the streets at night and groomed by predatory gangs."

note Keith the word "gangs".

Not "moslem attitudes to white girls", just gangs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:37 AM

And what kind of gangs does he say they are?
Anne Cryer was talking about her own actual experience.
It was a testimony.

We were all outraged at the exposures about a small minority of priests sexually abusing children.
We would all be outraged if the perpetrators were a minority of Israelis, US soldiers, BNP activists...
For many, the outrage becomes a shrug when the perpetrators are a minority of Muslims and the victims white.
That is the double standard that Ake rightly points out.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:40 AM

By Mick Gradwell »


FORMER Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell, who was East Lancashire's top detective when he retired from the force last year, tells why he agrees with Jack Straw's controversial comments on sex grooming.

WHEN I came to Blackburn in the 1970s, one of my main issues was the gangs of Asian men outside the old nightclub on top of the shopping centre who were picking up drunk white girls, specifically to abuse them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:46 AM

No-one yet (as far as I have seen) has moved from "Oh, they were Muslims so there must be something wrong with Islam" to actually examining whether there is any reason for Islam to have caused or contributed to the causes of the crimes in question.

For that reason, it seems to me, the assertion I set out in quotes above, must be a matter of prejudice.

There is some tension in life experiences. We rightly criticise those who fail to learn from experience. But, in my lifetime, there is a group of people (not Muslims) with whom I have repeatedly had unhappy professional experiences. Should I expect a repetition of such experiences, or would that be prejudice?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:52 AM

Perhaps we'll hear an outcry against a minority of white parents/carers who allow their very underage daughters/charges to go out and get drunk, in rough parts of town at that. Or against a minority of older kids who got them the booze, or a minority of landlords who served them the drink. Or against the premature sexualisation of young girls that makes so much money for "the fashion industry" (I mean, how sick is that?). Ah, life's so simple, Keith. All you have to do is to point at the one target that best fits your personal prejudices and you're away...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 06:05 AM

Keith,

All you're doing is showing us again that the gangs in this case are predominantly made up of Pakistanis.

You have shownb nothing that supports the view that this is a problem of "Moslem attitudes", nor have you shown how talking to "community leaders" is going to stop these gangs.

It is organized crime.

The only actual testimony from Anne Cryer is that she was approached by concerned white parents and that instead of going to the police she went to talk to "community leaders".

What does that testimony tell us about Islamic attitudes to young white girls?

Fuck all thats what.

The rest is her personal assertion that the solution is for the "moslem community" and its "leaders" to take responsibility.

There is nothing anywhere that you have posted or that she has said that shows how the actions of these gangs is in any way the responsibility of these "community leaders".

Your wilful refusal to engage with any of my arguments, and your wilful determination to support the insinuation that it is a Moslem problem and not an organized crime problem (without actually admitting that thats what you think so you can pretend that you are impartial) supports the assertion by many on here that you hold bigotted views yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 06:07 AM

I agree that there is an issue about parenting and the security of children in care.
I hope that is not being offered as an excuse for the sexual abuse of children.
Anne Cryer gave a very plausible explanation of why these abusers are mostly from that community.
It is nothing to do with Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 06:17 AM

Thankyou Keith - I appreciate that.

I'm sorry for taking such an aggressive line, but it is an im[ortant issue.

Ake, I hope you are paying attention.

Ask a teenage boy of any religious or racial background which girls he fancies, or indeed who he thinks are sluts, and he will talk about the pretty girls who dress in cool clothes - whether those girls are Asian, Black, White or however else you may wish to categorize them.

Objectification of women, and mainstream classificaation of girls as "sluts" or "non sluts" on whetever arbitrary grounds, combined with the cold hearted cynicism of organized crime are the problem.

In this case, the gangs are comprisedd mainly, though not exclusively, by men of Pakistani origin.

They do not represent Islamic attitudes to women.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 07:12 AM

So, why not Irish gangs?
Chinese?
The muslim communty does not encourage its girls to have relationships.
Marriages are usually arranged, and usually with partners in Pakistan.
Their unmarried young men must abstain or find sex outside their own community, but not have lasting relationships.
Paedophilia is not endorsed, but the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a child bride.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 07:38 AM

Child marriage was accepted here until recently.
Adultery itself is unislamic.
But it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 08:09 AM

Bottling up sexual urges gives you people as fucked up as Sigmund Freud.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 11:15 AM

In all cultures there are bound to be good and bad in any community, but since the Blair/Bush attack on Iraq, 9/11 and the London bus bombing that followed it's as if they would rather we were still just a little bit jittery about the Muslim community. As far as Muslim men regarding white women as sluts there are quite a few white men who do too and who groom young girls into the sex industry. Young runaways are often very young girls befriended by 'a nice' white man and often accompanied by a woman to seem even more plausible to lure them in, offering food and shelter and before they know it they get hooked onto drugs and prostitution. It is a despicable thing to do no matter who does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 02:54 PM

This problem has nothing to do with "boy fancying girl"
It is the cold blooded trafficking of young girls, some of them merely children.

I have zero tolerance of child sexual abuse, the abuse of young women or the abuse of teenage boys......it is an evil practice full stop! Whether perpetrated by muslims or homosexual Catholic priests
I make no distinction....I would make sure the bastards were locked up for a very long time.

The current set of crimes appear to be perpetrated exclusively by muslims, against exclusively non muslim girls...mainly white girls.

Why do they not attack muslim girls, if it were solely to do with hormones they would not be so particular about their victims
I agree with Mrs Cryer our children especially young girls are looked upon as immoral sluts by a large number of muslim men....and as Straw says ....easy meat!

I for one resent all forms of racism....."liberals" prefer to pick and chose!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 03:54 PM

There are Chinese gnags trafficking people - I know about them too - I grew up in Hong Kong.

There are also Africans, and Russians Trafficking underage girls.

The Gangs that have recently been uncovered in England are Pakistani.

They are all equally evil.

As for Irish Gangs, I think the Priests who abused boys and girls in schools and in the laundry's and were protected by the organization that defended them were effectively organized criminals too.

In the Magdalene Laundry's the girls who were abused were also classified by those who abused them as "sluts" etc

It is not a Moslemn Problem.

Ake's argument is on life support.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:28 PM

This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.
There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:28 PM

I for one resent all forms of racism...

Surely what you mean is "Don't get me wrong, I'm not a racist, but..."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:35 PM

but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for.

No I won't.

That would be to say that British Pakistanis as a rule endorse organized crime.

That is an outrageous slander.

These criminals represent nothing more than the abhorrent nature of organized crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:38 PM

let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for.

Let us accept that hard work, supporting their children in school, leading peaceable and respectable lives and wanting a bit of security and prosperity for their families are attributes that the culture of the Pakistani "community" is largely responsible for (I taught in secondary schools in east London for 13 years so I do know a bit). That and having to put up with prejudice and racist attitudes. Still, go ahead and focus finely on just those things you've read about that feed your prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Smedley
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:59 PM

I note that Akenaton repeatedly refers to clerical child abuse as "homosexual", yet not once refers to this abuse of white girls by Asian men as "heterosexual".

How frightfully surprising.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 01:45 AM

Please try to debate without shouting "racist."
As long as I am making reasoned posts, based on evidence, just point out where I go wrong.
Obviously that will require a little more thought.
If I may make myself guilty of the same, is it not racist to put any one ethnic group on a pedestal and make them above criticism?

I hope you accept now that this is a real issue.
A plausible, non racist explanation has been given for it.
Biologically we are all the same.
A young man of any ethnicity will find it hard to live a saintly life under the cultural pressures found here.
Marriage partners are arranged at a young age, but relationships with girls are not allowed.
Under such a regime, some young men of any ethnic group would be tempted to go and get sex from where they can.
That seems to be what is happening here.
If I have got that wrong say so.
"Racist" is not the answer to everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 02:58 AM

I note, that the racism practiced against young UK girls is not condemned AS racism by our egalitarian "liberals"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 03:54 AM

"As long as I am making reasoned posts, based on evidence, just point out where I go wrong."

I already have.

I'll do it again.

You argue that the Moslem Pakistani community are responsible for the actions of organized criminals.

You present no evidence whatsoever to support this view.

The closest thin you have to support this view is a video of a politician expressing the same view.

NO evidence - just a slander on Pakistani Moslems.

You discriminate on Racial and religious grounds and state that that is the significant factor in these crimes being committed.

That by definition is a racist argument.


Ake, The attitudes to white girls are not just held by Pakistani men, but are widespread in the media.

YOU have expressed these ideas when you argued that women are sometimes responsible for their own rape.

They were asking for it ... hmmm?

Most of these Gangsters probably are racist, but their mot8ivation is Misogyny.

As is the case with the WHITE gangsters who have collaborated with them in EXACTLY the same way.

The common denominator is Misogyny, not racism. It is attitudes to WOMEN that are the problem.

If it were just race, there would be NO white people in these gangs, and there would be no white rapes of younfg girls elsewhere in the country.


Keith, you are backtracking.


You said it has nothing to do with Islam, but now you are saying that Islamic culture is responsible.


I retract my apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 04:46 AM

"You argue that the Moslem Pakistani community are responsible for the actions of organized criminals."

No, I do not.

"You discriminate on Racial and religious grounds and state that that is the significant factor in these crimes being committed."

No, no and no,

Now, please answer what I actually have said.
Sorry if that is a little harder to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:08 AM

Precisely what is "street grooming" and precisely what law does the grooming itself break?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:22 AM

Keith says.

"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

so I say,

"You argue that the Moslem Pakistani community are responsible for the actions of organized criminals."

And you say:

"No I do not"

What you fail to see is that by generalizing about Moslem Pakistani culture, you are generalizing about Moslem Pakistanis

You make assumptions, nit just about Moslem Pakistani culture, but also about its homogenaiety.

The fact is Keith, that perceptions of culture in the Pakistani "community" are as wide ranging as their opinions on politics and football.

This notion of a homogenous Pakistani culture that you speak of is a stereotype that is imposed and that you happily accept as being true without stopping to consider for one moment that human beings are a considerably more complex species than your quick and easy formulae allow.

Keith,

In addition, you appear to be trying to seperate this false notion of "pakistani culture", as defined by Jack Straw and Anne Cryer, from Pakistani people.

This is a false distinction - culture means nothing without people.

It is not an abstract that can be seperated from the people it represents.

Culture is a description of how people coexist in society.

Pakistani culture is not a culture of organized crime.

Pakistani "community leaders" have no sway over the activities of organized criminals.


Saying "I don't have a problem with Pakistanis, just their culture" is a totally disingenuous way of blaming the Pakistani community for the activities of organized criminals without having to take responsibility for doing so.

Sorry, but those arestill, by definition, racist ideas, as they are based on culrural/racial stereotypes.


But I can see you are determined to make it acceptable to blame all British Pakistanis for the actions of a Pakistanbi crime Gang.

Apology still retracted.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:29 AM

Street Grooming is a term used to describe the practice of driving around in your car picking up under age girls.

Grooming is what paedophiles do to lure their victims into vulnerable situations.

Street grooming is the same thing, only it happens on the street.


A huge problem with this idea of blaming British Pakistanis in general and or their culture, is that many young Asian men of all religions prefer to spend their disposable income on flashy cars than on alcohol and cigarettes.

For them, the way to picjk up a girl isn't to go to a nightclub and drink and dance and chat with her there, but to show off to her in your car.

This is a very western pastime, being an idiom taken from American movies etc - driving artound in your cool car with some cool tunes on the enormous stereo, with your shades on and the top down etc.

Again, it has no bearing on the crimes of human traffickers.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:35 AM

Another concerning aspect of Ake and Keiths position, is that it somehow suggests that there is a difference between the crimes of the Pakistani Gangsters and the crimes of the White gangsters who were involved.

In fact it is the same crime with the same motivation - which clarifies that this issue is not the responsibility of the Pakistani "community" or its "culture".

Now lets see how you continue to stick up for this ridiculous lie without widening that double standards crack.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 07:25 AM

"You discriminate on Racial and religious grounds and state that that is the significant factor in these crimes being committed."
No to both. I do not.

"What you fail to see is that by generalizing about Moslem Pakistani culture, you are generalizing about Moslem Pakistanis"

Is there no such thing as a community culture?
Is it racist to consider aspects of anyone's culture?

"The fact is Keith, that perceptions of culture in the Pakistani "community" are as wide ranging as their opinions on politics and football."
I agree, but there are such things as cultural differences.
People have spent their lives studying them.

"Pakistani culture is not a culture of organized crime."
That is so obviously true it was not worth posting!

"Saying "I don't have a problem with Pakistanis, just their culture" is a totally disingenuous way of blaming the Pakistani community for the activities of organized criminals without having to take responsibility for doing so."
There is no blame on the community.

"But I can see you are determined to make it acceptable to blame all British Pakistanis for the actions of a Pakistanbi crime Gang."

But I do not!

"Another concerning aspect of Ake and Keiths position, is that it somehow suggests that there is a difference between the crimes of the Pakistani Gangsters and the crimes of the White gangsters who were involved."

I say now there is no difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 07:36 AM

All this confusion arises because you keep trying to make assumptions about me instead of just debating.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 08:26 AM

"Is it racist to consider aspects of anyone's culture?"

No - but you haven't "considered it". You have generalized about it and seemingly defined it, and your definition of it has so far been informed by apparently received knowledge about how this culture expects British Pakistanis to behave, and by the words of Jack Straw and Anne Cryer.

There are some British Pakistani Moslems who live according to strict orthodox and conservative values, and who expect other British Pakistani Moslems to behave the same way.

Of those, in extreme cases there are even some who commit domestic crimes against women.

But they are not representative of British Pakistani culture.

There are also Gangs of paedophilesm some made up predominantly of British Pakistani heritage, though not wholly.

These gangs are driven by a motivation that I do not understand.

All members of these gangs are committing crimes against young girls, whether those gang members are white or British Pakistani.

The white gang members are not driven by the value systems of any kind of Pakistani culture, and neither are their British Pakistani friends within the gang.

One thing however that they do have in common, is that they live in a society where men and women believe that if a young girl dresses like a slut then she "was asking for it".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 08:28 AM

Let me try something else.
First cousin marriage is common within Pakistani culture.
Is it racist to say that?
Does it imply that all Pakistanis do it and no others do it?

An undesirable consequence is that they suffer a high level of inherited disabilities and a high infant mortality.
Is it racist to say that?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 08:28 AM

Well, I can see that driving a dayglo scoobie or a lowered lexus ought to be illegal but it isn't.

I can see that hoping some poontang gets into your big black car may unset some people - but it isn't illegal and I'm not sure that it ought to be.

Leering at or chatting up women or girls of 15,14,13,12 gets arguably increasingly antisocial as the age goes down - but that in itself is not illegal and I'm not sure that it ought to be.

Assault or sexual assault are illegal. So is what USAians are pleased to call "statutory rape".

Maybe inaccurate use of language is making communication harder.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 08:51 AM

Richard,

I disagre on one point.

Kerbcrawling consenting prostitutes is illegal - and should be.

Likewise, adults in cars effectively kerbcrawling underage girls should also be illegal.

I believe that there are other good reasons, including those to do with traffic safety, why kerbcrawling any woman should be illegal, and I believe that that is a realistic preventative solution to this problem.

I think it woud be a whole lot more effective than asking the local vicar to give a sermon to the faithful when they pop in to say their evening prayers.


Keith,

In my opinion It depends what you are saying and how you frame it.

If you are exploring the matter of first cousin marriage, then absolutely not.

If you say "most" oor "a minority" then you give an indication of the extent to which this may or may not happen.


But if you say "it is common ... therefore ..." to prove a generalized point about Pakistanis, without exploring the issue further or indeed showing any genuine interest in that subject, then you have jumped the gun, and your argument begins to look highly suspect.

But before we go too far from this tangent, that isn't the subject matter and as such is a red herring.

The assertion here is that Young Pakistani boys are conditioned to view White girls as legitimate targets for sexual assult by their community and their culture.

IN THE REAL WORLD

Yes there is evidence that the culture in which both Pakistani and White Gangsters exist MAY be an influence on their contempt for women, but that ACTUAL culture is more significantly informed by the tabloid press and by "banter" at football matches, and a general British culture (documented and discussed in another thread) of blaming the woman for sexual assault against her on the grounds that shes "asking for it"

I would bet any money that evry one of the gangsters, Pakistani or otherwise, used that kind of language to dehumanize their victims and legitimize their actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 08:51 AM

All I ever said about Pakistani culture is that girls tend not to be allowed to engage in courtship behaviour.
That is factually correct and not being racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 08:54 AM

And I would add that Ake agrees that women are sometimes to blame for their own rape.

I wonder if he thinks that some of these girls are to blame - or is that only when innocent honest to god white rapists do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 08:57 AM

There you go again.
Just debate Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 09:00 AM

Keith,

once again, it is in fact only a generalization.

I told you that I lived in an almost exclusively Moslem Area for a year and a half.

Moslem girls in Britain are like any other girls and they like to flirt and be naughty as much as moslem boys do, and not just the ones in miniskirts or skinny jeans, but the ones in Hijabs etc. I have seen plenty of it. Secret ciggies, swearing etc etc

Any cultural tendancies in Britain f that type tend to be less 13th century and more 1955

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 09:13 AM

I was referring to the British Pakistanis.
Their culture is quite distinct from Turkish Moslems, Tunisian Moslems, etc.
It is understood when discussing a culture that it is a generalisation.
It is still a valid concept.
British Pakistani culture generally does not encourage the kind of courtship behaviour prevalent in Western cultures.
Why can't I say that without being called a racist?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 09:30 AM

I don't know if it necessarily makes you a racist to repeat it, but the facts are that amongst British Pakistanis those norms are becoming less and less common.

In addition, if you read my post in which I state what I Believe to be useful criteria for judging, it depends on what you do next.

If you use a loose generalization as the basis for a collective character judgement, or as the basis to explain a spurious slleged cultural characteristic, then you make your line of argument suspicious.

If on the other hanbd, you have a genuine interest in the subject of British Pakistanit courtship habits, then that is a quite different thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 09:37 AM

Er,.. I do not use a loose generalization as the basis for a collective character judgement, but I also do not have a genuine interest in Pakistani courtship practice.

So that makes me a racist?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 09:42 AM

I would add that if, in the face of evidence and stronf reasoning, you remain wilfully loyal to stereotypes and collective character judgements, then that serves as strong evidence that you are motivated by a more irrational view.

Ake for example is deeply loyal to his view that Foreign Moslems in Britain think theyre "better than us".

He has repeated it a thousand times on this website.

And before you ask me to return to the topic, I would point out that your interjection is the drift in this case, as my purposae on this thread has been to confront the poisonous ideas that Ake has been putting forward - all hidden, like a crocodile behind a fluffy chick, behind his get outr clause "the liberal agenda".


I think you have tried to distance yourself from those ideas, but I find it hard to understand why you appear to be looking for some way in somewhere to undermine my attempts to discredit these ideas.

When one way fails, you have another go.


I don't know where your current line of enquiry is leading, but it appears to be leading to the very tenuous suggestion that Pakistani culture is to blame for these crimes, and that Pakistani Moslems are responsible.


I would be a lot more confident about your motivation if I saw you subject Ake to the same tye of cross examination as you are attempting to engage in with me.

You fail to be honest that he is waving his "keith" flag as he sees that his slander about British Moslems is vindicated by every point you make.

This is regardless of whether the points you make support his hypothesis or not. Merely the scent of a point being scored by you is enough for him to suggest that his view has been vindicated.

So if you are impartial, then go and examine some of the posts with which I disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 09:44 AM

Richard, In England and Wales, sections 14 and 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 make it an offence to arrange a meeting with a child, for oneself or someone else, with the intent of sexually abusing the child. The meeting itself is also criminalized.
This is referred to as grooming.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 09:50 AM

Lox.
I absolutely refute that I "remain wilfully loyal to stereotypes and collective character judgements"

I am arguing with you because you keep making these false character judgements against me.
The first time Ake calls me a racist I will argue it out with him, but he tends not to make those kind of attacks on opponents.
He sticks to debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 09:54 AM

In answer to your last post,

The idea that you have posted this particular generalization, and called it fact, and then claimed that it serves neither to support nor detract from any judgement of British Pakistani Men as culturally inclined to child abuse (THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD), and also that you have no interest in it in its own right either, is just plain bizarre.

This line of questioning is getting you nowhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 10:00 AM

"He sticks to debate."

Nonsense.

He ignores debate and generalizes that anyone who disagrees with his generalizations is a "liberal" with a "liberal agenda"

In fact, just about every post I have read from him in the last year or so is on the subject of his precious "liberal Agenda"

He has, to his credit, argued well that Britain in the US have no right to be In Pakistan killing civilians there, but this does not give him the right to generalize about Pakistanis in Britain, or Tinkers, or "liberals", or homosexuals, or whatever other demographic he wishes to pigeonhole and slander.


The reason you end up being lumped in with him is that you more often than not come running to his aid when he makes such generalizations.

I'd like to see you question his views once in a while rather than picking fights with his political opponents and then crying "not fair" when you are associated with his views.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 10:04 AM

Lox, this is what I said just yesterday.

Biologically we are all the same.
A young man of any ethnicity will find it hard to live a saintly life under the cultural pressures found here.
Marriage partners are arranged at a young age, but relationships with girls are not allowed.
Under such a regime, some young men of any ethnic group would be tempted to go and get sex from where they can.
That seems to be what is happening here.

Now, how was that racist?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 10:14 AM

Because you ignore all the other possible hypotheses that do not centre around culture.

And be clear, you have suggested a hypothesis which blames Pakistani culture for these crimes, without exploring other hypotheses.

If you are going to make such a claim then you need to provide a damn sound and well supported argument.

relying on generalizations and stereotypes, and drawing wildly unconnected conclusions about these criminals based on extremely narrowly selected criteria does not produce an accurate picture of what is happening, but merely a slightly more developed wild hypothesis.

Wilfully pushging a hypothesis that depends on blaming Pakistani culture, without exploring other options indicates a DESIRE to blame Pakistani culture to begin with.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 10:23 AM

"If you are going to make such a claim then you need to provide a damn sound and well supported argument."

No I do not.
I offer it as a plausible theory, and it is not my own.
It has been put forward by two Labour politicians, one very senior, both of whom have worked for years with the Pakistani communities they represent, and are supported and respected by those communities.

It works like this.
I put up my theory and you should try to find fault and/or an alternative.
Just calling me names is not the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 01:40 PM

S. 15 requires that a person has met the other person at least twice before. I have found no definition of "grooming" (headnotes do not count) and I have not found a provision criminalising those prior meetings. It is not my field and perhaps I have missed something but it looks to me that what is apparently referred to as "grooming" (and I'm still not quite clear what that is) is not of itself criminous.

Incidentally, it looks at first blush as if every person 10 years old or older who kisses a person under 13 commits an offence - surely I must have missed something there, mustn't I?

S9 also appears to contain a lacuna in that it requires "penetration" but some quite popular activities don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 01:56 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 03:03 PM

I admit to making a generalistion about B.P. culture.
I said that girls are generally discouraged from engaging in courtship.
Are you saying that is false?

You neglected to say how my premise was flawed.
If you did we could discuss it rationally.

I think it quite sensible to use the opinions of people who know more about this that either of us.

I have never made "wild generalisations about British Pakistanis."
You can give no example can you.
Because it is false.

I am not desperate to defend anything.
I thought I was just joining an interesting debate.
Why can we not just discuss without accusations?

I do not and have never "defended 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?"

Do you have to make stuff up about me because you have no answers?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 03:57 PM

Almost consecutives posts by Lox...


I can tell you that it is better to be white in a moslem area that moslem in a white area.

Who likes satire?


You can't make stuff like this up can you? Irony in action... :-)

Not having a go, Lox. You just appeal to my sense of the outrageous!!
Sterotyping moslems as non-white is exacly what the bigots want, I am afraid. Whether it is your experience or not is neither here nor there. Once you start to see people of a certain race being of a certain religion or vice-versca you may as well subscribe to the idea that all Irish are drunks and all the Jews are money-lenders!

Surely it would be better to say "be non-moslem in a moslem are that moslem in a non-moslem one"? Makes more semse to me anyroads. I agree with your argument in principle btw - just think you would be better served by not mixing race and colour with religion. May as well say it's better to be a catholic in a bird sanctuary than a bird in St Peters. Although...

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 04:03 PM

Keith I'm sorry you have been landed with this.

I do not respond to Lox, as I have found him to be abusive and I fear, slightly disturbed.

On several occasions he has attributed statements to me which were in fact posted by others....when this was pointed out to him, he had not the guts to apologise, or even express any regret.
Consequently I let him know that I had no interest in debating with a moral coward.....yet he follows me from thread to thread, like some demented stalker.

There is no doubt in my mind that the supression of free thought and free speech as practiced by people of Lox's ilk, represents an ideology even more insidious and dangerous, than that of all of the overtly racist maniacs put together.

Viva Freedom! Viva Liberty! Viva Justice!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 04:20 PM

Dave,

I refer you to my previous response to the same point.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 04:26 PM

Ake,

"On several occasions he has attributed statements to me which were in fact posted by others"

Bollocks, I know exactly where to find the posts I attribute to you and have provided links to them before.

"There is no doubt in my mind that the supression of free thought and free speech as practiced by people of Lox's ilk"

Exactly where has your freedom of thought or speech been supressed by me in any way?

Nowhere.

Excepot in one respect - each time I encounter you I expose the truth about your position as easily as a chils opens a birthday present.

And like the torn wrapping paper I rip your pathetic unsubstantiated and facile arguments to shreds.

If you post racist ideas on a public forum, then you can expect someone to confront you.

Sad case.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 04:29 PM

In addition, I would add that on each occasion that I have taken Ake to task, it has been in response to slander and abuse that he has heaped on other mudcat members, not least those who aren't there to defend themselves.

Ake's poisonous contribution on such threads serves as little more than verbal pollution

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 04:54 PM

Keith, you have argued that British Pakistani culture is responsible for young Pakistani boys seeking out white girls.

In the context of a discussion about crimes against white girls, that reads to me as an explanation for these crimes.

In addition, you have stated that you agree with Anne Cryer, who argued that if "community leaders" had stepped in and talked to parents about teaching their kids not to see white girls as sluts, then these crimes could have been prevented.

In other words, she makes "community leaders", and by proxy, "communities", responsible for the crimes committed by Pakistani Criminals.

Perhaps you have decided that you disagree with her on that point now.

In short, you have defended the idea that the British Pakistani Culture, Community and Community Leaders should take responsibility for these crimes.

That idea, regardless of who agrees with it or stands against it, is an idea that has as its premise the assumption that these crimes are representative of British-Pakistani attitudes of white girls as distinct from anyone elses.

This is an unsupportable accusation.

It is definig the causes of these crimes on racial/religious grounds.

It is a racist idea.

Reject it or support it as you will, but don't pretend it is a supportable hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 05:03 PM

Finally,

Dave,

In Leicester, just to clarify, there are several Catchment areas, or Ghettos, which can be characterized roughly by their religious/racial make up.

There are some mixed areas.

There are poor white areas ie most of the people who live there are white and poor.

There is a large Moslem area, where most people are moslem.

The common perceived identity of most people in white areas is that they are white.

The common perceived identity of people in Moslem areas is that they are Moslem.

In the white areas there is a small range of religious diversity. There are catholics, protestants, aetheists, Jews etc.

In the Moslem Area there is a small range of racial diversity - there are Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Somalis, Algerians etc

That is why it makes more sense to describe them as "white" or "Moslem" areas, as the common denominator in one srea is ethnicity, while in the other it is religion.

Thus, I have not mixed my metaphors, so much as referred to a demographic fact.

And it is true that when white people come into Moslem areas in Leicester, they do not get abused and threatened as much as Moslems do when they go into white areas.

I hope that clarifies the matter for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 05:50 PM

""But their silence on these issues is deafening.""

Neither accurate nor relevant Brian.

It isn't so much a case of ""their silence on these issues is deafening."", more a case of "Their words on the subject don't sell newspapers so they don't get printed".

There are many Muslims saying plenty, but what they say doesn't put any money in Rupert Murdoch's pocket.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 05:56 PM

I once asked a buddy from Alabama why there seemed to be so much racial hatred in that state. He replied, `Because the good guys don`t make the news.`

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:12 PM

""So. It was simply coincidence that 50 out of the 53 convicted were muslim.......you are the daftie if you believe that.""

So our resident sneer on legs can't get his head round the notion that the members of any gang will have similarity of race, simply because like cleaves to like, but you don't hear the same screeching rant from him when the police round up a bunch of white paedophiles, do you?

Ake's agenda is crystal clear, yet he accuses everybody else of double standards. His posting record shows a predilection for kicking the crap out of any minority which ruffles the calm surface of his closed mind.

Homosexuals, gypsies and travellers, Muslims, liberals (if only he understood what a liberal is) all come in for more than a fair share of his bile and malice.

He is the problem, not the solution, and as long as people like him continue to spread their poison these problems will persist.

A criminal is a criminal first, and a Christian, Muslim, or any other grouping second.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:23 PM

Just to nail the latest lie being promoted on this thread, that I "think that rape victims are asking for it"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Some rape victims should take blame
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 05:50 PM

Further up the thread Royston says.
"We're talking about whether or not women who have been raped, should carry some blame for what happened to them."

Well actually we are NOT discussing that at all.

We are discussing whether SOME rape victims should take partial responsibility for their safety.

All the stuff about dress is a bit of a red herring, as is all the verbiage about family friends, husbands ect.
These are not the cases we are discussing

"you think some women deserve to be raped"
How many times have I read that on this thread.
Nobody said anyone DESERVES to be raped
The crime is inexcusible....I said that in my first post.

What prompted me to post at all, was the case in the newspapers of a young lady who met a young man in a pub...both got sloshed, went back to his flat, got into bed and had sex.
The two parted company, and the next day, the young lady went to the police an complained of rape.

Now that girl of course did not deserve to be raped...if she was raped, but in my opinion acted in a very irresponsible manner.

This thread is a very good example of "liberalism" in action, isolate the two or three who deviate slightly from the prescribed form of words, then bully and misrepresent what they say until they fall silent and give way.   That is not being liberal, a true liberal will read a post and if he disagrees with part of it will try to come to an understanding with the other party, not simply abuse them, as has been done with Lizzie here.
I dont agree with all she says, but her opinions are not "vile" or "hateful", she just sees things slightly differently from the rest.

Jeddy....nice to see your name again my dear, I've missed your question, but I'll go back and try to find it...Ake


The difference is that in this current thread we are discussing the rape and trafficking of immature young girls....emotional infants.
No sense of responsibility can be laid at their feet.

Apologists!!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:24 PM

Native people (Indians, aka First Nations and other names) make up about 4% of Canada`s population. They also account for 24% of admissions to provincial and federal jails. Talk about prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:34 PM

I really do not have the energy to read al this. I just wondered if the wonderful Canadian program, The Little Mosque on the Prairie has been noted. I just saw it for the fisrt time this week and already I think it is amazing and delightful. Amazing that it seems to be produced by a bunch of people with unpronounceable names. Delightful because it depicts real people being real people - except the brown ones are more interesting and delightful than the white ones. And it is a highly rated, much-loved program. I understand there is some flak from south of the border.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:36 PM

There is much from that thread that you have conveniently omitted Ake,

But rather than dig all that up, I shall point and laugh at this little gem.


"The difference is that in this current thread we are discussing the rape and trafficking of immature young girls....emotional infants."


Not funny in itself, but when you consider the hours that Ake has spent arguing that Paedophilia is a curiously Gay Problem ...

... I guess its a Gay problem and a Moslem Problem now ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 06:56 PM

As soon as I see the words "Muslims are......" or "Christians are......." (substitute the group of your choice), I know that the odds are a thousand to one on the rest of the sentence being a fairly even mixture of lies, half truths, and malicious prejudice.

When said sentence is posted by one or two specific members of this forum, those odds jump to a million to one.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 07:11 PM

Lox, over and over I quote you verbatim, and refute what you said.
In return, over and over, you make up things that I never have said, and never would say, and reply to that!

Now I challenge you.
Quote something of mine verbatim, and then say what is wrong with it.

I do not think that you can Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 07:21 PM

Sigh.....Another lie to refute.

I have never at any time said or believed that homosexuals had any particular propensity to paedophilia

The priests who abused, were attracted to adolescent boys.
Paedophiles target pre-pubescent children.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 07:33 PM

"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

Theres the culture being expected to take responsibility.

"Under such a regime, some young men of any ethnic group would be tempted to go and get sex from where they can."

There's the parents/community being held responsible,

and in response to my criticism of Anne cryers Opinion, and coice of solution, you stated that you "believe her" over me.

You accept her opinion as informed testimony.

In the process you endorse her assertion that the solution is not a practical policing matter, but a cultural matter that could have been and could still be solved by "community leaders" talking to the "community"

That Keith is her opinion.

Sticking up for it makes you sympathetic to it.

Do you agree with her?


I would clarify that to blame a culture without blaming the people is non sensical as the culture only exists because the people live by it.

To understand the culture you must observe the people.

To blame the culture is to blame the people.

This is simple Logic.


My arguments do very robustly stand the test of scrutiny Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 08:19 PM

Ake says:

"Sigh.....Another lie to refute.

I have never at any time said or believed that homosexuals had any particular propensity to paedophilia"


Oh really?


So its refuting lies you want is it?


Well how do you like these apples ...



*snip*

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay' activists jailed for paedophilia,
From: akenaton - PM
Date: 07 Nov 09 - 03:39 AM


"My contention is that men who indulge in the homosexual practice, have a propensity towards paedophelia, the figures available
and my observations throughout my life....lead me to that contention"

*snip*



Indeed Ake - Lie refuted.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Jan 11 - 08:44 PM

So where were we,

Oh yes ...

... I tell the truth and Ake tells lies.


I think that just about finishes Ake off in this debate at least.


... and Keith needs to clarify whether he agrees with Anne Cryer that "community leaders" could have prevented these crimes form occurring ...

... and he need to clarify how he can hold the culture of a community responsible without holding the community - and its leaders responsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jan 11 - 03:02 AM

I do believe that some homosexuals have a propensity towards post pubescent boys.

But not to paedophilia.

The remark quoted has been carelessly written. I apologise and withdraw it.

The quotation above of course, has absolutely no bearing on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jan 11 - 03:19 AM

Extraordinary Lox!
Those two innocuous, anodyne statements are the strongest things you can put up to justify your almost hysterical ranting against me!

I did say,"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

But, the only aspect of the culture I ever referred to was the absence of courtship activities, and you chose not to deny the truth of that yesterday.
There is nothing wrong with saying that.

I also said, "Under such a regime, some young men of any ethnic group would be tempted to go and get sex from where they can."

That is a perfectly reasonable and rational link to suggest.
What is wrong with you?

Anne Cryer.
She speaks from knowledge and experience.
Anyone would need a reason to believe you over her.
She has spent years working with the Pakistani community she represents, and is respected and supported by them.
They voted for her.
She also had first hand experience with victims and their families. (Likewise Jack Straw, and the police officers.)

Community leaders?
Of course she raised the issue with Pakistani councillors and other representatives, and with influential people like local Immams.
She would have a working relationship with them and would be failing in her responsibilities not to raise such an issue with them.

What is wrong with you that you can not be rational about all this?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 26 Jan 11 - 03:49 AM

"That is a perfectly reasonable and rational link to suggest."

Just to recap,

Keith thinks that an 'alleged' "absence" of courtship in "pakistani culture" is a reasonable explanation for the existence of an orhanizde crime gang who abduct and abuse underage girls.

Well of course ... now I can see that it is me who is ranting hysterically.

Your Hypothesis Keith is so shot to pieces that that is all that is left of it.


"Of course she raised the issue with Pakistani councillors and other representatives, and with influential people like local Immams."

You are dodging the point keith - Anne Cryer argues that if "community leaders" had talked to the "community" about respecting white teenage girls (because obviously without this 'talking to', the community would never have thought of it themselves), then that could have prevented organized gangs from abducting teenagers, trafficking them and subjecting them to rape and other abuse.


Maybe some kind of research in this field would be useful, but until we actually kknow anything about the causes and effects of sexual taboo Islam style, then we are none of us qualified to assert anything that might suggest an entire culture is at risk of turning to rape and abduction unless its "leaders" step in to make sure they don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 26 Jan 11 - 03:54 AM

Ake,

Thank you for that retraction.

When I first ebngaged with you on here I argued that you were not thinkng your ideas through properly.

When you stuck up relentlessly for points that were similarly carelesssly written, I drew the conclusion that you intended to deliberately mislead.

My hand is always ready to extend to the person who is able to acknowledge that their remarks may have been careless.

For me it is not about the person, but the idea.

And regardless of who the person is, I will confront poisonous ideas head on.

I suspect that it took some guts to write your apology above, and I respect that.

I don't know if this is grounds to be optimistic or not that you will take more care and be more considerate in future, but who knows eh?

I'm out of this thread as there is nothing left for me to add.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jan 11 - 05:31 AM

""The remark quoted has been carelessly written. I apologise and withdraw it.

The quotation above of course, has absolutely no bearing on this thread.""

Its bearing on this thread is both obvious and valid, inasmuch as it pertains to the agenda of the poster and lays bare his prejudice in relation to the subject of various minorities.

In the thread in which it originally appeared, it was too vigorously proposed and defended to have been a carelessly written error.

The two conclusions from this reflect upon both the integrity and the veracity of the poster, and supply a very clear indication of the credibility or otherwise of his utterances.

Denials of prejudice, bigotry, and malicious intent somehow fail to ring true.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jan 11 - 05:44 AM

"Keith thinks that an 'alleged' "absence" of courtship in "pakistani culture" is a reasonable explanation for the existence of an orhanizde crime gang who abduct and abuse underage girls."

No.
Keith thinks that , "Under such a regime, some young men of any ethnic group would be tempted to go and get sex from where they can."

A reasonable and rational suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 26 Jan 11 - 02:02 PM

"Keith thinks that , "Under such a regime, some young men of any ethnic group would be tempted to go and get sex from where they can.""

Of course Keith, and you mean to insinuate no connection whatsoever between that point and THE SUBJECT BEING DISCUSSED ie abduction and rape.

Its just a coincidence that you mentioned it in the middle of that discussion, and it wasn't intended to cast any light on the subject matter.


I'm not sure whether to advise you to stop taking happy pills or to start ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jan 11 - 02:13 PM

Query: Who gives a flying fu$k WHAT Keith thinks? He's shown himself over and over again to be a bigoted racist jackass with a pretty tenuous grip on reality.

Move on. This pig ain't ever gonna learn to sing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Jan 11 - 02:25 PM

Oh, a most valuable post, Greg F ~~ so long on cogent argument & short on abusive name-calling ···
NOT
,,,

"I'm out of this thread as there is nothing left for me to add." ~ Lox at 0354

That resolve didn't last long, did it, Smoked·Salmon mate?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jan 11 - 03:13 PM

Lox, I would like to answer and discuss your last post.
I am hesitating because all you have done so far is to try to use my posts against me.
You are determined to confirm your belief that I am a racist bigot.

It is no good asking you to change your opinion of me, but can you keep it to yourself and just debate as if I actually was a decent human being?
Or shall we just leave it here?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 02:19 AM

So, you can not discuss this without propping yourself up with the crutch of abuse.
You certainly fell flat when you tried to challenge things I had actually said, rather than things I never had, or would, say.

A pity.
You accepted that " the gangs in this case are predominantly made up of Pakistanis."
I think we were coming close to a non racist explanation of that fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 04:37 AM

Keith,

I was away from my computer.

I clarified a few times that the issue is with the idea, not the man who propagates it.

The idea that Pakistani culture is to blame for these Organized Gangs activities any more or less than it is responsible for the crimes of their White Gang-mates, is both racist and unsupported.

You have provided NO argument to support this idea, nor any evidence.

Instead you have provided a list of disingenuous mealy mouthed apologies for Jack Straw and Anne Cryers assertion that the Pakistani community and their elders are responsible for the crimes committed and that they could have prevented them from happening.


You are wasting my time.

Good bye.


MtheGM as usual dribbles into his bib with glee after regurgitating the same dull quip as usual, I just hope that with this level of over excitement his colostomy bag is properly attached.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 05:57 AM

My hypothesis is that the absence of girls available for sexual relationships in the BP culture may be linked to their young men being over represented in this type of crime.

That does not make me racist or culturalist.
I will concede at once that they are under represented in every other type of non terrorist crime.

You say I have offered no evidence (except the plausibility of the idea), but you have offered no evidence against either.

You have also not offered any explanation of your own for the fact that "the gangs in this case are predominantly made up of Pakistanis"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 10:27 AM

But you don't have time to explain why.
Not helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 02:02 PM

Yes, but then there's no NEED for me to "explain why" - your postings speak for themselves, and there's no way I could improve on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 02:22 PM

You will have to help me Greg.
As you say, I am an idiot.
I simply do not understand how any rational person could read my last post to Lox as racist.
Indeed , not being a racist or a bigot, I believe I have never made such a post.

I can tell that my presence here annoys you Greg.
Here's the deal.
You find a post of mine with a racist or bigoted remark, and I will leave Mudcat for good.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 02:38 PM

Keith has never, is not nor will ever be a racist. Those of you who intend to find proof of racism in any post he`s ever made on Mudcat will be one long time looking. Many of you are doing nothing BUT exhibiting rude, crude and foolish behaviour--and, imo, it`s time ya stopped.

Keith, there`s no point peeing into the wind, my friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 05:17 PM

STOP PRESS

In todays METRO it was reported that another two men were convicted for trafficking in sex slaves.

It seems they were the leaders of an organized Gang.


Then in the Evening Standard, there was a story about a young Malaysian woman who was drugged and gang raped by fellow students on an English language course.

The men who did it were thankfully caught and convicted.


The Gangters who trafficked sex slaves were Romanian.

No Mention of the race or ethnicity of the rest of the Gang, but I'm guessing probably Romanian.

The Men who Gang raped the Malaysian Woman were Russian.


I wonder if it was Islamic culture that drove them to their crimes?


Or is it only that when British Pakistanis do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 07:21 PM

"You say I have offered no evidence (except the plausibility of the idea), but you have offered no evidence against either."

This is illogical bullshit.

If you make a claim, you need to back it up with evidence, or at the very least a clear line of reasoning that stands the test of scrutiny.

You have provided neither, and until you do, your hypothesis stands as nothing more than meaningless fiction.

It is up to you to support your own hypothesis.

Evidence makes a hypothesis plausible.

Suggesting that the onus is on me to find evidence to disprove it is ridiculous and just another in your list of ridiculous logical fallacies.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 09:55 PM

I don't think the sexual frustation of adolescents is to blame. Many of the men these girls were procured for were mature and middle aged men.

This is just plain old non denominational bloody evil.

There are always perversions of religion - the priests in Frank McCourts childhood who slept with his mother for a few slices of bread.

There are always people who use their religion as an excuse to be an utter bastard. The headmasters who physically abused Roald Dahl. If they didn't have that as an excuse, they'd have something else.

Everybody knows when they're committing a monstrous evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 02:03 AM

Lox,
The idea is not mine remember.
It is the belief of two intelligent people who have spent years working with and for their large local BP communities.

I though it reasonable, and posted it here when the subject came up.
What is so wrong with that Lox?

Your position is that you are sure it is wrong, but you don't know why, and you have no alternative ideas.

OK Lox, but that is a non contribution.
What is the point of posting it?
So many times!
With such anger.
It is not rational behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 04:12 AM

Funny, either the post eater is at it again or I have been modded.

---

Musta been the post eater. You haven't been modded. -Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 05:13 AM

"The idea is not mine remember."

"I though it reasonable, and posted it here when the subject came up."

You're attempting that same old weak tired tactic Keith of posting an opinion, no other opinion, and then defending it to the hilt, but simultaneously abdicating any responsibility for it.

Sorry mate, that lie doesn't even pretend to be believable.

You think Straw and Cryers comments are reasonable - i.e. you see no reason to disagree.

ie, you think they are legitimate supportable views.

That IS your opinion.


"you have no alternative ideas."

The subject of the thread isn't "paedophile Gangs"

The subject is "Muslim Prejudice".

Is prejudice against Moslems an issue? Is it understandable? Why? What reasons? ...

... well one is that "they" traffick young white girls ...

(this is presumably after they've come over here and taken our jobs)

Well actually, this has nothing to do with Islam, or Pakistani culture, and there is no evidence or reliable argument that supports that accusation.

Wait - hang on - Keith thinks there is ... and he will fight to the bitter end to try to prove it, even when the very weak evidence he has provided is shown not to give any weight to the views he thinks are "reasonable".


"Your position is that you are sure it is wrong, but you don't know why,"

Yes I know exactly why - and I have stated so - Because there is no evidence or solid reasoning to support it.

Ths view is as evidentially supported and logically defendable as the notion that Nick Griffin is your secret gay lover.

Mayube its the culture of secret gay relationships with BNP leaders that is the reason for you posting all this crap.

If I apply your rules, then you should now provide evdence to show that this is not true ...


Straw and Cryer have made a value judgement about Islamic/Pakistani culture, this needs to be supported evidentially or logically or it stands as Slander.


Slander against a race/culture is called PREJUDICE Keith.


So whats my point?

My point is that this "example" of why it might understandable that there is prejudice against Moslems is flawed as it is not the product of Pakistani culture, but is a cross cultural problem.

In other words, This excuse to be suspicious of Moslems doesn't wash and those who use it need to find another sound reason or admit that they are merely trying to bolster up a racist idea.

In addition, I note that your attempts to support these views, or to respond to my actual points, or the evidence I have provided which shows that this is not an exclusively Pakistani issue, have been completely ignored and that all you have left is this whiney complaint that you are being picked on.

Well tough mate - I don't give a shit.

If you stick up for posonous ideas, then you put yourself in the firing line of criticism of poisonous ideas.


You've been so well and truly pasted now Keith that it would be cruel to carry this on any further.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 05:24 AM

Short version of previous post.

Keith post weak excuse for prejudice against Moslems and defend them, Keith get held accountable and get blown out of water.

You savvy?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 05:36 AM

Threads drift Lox.
You posted about this issue two days before I did.

The idea came from two respected, knowledgeable people with impeccable Left Wing credentials, and it sounded reasonable to me.
It was relevant to the discussion so I posted about it.

Why the completely irrational rage Lox?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 05:42 AM

You're still moaning mate.

There's no irrational rage, there is well supported and thoroughly argued rebuttal of these outrageous slanders.

Pay attention - its all in my last two posts.

"You posted about this issue two days before I did."

Yes I was already discrediting this line of slander before you came along to stick up for it.

"it sounded reasonable to me."

i.e you thought it was legitimate and supportable.

Should I deduce from your use of the past tense that you don't anymore?

If so then I think that there is nothing left to discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 06:18 AM

No one should dismiss informed opinion.
Cryer and Straw are well informed.
I still think the suggestion is a reasonable one.
Why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 06:24 AM

""Why the completely irrational rage Lox?""

Why the irrational insistence upon repeating the same mantra multiple times in the belief that this will make it true eventually?

Lox is right Keith, and what you see as irrational rage appears to me to be the natural frustration engendered by trying to insert a simple idea into a closed mind.

You see the problem as a Muslim one, and trawl through the internet until you find two "politically correct" commentators who agree.

Seizing on this "evidence", you declare your case proven.

Not so mate. All you have proved is that there are two others who share your opinion, for that is all it amounts to.

Lox produces facts, easily verifiable, that there are Romanian gangs, British gangs, and gangs of every other race and religion, involved in the same, or similar, activity.

When such a gang is discovered and brought to justice, nobody should be surprised that it consists predominantly of members from the same ethnic background.

For reasons best known to yourself and Akenaton, you choose to ignore all of this, and come to the unsupported conclusion that this is a Muslim problem.

Looking at your argument, it presents a logical fallacy based upon your belief that, if Pakistani Muslims can't get together with girls from their own community (not entirely accurate in itself), they have no other recourse than to abduct and rape British girls between the ages of 11 and 16.

By those criteria, in your opinion, every Muslim boy is potentially not only a rapist kidnapper, but a paedophile to boot.

This concept is intrinsically ridiculous!!

The idea that any randy youth has to resort to criminal offences to get laid is patently absurd.

When I was a youth back in the uptight fifties, one couldn't go near the "nice" girls on pain of dire punishment, but then, and even more so now, there were always plenty of willing girls, and we sowed our wild oats without trouble, and we weren't in the least interested in anybody's kid sister.

There are wall to wall available girls in every town centre, and the idea that Muslim lads haven't noticed that is frankly laughable.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 06:43 AM

Don, on 24th January I said about this issue "It is nothing to do with Islam. "
I do not "see the problem as a Muslim one,"
I have always said specifically that it is not.

I did not "trawl through the internet until you find two "politically correct" commentators who agree "

Jack Straw was the main news item for a couple of days, and Cryer was being reported everywhere.
Did you miss it?

All your criticisms are completely false.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 07:19 AM

"There are wall to wall available girls in every town centre, and the idea that Muslim lads haven't noticed that is frankly laughable"

Er....,
quite!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 07:41 AM

Uh huh ...

so "It is nothing to do with Islam."

but also,

"Under such a regime, some young men of any ethnic group would be tempted to go and get sex from where they can."


I wonder what cultural regime he could possibly be referring to ...

... its either a regime imposed by Pakistani culture or Islamic culture.


So whats to blame? Islam or the fact that they are Pakistani?

If it isn't Islam, then it must be Pakistani culture.


Keith, is Pakistani culture responsible for these crimes?


No of course it isnt.


But keith says "I still think the suggestion is a reasonable one."


If it isn't Pakistani culture, and it isn't Moslem culture, then there is no suggestion left to criticize i.e. there is no hypothesis left as there is no culture or regime left to hold responsible.


And it isn't British culture either. If anything, it is Male culture of degradation and objectification of women that is to blame.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 07:44 AM

But they aren't all white girls.

Oh, and although they may look underdressed to old dogs like us, they may or may not be available - that's up to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 07:57 AM

Lox, the suggestion is that it is certain aspects of BP culture.
Specifically that girls are not permitted relationships with males, and marriages are arranged from a young age.

Only a tiny minority are ever involved in this crime but, as you acknowledge, they are over represented and that requires an explanation.
What is yours?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 09:10 AM

""Don, on 24th January I said about this issue "It is nothing to do with Islam. "
I do not "see the problem as a Muslim one,"
I have always said specifically that it is not.""


Since you enjoy flinging around comments about the rest of us misrepresenting your attitudes, the following might be of interest:

You also made other comments Keith.

21st Jan ""Christians more than any other faith group are being persecuted and killed for their religion, by muslims, in places like Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philipines.
There is also the treatment of individuals who choose to leave Islam.

Followed by a long list of "Muslim" atrocities in the next post.

Then:

21st Jan   ""I know from personal experience that extremism as a mind-set is spreading throughout the Muslim world.""

21st Jan   You also cited statements by Nazir Ali in support of your arguments. Of course he is a lapsed Muslim who has converted to Roman Catholicism. So, no possible biased agenda there then.

21st Jan   ""OK, but tell us why we should dismiss him and listen to you.""   

See above.

23rd Jan   ""Girls from respectable families have given their stories of being enticed away from shopping malls in daylight.
Not all white either.
Just not muslim.
They are off limits to young muslim men.""

24th Jan   ""She was an MP for an area with a large Pakistani community, and her vote largely came from that community.
A respected and knowledgeable authority on this issue.""

An authority who stated that this is almost exclusively an Asian problem. I'm with Lox….What planet is she living on? Of course, as an ex MP she is no longer swayed by the need for their votes.

At least Jack Straw had the good grace to remark that sex crimes in general were disproportionately a "White" problem, a point which you chose to ignore.

You also chose to ignore the Police Inspector (who one might suspect is more of an authority on crime than Ann Cryer), when he said "What no-one is saying is that the Pakistani community is responsible for the majority of sex crimes: This is just an element of sex crimes in general.

This is a specific problem within a group of people in a minority community."

24th Jan   ""For many, the outrage becomes a shrug when the perpetrators are a minority of Muslims and the victims white.""

This is an example of how you debate without accusations or attacks on the integrity of opponents........I see.

24th Jan   You quoted: FORMER Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell, who was East Lancashire's top detective when he retired from the force last year, tells why he agrees with Jack Straw's controversial comments on sex grooming.

"WHEN I came to Blackburn in the 1970s, one of my main issues was the gangs of Asian men outside the old nightclub on top of the shopping centre who were picking up drunk white girls, specifically to abuse them."

1.   His mind reading skills must have stood him in good stead as a detective, if he was able to read their intentions so accurately........Oh Puhlease!
2.   He doesn't mention that there were also large numbers of white lads with, possibly, the same intentions. I'll bet a packet that there were.

I have little trouble divining what was on his mind when he said that.

24th Jan   ""This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.""

The wildest generalisation yet!

25th Jan   Lox said: "You argue that the Moslem Pakistani community are responsible for the actions of organized criminals."

You replied: ""No, I do not.""

See the above post

Also, you agree with Ann Cryer, when that was the whole tenor of her speech.

28th Jan   ""No one should dismiss informed opinion.
Cryer and Straw are well informed.
I still think the suggestion is a reasonable one.
Why don't you?""

Yet you ignored a most important point in Jack Straw's comment, both when he said it, and again when I pointed it out to you.

28th Jan I posted: "There are wall to wall available girls in every town centre, and the idea that Muslim lads haven't noticed that is frankly laughable"

Your response:   ""Er....,
quite!""

And another point slides effortlessly over the head. Willing girls kind of make rape unnecessary my friend, and it seldom makes sense to take the line of most resistance, or do you also believe that Muslim boys are stupid as well as criminal?

It's also worth remembering that just about every nightclub in the country has its coterie of girls who are there specifically to "pull", which suggests a different motive than that which you seek to ascribe to these criminals.

All in all you haven't managed to convince that one comment denying an Islamic cause outweighs the multitude of opposing posts.

Will you now be leaving this thread, or was that offer only open to Lox?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 09:24 AM

Don.
I acknowledged that Muslims are under represented in all other non terrorist crimes.
That includes other sex crimes.

If you want a response to all that other stuff, one at a time please.

And yes, find anything by me that is racist and I walk.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 11:34 AM

I wouldn't want you to walk as for me, as I have already stated, it is not the person but the idea that needs confronting.

This world is built on ideas - money - society - law etc - all are abstract ideas that only exist because enough of us agree that they do.

Some ideas are part of the solution, and others are part of the problem.

Some will take us forwards. whilst others will take us back to the stone age.


Ideas based on unsubstantiated and slanderous generalizations about ethnic or religious groups serve no useful purpose and their propagation will condemn us to a dark future.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 11:58 AM

Thanks Lox.


Do you regard is as unsubstantiated and slanderous to say that British Pakistanis generally do not approve of girls having relationships with males?
Or that marriages are very often arranged at a young age?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 12:31 PM

Fair enough Lox. I don't like racist jokes and racist talk, and people getting a raw deal because of prejudice annoys and upsets me - as i hope it does all decent folk.

having said that I do feel unease, when i think of the asian kids I used to meet as a temp/supply teacher in Derby. Nice kids for the main part, some of them living in the red light areas of the city. All i will say is that the strictures of the preached Muslim dress code for girls, alongside the worldliness of their surroundings made it difficult for them to get a balanced view of things. I used to have to check my tongue, or i would have very soon found myself in trouble for saying stuff confrontational to their religion. And that would have helped no one.

By all means confront Keith, but if you don't feel that measure of unease - somehow you've got it wrong. Pretending that problems don't exist, and that there isn't grounds for concern - well its just being unobservant.

Most of us can rub along nicely - but some people are getting the wrong messages about our divergent cultures. It needs keeping an eye on and occasionally putting right.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 12:42 PM

I think they are massive simplifications of a more complex issue with numerous observable levels.

I think in Britain these things are becoming less and less prevalent.

In the papers we read about young Moslem Women changing "cultural norms" and speaking out against the old ways - in fact, we have been reading about his stuff for at least a decade.

In addition, when teenage and young adult females clad in full Hijab try to flirt with you, you learn pretty quickly just how "repressed" they are.

I knew several young men and teenage boys with young Moslem girlfriends where I lived. It was common and the "community" did nothing to repress their relationships.

It was a typical poor Ghetto of any town. Kids were disillusioned by the opportunity's they had, and they smoked fags in the street and they smoked Pot behind my house as mine was the last street in the row.

The lads were tough talking street kids - who went to mosque etc - I was friendly with them, male and female.

As I said, it was less 13th century than it was 1955 - except that while the parents were 1955, the kids were very 2005.

There were of course varying degrees of freedom amongst women, and there were some conservative families, and some less conservative families.

The toughest talking wildest lads did not come from families where dad had a beard and mum wore a bhurka, but from families where Dad was an alcoholic who lived somewhere else now that mum had succesfully got an injunction out against him.

So if its causes of crime you want, you can see a strong common denominator there shared with criminals from other racial and religious backgrounds.

And that common denominator is the usual combination of poverty, broken home, living in a ghetto with no voice and no knowledge of how to seek your fortune and no hope -> what difference does it make if I join a gang -> at least i won't be a sad twat like my dad, or like miggins over there who works in McDonalds -> Nope - I'm gonna make some money and be somebody, with a flash car etc etc ... a hustler - a high roller - a pimp - just like in the songs.

You want to blame culture, blame our corporate propaganda machine that sells stereotypes and lifestyles by the pound - this is the girl you need - these are the clothes you need ... etc

And even all that hardly constitutes a Beginning - let alone a conclusion.

As long as Mysoginy sells there will be mysoginysts - though I can't guarantee that I'll be able to spell it properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 12:44 PM

Alan, I'm not pretending that problems don't exist, but there is a wide gulf between that and concluding that Islam is to blame for these crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 01:21 PM

I don't know if anyone else can confirm this, but I think theres a definite conflict within the Asian community.

You see, you get very poor families - sometimes from villages in the subcontinent, and they bring the petty values of the village and keep them alive as best they can in England.

Then again you get more middle class, aspirational types and they adopt and adapt - just do their damndest to compete - realising they have their work cut out with that - never mind being 'in the tradition' - leave that to english folksinger!

That's when you'd hear comments like - that girl dresses like a slag in tight jeans - she knows a muslim girl shouldn't dress like that.

Of course the way to hell is paved with generalisations. I don't know, but I saw and heard enough to make me uneasy.

Islam isn't to blame, but its there in the mixture somwhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 01:56 PM

"I don't know if anyone else can confirm this, but I think theres a definite conflict within the Asian community."

If anything Alan, I would suggest that to assume there was a homogenous view would be utterly absurd.

I encountered different views of Islam, Shia, Sunni, different opinions within Sunni, politics, society, labour, tory, lib dem, Manchester United, Leicester City, Vegetarian, Meat eating, Artistic, Entrepreeurial, dissillusioned, optimistic, racist, enlightened, etc etc etc ...

Conflict and disagreement that crosses categories - so those who agree on one issue disagree on another - those who support each other on one matter, suppport apparent rivals on another ...

... Just like all communities.

This is why the idea that "community leaders" can influence the "community" (like the arabs in the film "the jewel of the nile" all standing behind their leader) is such a load of tosh.

The alleged "community leaders" are often nothing of the sort, like Mr Khan in the video I posted above, are neither elected nor do they have the across the board support as spokespeople that they claim they have. I have heard a prominent Pakistani woman politician, whose name I have sadly forgotten, describe them as "self styled community leaders".

The idea that such men could have prevented organized trafficking gangs from abducting underage girls is beyond ludicrous and depends on a very idealized caricature of how these communities look and how they are "led".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 03:28 PM

Words!!!!

No time for all that wordiness, I am now going to turn on the TV and watch Little Mosque on the Prairie on CBC, a delightful, humourous, down to earth show about a small prairie town where Muslims and Christians talk to each other - on the street, in the coffee shop, in the building they share for their religious services. Life as it could be in the real world.

It is now shown in 80 countries - but not the USA where people, or is it the government, refuse to give up their irrational prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 03:50 PM

Both?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 03:59 AM

Lox, you have avoided a question several times now.
A straight answer, either way, would end our discussion for me.

Is it wrong to say that British Pakistanis generally do not approve of girls having relationships with males?
Or that marriages are very often arranged at a young age?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 05:09 AM

I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY KEITH, IS THAT THERE IS NO GENERALITY ABOUT ASIAN FAMILIES. THERES ALL KINDS OF STUFF GOING ON - JUST AS THERE IS WITH ENGLISH FOLK.

WE DON'T ALL HAVE TATTOOS, BODY PIERCINGS, TAKE HEROIN, HAVE DRINK PROBLEMS AND KEEP VICIOUS DOGS. ALTHOUGH OBSERVATION ATTESTS THST A LARGE NUMBER OF US DO.

SORRY ABOUT THE CAPITALS LOCK.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 05:11 AM

See the Jeremy Kyle show - and die of shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 06:04 AM

No such thing as cultural differences?
What do sociologists and anthropologists do with themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 07:14 AM

Keith,

I don't like the words "right" and "wrong".

As you have asked though, I will do my best to answer and will explain my answer, which I have thought about carefully and honestly.

Yes it is wrong to state those things as "information"

It is right to refer to those things as subject matter to be discussed.


I would see those comments as the opening comment in an investigation rather than as a piece of information.

i.e.

British Pakistanis generally do not approve of girls having relationships with males and marriages are very often arranged at a young age - Discuss.

A conclusion of such an investigation would without any doubt include essential qualifications without which the integrity of the conclusion would be in doubt.

To leave those kind of qualifications out would be to CHANGE the conclusion.

As purported pieces of simplified information, they are potentially misleading as they oversimplify the whole picture to the point that they actually create an misleading ad therefore inaccurate picture.

If a person with no experience of Moslems were to ask what they were like and got that answer, they would have a distorted image.

Another equally selective and misleading way of describing the same thing would be to say, in isolation, that British Pakistani Girls are spending more and more time with boys these days, rebelling against their parents, smoking fags etc, which, without knowledge of how much they are rebelling and without a context, again could give a misleading impression of a demographic going wild.

The RIGHT way to present the truth is the way that you would be expected to tell it in court - the WHOLE truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 07:20 AM

Would you say that this is a fair description?

Parents try to marry their daughters at the earliest age possible while men marry much later in life. The reason for this is to prevent the bride from losing her respectability through personal encounters with other men. Whilst the man marries much later in life as he is responsible for providing for his wife and future children. For most Pakistani men it takes time before they are economically established for this role. This of course means the bride will marry a man considerably older than herself, an age difference of ten years is not uncommon.
Parents start saving towards the cost of the wedding from the birth of their child as marriage is expensive. The most common marriage arrangement is between first cousins. If a first cousin of suitable age is not found then a second or third cousin will do. Marriages between unrelated couples are uncommon.

Though Pakistanis have immigrated in groups an entire family including extended relations is not always present in the UK. In such cases the marriage partner will be in Pakistan. Where one partner is in Pakistan problems are often encountered if the partner is male. Experience suggests UK immigration officials are usually quite happy to grant visas for brides from Pakistan to enter the country, however men from Pakistan usually face a long and ardous struggle to gain entry to the UK

Whether the prospective partners are allowed to see each other prior to the wedding depends on the families concerned. If one partner lives in Pakistan a photo may be all that is provided. when partners are allowed to meet, the meeting will take place amongst the two families who will be present at all times. It is not unusual for the couple to have no direct contact prior to the wedding.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 08:00 AM

The stilted English is because it is source material produced by a German university.
No culture is exactly homogeneous.
That hardly needs stating.
It can still be informative to describe aspects of a culture, and British Pakistanis are a very culturally distinct group.

We are all used to discussing the fact that there are two culturally distinct groups within the racially homogeneous population of Northern Ireland.
Alan has alluded to aspects of working class culture, sometimes derogatorily referred to as chav culture, within the white British community.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 08:03 AM

""If you want a response to all that other stuff, one at a time please.

And yes, find anything by me that is racist and I walk.""

How convenient!

We read through your longest posts and respond to them, but you pick and choose, and ignore what you either can't, or don't want to answer.

Coincidental I'm sure, but the post you want to ignore is the one in which your comments as documented do indeed have overtly racist overtones.

In nine posts you used the word "Pakistani" once, the word "Islam" once and the word "Muslim" six times, every time in direct connection with words such as "grooming", "crime", "terrorism", and in opposition to the words "white" and "Christian".

If you are, as you claim, a man of tolerance and integrity, read that post and respond, as I have no intention of re-posting it one question at a time.

It was posted in its current form in direct response to your claim never to have stated that this problem was a Muslim problem, or the responsibility of Islam.

(""From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 06:43 AM

Don, on 24th January I said about this issue "It is nothing to do with Islam. "
I do not "see the problem as a Muslim one,"
I have always said specifically that it is not."")

That claim now lacks any vestige of credibility in the face of comments fom you, such as: ""This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know."", people whom you do not see fit to identify, and comment for which you provide no source, credible or otherwise.

In fact the person best placed to know, the policeman in charge of the enquiry, holds a directly opposite view, as I quoted in that long post you couldn't be bothered to read.

If you are unable or unwilling to read it and respond, then members will be entitled to draw their own conclusions as to your agenda.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 10:53 AM

Don, it is not just me who does not bother with screen-fulls of text.
No one does.
That is why I never do it.

To reply to everything in your post would require an even longer one.

It is already accepted by everyone that the culprits (in these particular crimes only) were overwhelmingly from the Pakistani community.
Lox commented, "All you're doing is showing us again that the gangs in this case are predominantly made up of Pakistanis."

We had gone beyond that to explore possible explanations.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 10:58 AM

By your own admission, time for ya to go & don't let the door hit youin the arse on the way out.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 11:15 AM

As soon as anyone puts up a racist or bigoted statement I have made Greg, I am gone.
Just don't bury it in acres of text.
Put the very worst one up all on its own for all to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 12:53 PM

"bury" it? Please.

Question is: Is it there or is it not?

Answer in the affirmative.

G'bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 01:16 PM

=== MtheGM as usual dribbles into his bib with glee after regurgitating the same dull quip as usual, I just hope that with this level of over excitement his colostomy bag is properly attached. ===

Only just come across this of yours of a couple of days ago. Charming as ever, Lox; but I confess self somewhat puzzled by it: have never needed one, & tho oldish, still don't ~~ a bit of prostate trouble necessitated a little catheterisation a year or two back, but other functions OK, glad to report. {Too much info? Ah, well, who raised the subject?} Not quite sure what point you were intending to make. Perhaps you would care to explain yourself?

Regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 02:48 PM

Keith,

"It can still be informative to describe aspects of a culture, and British Pakistanis are a very culturally distinct group."

Indeed, the study of culture can be very interesting and informative, not to mention useful in learning to understand culture.

But it is important for you to be sure you have explored the subject properly and learned to understand it fully before you start quoting academic papers that you haven't fully taken the time to digest as evidence to support hypotheses concerning the causes of crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 02:57 PM

'In fact the person best placed to know, the policeman in charge of the enquiry, holds a directly opposite view'

So cynical - you know damn well no public official could express any such a view, whatever the facts. This matter was brought to public attention by the daily Telegraph, which is slightly to the political right of Mussolini on many matters, but its not gutter press - whatever its many failings.

Its a matter of judgement, the Telegraph may not have opened the batting if suspicion had fallen on a group of tory MP's - but I doubt if they would have proceeded if the worries had been groundless - like say the Mail would.

Temper your arguments with a bit of savvy about the state of Great Britain, as grown ups know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 03:15 PM

Lox,
Four days ago I said to you

"I admit to making a generalistion about B.P. culture.
I said that girls are generally discouraged from engaging in courtship.
Are you saying that is false?"

You could have spared us dozens of acrimonious posts if you had just said something like,

"The culture is not homogeneous, and it is changing, but that is broadly correct."

Why do you find it so hard?
We could have moved on.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 04:36 PM

Only a tiny minority are ever involved in this crime but, as you acknowledge, they are over represented and that requires an explanation.

The explanation lies subtly buried in your question, Keith, in the two little words "tiny minority."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 04:55 PM

Steve, it does not explain why they are so over represented in this, but no other crime.
It is interesting.
It is also interesting how much so many people do not want to think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 29 Jan 11 - 07:00 PM

I'm not sure I want to think about it. Theres not much you can do about it.

I think that basically we all have an interest in our society functioning without too much confrontation and nastiness. And hopefully good sense will prevail in seeing that the other stuff doesn't get the upper hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 12:21 AM

Good sense doesn't prevail, does it though, Al, by asserting that facts are not facts, or might not be facts, or even if they are facts they can be wished away, as that pompous & foul-mouthed & coprophiliac booby Lox is wasting all our time by persisting in doing?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 04:29 AM

What difference does it make what us old farts assert. unless the old fart in question is Rupert Murdoch.

some people think one thing. some another. no point in scratching each others eyes out.

I have very eccentric views about folk music. I know what i think, but mudcat has taught me a lesson - albeit a painful one. Its no use arguing for the views that sustain you. Just let them breasthe at the back of your mind.

Some arseholes have gone to war about how many angels can dance on a pinhead. Luckily I don't have a standing army to assert that gerry Lockran played folk music.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 05:59 AM

Keith,

Pakistanis are only overrepresented in Pakistani Gangs.

They are not overrepresented in sex trafficking, abduction or paedophilia.

As for what I could have said, my answer is NO I don't agree.


My position is merely "The culture is not homogeneous, and it is changing" with no added bits for your benefit.

In addition, (please pay attention to this point for a change) the context of the discussion is "moslem Prejudice" and the reason for the mention of these crimes is within that context.

The hypothesis being debated is that Pakistani/Moslem culture is to blame for the actions of an organized crime gang.

Your 'investigation' remains a subsection of that argument and as such needs to be treated with caution and any generalizations drawn from it should be confronted and clarified as they do not constitute support for that hypothesis.

The best that can be said about your generalization is that it is interestiing, but too subject to reasonable doubt to cast any light on the issue of organized trafficking of underage girls.

I'm just staying on topic, and in the light of the topic, your posts serve as apologist.


MtheGM on the other hand seems to have begun contributing to this thread for one purpose only and it clearly has nothing to do with any of the subjects being discussed. What a pathetic excuse for a man. I bet he smells funny too.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 06:11 AM

.

STOP PRESS

80 American Nationals arrested by CIA in south east Asia for the rape of underage girls!


The full story


I wonder if these criminals were driven to their crimes by a repressive cultural regime?

.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 06:15 AM

So far in this thread we have referred to sex crimes and trafficking against young women and underage girls committed by Romanians, Russians, Americans and British Pakistanis.

Yet here we are arguing about whether one group has a different motivation berrought on by the "regime" imposed on them by their culture.


Why aren't you looking for the common denominator Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 08:54 AM

A prominent British Pakistani has offered an alternative theory to that of Straw and Cryer.
'They are forced into marriages and they are not happy. They are married to girls from overseas who they don't have anything in common with, and they have children and a family.

'But they are looking for fun in their sexual activities and seek out vulnerable girls.'

He said Asian men resort to abusing young white girls because they do not want meaningful relationships with adult white women.
'An adult woman – if you are having an affair – would want your time, money and for you to break up your marriage,' the peer added.

His comments come weeks after former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw provoked national outrage by saying that some Pakistani men look at white girls as 'easy meat' for sexual abuse.

Labour peer Lord Ahmed said: 'I get a lot of criticism from Asian people who ask, "How can you say this about Asian men?" But they must wake up and realise there is a problem.

'I am deeply worried about this as it has happened in my own backyard, and in Rochdale and Bradford.

'This didn't happen in my or my father's generation. This is happening among young Asians. While I respect individual choice, I think the community needs to look at marriages in the UK rather than cousin marriages or economic marriages from abroad.'

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:03 AM

Atma Singh, from the Sikh Community Action Network, said: "Well done to Jack Straw for being 100 per cent honest and saying what many people already know – that there are pockets of youngsters in the Pakistani Muslim community who treat girls from other communities as sexual objects."

Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Muslim youth group the Ramadan Foundation said 53 out of the last 65 convictions for grooming had involved British Pakistanis.

"The reality is that there is an issue," he said. "There is a perception that these white girls have lesser morals and lesser values than women from Pakistani heritage.

"It's abhorrent and there needs to be debate."

However, he criticised Mr Straw for only raising the issue once he had left government, despite being warned about the problem two and a half years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:13 AM

'They are forced into marriages and they are not happy. They are married to girls from overseas who they don't have anything in common with, and they have children and a family.

'But they are looking for fun in their sexual activities and seek out vulnerable girls.'

He said Asian men resort to abusing young white girls because they do not want meaningful relationships with adult white women.
'An adult woman – if you are having an affair – would want your time, money and for you to break up your marriage,' the peer added....

'...This didn't happen in my or my father's generation.

What's with all the "they" do you suppose, Keith? Does he mean "these people?" All of 'em? Some of 'em? A few of 'em? And did he say anywhere why it didn't happen in his dad's generation? Have testosterone levels gone up? And what's with the adult woman bit? That applies to anyone contemplating an affair, n'est-ce pas? I think you need to find better allies than your peer, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Smedley
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:15 AM

Anyone care to guess how long it'll take Lox to post four replies to that ? Then another couple from Keith..... Round and round we go.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Smedley
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:17 AM

The 'that' referred to was Keith's latest fistful of bouquets, to clear up any confusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:19 AM

Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Muslim youth group the Ramadan Foundation said 53 out of the last 65 convictions for grooming had involved British Pakistanis.

"The reality is that there is an issue," he said. "There is a perception that these white girls have lesser morals and lesser values than women from Pakistani heritage.

Perhaps you could get your fellow to explain to us why he thinks (as he apparently does) that Pakistani girls have such high moral values whilst Pakistani boys, on the other hand, go around like tomcats shagging every underage white girl in sight. Odd, that. Either that or it's yet another load of old bollix, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:26 AM

I do not know how else to respond when Lox says there is no issue, and a distict BP culture does not exist.

Who do I have to put up before you will open your minds and discuss reality?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:29 AM

Actually Smedley, and Keith, I would not care to explain any more testimony provided.

When Keith has found proof of his hypothesis that sex crimes committed by Pakistani men are the result of a diffenert motivation to sex crimes committed by any other demographic, he may draw my attention to it by starting a thread on thiat subject.

Until then, there is no reason why I should bother trawling along on this thread ad infinitum.

Lord Ahmed doesn't speak for inner city Pakistanis any more than Gaddafi does.

He may be Moslem, but that does not make him any more representative of Workig Class Moslems than Nick Clegg is of working class whites.

I wish you luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:50 AM

This is from BBC site about Ahmed.

I would like to be told who knows more about British Pakistanis, working class or not, than he does.

Not you anyway Lox.
What else can you do but walk?

The peer also openly clashed with his party's leadership in October 2006 when he openly criticised the way British Muslims were treated.

He told the BBC there was "a constant theme of demonisation of the Muslim community" and that politicians were jumping on a bandwagon by "having a go" at Muslims.

He said people were exploiting the fact that some within the Muslim community threatened national security.

Property developer

As a high-profile leader of the Muslim community, Lord Ahmed has played a role in easing tensions after the London bombings in July 2005 and the 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001.

Three months after 9/11 he hit the headlines after claiming the government had tapped his phone because of his opposition to the war in Afghanistan.

It was a claim the government denied.

Lord Ahmed, 51, was born in Pakistan but has lived in Rotherham, in South Yorkshire, since his childhood.

He studied public administration at Sheffield Hallam University and joined the Labour Party at the age of 18.

Having distinguished himself as a proactive local councillor, he founded the British Muslim Councillors' Forum in 1992 and became a Justice of the Peace in the same year.

He was appointed to the House of Lords in 1998 as Baron Ahmed of Rotherham after several years as chairman of the South Yorkshire Labour Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:54 AM

Some of the nastiest people on the planet were incredibly well educated. Or incredibly misquoted or misreported.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 10:00 AM

Lox, you asked me to tell you when I have proof.

You forgot to tell me what you would regard as proof, since first hand testimony from high profile people with intimate knowledge of the community and the issues apparently does not suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 10:06 AM

Desparation Steve!
They are nasty.
On what grounds Steve.
They are misquoted.
Who would dare in a sensitive issue like this? Any complaints recorded?

You are just la la-ing with your fingers in your ears because you can not accept an obvious truth.
Open up to reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 10:53 AM

Truth? All you've given me is the credentials of your fourth-string source and quoted what seems to me to be a load of ill-considered tripe. I wasn't suggesting that particular this chap is nasty, just pointing out that you're leaning far too much on his credentials instead of what he actually says. I can't say I'm surprised, as most of what he says (or is quoted as saying) is generalising rubbish, as I indicated.

Sorry, third-string. Your fourth string is Mohammed Shafiq.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 10:56 AM

Third/fourth string.

Who is better qualified to give an informed opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 02:37 PM

It's always a good idea to listen to the expressed opinion first rather than simply rely on credentials. It's a bit like using Wikipedia. If you're intelligent about it it's really useful. If you're not it's dangerous shite.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 04:10 PM

Straw and Cryer, impeccable.
Ahmed, an undisputed authority.
He grew up in the British Pakistani community and served it as a Labour Party local politician for his whole life.
A friend to the working class Lox.
I don't blame you for running.

Open your mind Steve.
It happened and it is OK to consider possible explanations.
Why are you people so desperate to close down honest debate and deny the obvious?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 04:34 PM

I suppose it is Keith that there are so many more desirable things to converse with this non homogenous community about.

If there is criminality - then the authorities will deal with it and it will sink in that, that's not the way to go.

What will our arguments do other than show our suspicion and dislike, and give succour to those elements in our society that would have us fighting.

The act as committed is not sanctioned by any respectable spiritual leader. God knows there wacko christian groups advocating bad stuff. But thats what they are....... wackos. Human kind knows when it is acting cruelly or badly.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 04:57 PM

"..there are so many more desirable things to converse..."
Yes there are.
I would not have instigated this discussion.
Neither did Lox, but he was at it for three days before I joined in.

Denying the reality of a problem is not the way to deal with it.
I tried to persuade him to confront the truth of it.
He chose to turn away.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 05:59 PM

Nobody's running or turning away, Keith. We have minds of our own and, whilst we listen to these pundits you keep throwing at us as if they have the monopoly on the last word, we prefer to use those brains we've been endowed with. Not just go with the flow. Listen to the beat of the distant drummer, etc. Think for ourselves. Blair was an amazingly authoritative guru on the WMDs, remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 06:47 PM

Keith,

Don't be an idiot.

I'm not running from anything.

You have done nothing to demonstrate that sex crimes committed by Pakistani Moslems are different to sex crimes committed by anyone else.

The thread above shows this to be true and anyone reading it will see for themselves.

My arguments, which you have ignored and which expose more than enough reasonable doubt, stand unchallenged, as do the factual examples I have provided, which you have also ignored.

Your determination to hang on only shows one thing - that you really really want to prove that Pakistanis Moslems are different and that their sex crimes come from a different motivation.

If thats what you want then go for it.

You probably see it as a challenge to win such a debate.

I live in the real world.

Now I really have to go back to it because:

1, your fantasy world is unpleasant.

2, anyone who takes the time to read this thread from the start will note
a, your bias,
b, your inability to answer about 70% of the points I have made and
c, that the evidence which shows undeniably that these crimes are cross cultural is a lot stronger than the "evidence" (second hand opinion) which suggests they are peculiarly "British Pakistani".

Your selective mind is clearly able to shut out the bits you don't like, and now mine is going to shut you out.

If I'm running from you, its in the way that a parent 'runs' from their 14 year old when they say "I've heard what you have to say, and you still aren't allowed to go clubbing tonight - the conversation is over".

Keith, Our conversation is over.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 07:57 PM

""Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Muslim youth group the Ramadan Foundation said 53 out of the last 65 convictions for grooming had involved British Pakistanis.""

Hardly surprising as it was a single, LOCAL, gang with 53 Pakistani members and 12 of their non Pakstani friends.

I hope this is short enough for your self confessed miniscule attention span Keith.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 08:03 PM

""He told the BBC there was "a constant theme of demonisation of the Muslim community" and that politicians were jumping on a bandwagon by "having a go" at Muslims.""

And now, along with Keith A of Hertford, he has decided to book a seat on that same bandwagon!!

Figures!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 02:14 AM

Repeated storming in and storming out is just as irrational as your earlier ranting anger.
Why can we not have a normal discussion?
Don, you are very angry, without even familiarising with the issue.
It is not a single gang in a single case.
But in 17 court cases since 1997 where groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls on the street, 53 of the 56 people found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, while just three were white.

For a minority group that is a massive over representation that is not seen in other crimes.
The question why has to be asked.
Not by us of course, but I did not start it.

Respected, intelligent people with intimate knowledge of the culture have put forward plausible explanations.
Why does that make you angry?
It is irrational.

However plausible, no explanation is provable.
One consequence of the culture of cousin marriage is a large over representation of Pakistanis in infant mortality and crippling genetic disease.
The link here IS provable but that debate has also been rejected as racist by many in the community.
Is that rational?

I will not storm out, but I will not put up any more evidence.
I am prepared to discuss rationally, or leave it there.
Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 03:40 AM

"Keith, Our conversation is over"
·····

To tune of The Wicked Witch Is Dead ~~~

♫Hey-ho
Bravo bravo
Hey hey hey
Oh frabjous day
Hey hey the noxious Lox is gone♪ ...

Maybe

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:23 AM

A rationality test.

Studies have been done to see how different cultural groups benefit from British education system.
Anyone angry about that?

Pakistanis were found to be high achievers.
Angry?
Afro Caribbean boys, and especially white working class boys, were found to be disadvantaged.
Angry yet?
Studies are underway to see how these cultural factors can be overcome.
Anyone need to storm out?
Of course not.
That would be irrational.

An ethnic group is found to be over represented in a particular crime, and suggestions offered as to why.
Storming out in anger.
Yes.
But why?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:26 AM

But in 17 court cases since 1997 where groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls on the street, 53 of the 56 people found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, while just three were white.


That is indeed a very alarming statistic. I assume it is verified, Keith? But are we working on the same basis that in the 70's and 80's most youths involved in stop and search operations were black? I am not disagreeing or agreeing - just wondering if the figures have been skewed by an inherent predjudice against asian gangs by police? Or are the groups of non-moslem paedophiles more sophisticated and not as easy to convict?

Genuine curiousity on my part - No axe to grind. Hopefuly valid questions to ask but I don't know if anyone here is qualified to answer:-(

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:35 AM

Not me Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:54 AM

I got it from this Telegraph piece, which takes the quote from the Times.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8240202/Cover-up-claims-over-Asian-sex-gangs.html
It has not been challenged even in the liberal press

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 01:45 PM

""It is not a single gang in a single case.
But in 17 court cases since 1997 where groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls on the street, 53 of the 56 people found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, while just three were white.""

Seventeen cases in thirteen years, over what catchment area, and as compared to how many in that area where there were no Asian or Muslim defendants?

You really can't just quote selective figures without putting them in context.

For example, if those seventeen cases were in the same court, or a few very local courts, the defendants could very well have been members of the same gang, in fact almost inevitably would be, given that most gangs are intolerant of rival gangs on their turf.

If the seventeen cases were spread over a much wider area, then they would not be statistically significant unless compared with the number of cases with few, or no, Asian or Muslim defendants.

You see, while you search uncritically for anything or anyone to bolster your anti Muslim bias, I use my rational faculties to produce logical counter arguments.

You are wrong about something else too. I am not angry, because your inability to handle a simple discussion is your problem and not worth my anger, or even irritation.

You ask why we can't have a normal discussion? I'll tell you why!

1. Because one of us is unwilling or unable to discuss anything rationally.

2, Because one of us believes that quoting the opinions of self styled experts trumps both rational thinking and rational argument.

3. Because one of us actually believes what he reads in the papers, and believes that "expert" opinion is fact, relieving him of the responsibility for policing his own prejudices.

4. Because one of us can't be bothered to read what other people post in discussion, much less respond to its content.

""I will not storm out, but I will not put up any more evidence.
I am prepared to discuss rationally, or leave it there.
Over to you.""

1. You have thus far not put up any evidence other than hearsay.

2. You have had ample opportunity to discuss, rationally or otherwise, and have as yet shown no inclination to do so.

3. By all means do storm out, or stay. Your presence or absence is a matter of total indifference to me.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 03:35 PM

""An ethnic group is found to be over represented in a particular crime, and suggestions offered as to why.
Storming out in anger.
Yes.""

This red herring is past its sell by date. Over the whole of the UK, Asians and Muslims are a small minority of the population, but they are not evenly spread throughout the UK.

There are localised areas in which they are in fact a majority, and if, within the confines of those areas there is a criminal gang operating, that gang is likely to consist mainly of Asians and/or Muslims.

Anger?.......NO! LOGIC!


""But in 17 court cases since 1997 where groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls on the street, 53 of the 56 people found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, while just three were white.""

Don't be taken in by the glib rhetoric DeG.

Thirteen years........17 cases.........53 Muslims.........3 Non-Muslim Asians of unspecified ethnicity,.......and 3 whites who may or may not have been Muslims themselves.

Did anybody ask them?.......No matter.

Take it at face value, and apply a little logic, as requested by Keith.

Breaking the figures down we have:

Average, one case every 9.18 months for 156 months.

Average, 3.29 defendants per case, of which 2.93 Muslims, 0.18 Non Muslim Asians, and 0.18 whites.

So, an average of three Muslims, one fifth of a non-Muslim Asian, and one fifth of a white whatever, are caught committing this crime once every nine months.

We have no idea how many other whites commit the same crime, because the commentators, including our own minority bashers haven't bothered to make the comparison with non Pakistani, and non-Muslim gangs.

Can anybody here suggest that, in the absence of that comparison, the above figures have even the most ephemeral statistical significance?

If so, I'd like a joint of whatever you're smoking.

LOGIC Keith!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 03:58 PM

In fairness to Keith, he didn't have to search very far. The front page of a quality (albeit right wing) newspaper - with a shit hot record for hot potato subjects - like the MP's fiddling their allowances.

Anyway - we'll find out soon enough - now the cats well ansd truly out of the bag, If there is any substance to these allegations - there are bound to be more prosecutions.

Its a bit reminiscent of the 1960's when people went about singing about pot, banging on endlessly about its benefits and that the society was 'straight'. The 'straights' went on the warpath and kicked the shit out of us.

Could it be, people have got a bit pissed off with being told that we are a secular society, all our children have no morals, and we are degenerate - often by very rich societies that can't be arsed to feed their poor.

If you go looking for a fight with 'the man' - you risk the odd poke in the mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 04:55 PM

From the Yorkshire News if this helps fill some gaps Don.

Derby was typical of a pattern of exploitation being tracked by police and experts around Britain.

The girls tended to be 16 or younger. Often they were from challenging backgrounds - homes with inconsistent parenting, or with a history of alcohol or drug problems.

And there is one controversial factor that many of the experts in the field are often not happy to discuss freely. The race of the abusers.

The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:03 PM

Sorry if I misjudged your mood Don.
You certainly came across as angry.
Just unfriendly?

If you are challenging that there is an unusual distribution here, I will happily discuss that with you.
We have been accepting that.

If it is real, then why?
I did not offer the explanations of Straw, Cryer and Ahmed over those of others.
No other explanation has been offered.
It is like a taboo.
Also no one has found fault with those suggestions.
Obviously they can not be proved, but how is it justified to dismiss them out of hand?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:04 PM

This thread has of course become a wonderful example of "Orwellian liberalism" in action.

As Keith attempts to engage in meaningful discussion without rancour, the "liberals" line up to demonise him...disgusting.

The real issue is double standards, exactly what we have seen on all the controversial threads is happening again, if an issue which is in conflict with the "liberal" agenda cannot be proved conclusively, discussion is blocked and shrill screams of "bigot" are heard.

Strangely enough, the "liberals" will proclaim the rightness of THEIR causes on no evidence whatsoever......usually "Its just not fair"

As Al says perhaps we shall see the truth emerge from the rubble of our destroyed kids.....but I have not much faith in our justice system to stand against the minority pressure groups.
It is all too easy to break honest men on the wheel of "liberal fascism"

Melanie Phillips, a woman whom I oppose on all political issues,
puts the position succinctly.


Melanie Phillips

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:25 PM

and more specifically Muslim gangs

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:40 PM

The other "elephant in the room", conveniently ignored by people like Don, is that senior police sources say "we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg in these prosecutions."
Child protection agencies and even the police are afraid to investigate complaints, as these investigations are portrayed as racial attacks and bigotry by "liberals".

Contrast the views of "liberals" to the RC priest abuse scandal and this racism being practiced by muslim men against young white or non-muslim girls. Not one of the victims was Muslim!

Only a fool could fail to see the double standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:52 PM

Maybe the Muslim mums and dads wouldn't let their Muslim daughters out at night, that's why. There, achy tony. A stupid reply to your stupid points. All they deserve really.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 06:11 PM

'A stupid reply to your stupid points'

that's just abuse. in a way though Steve, I hope you're right and its just scare mongering. like I say. let's not argue, or take up positions....lets see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 06:42 PM

Who's abusing who, Alan? Same old "liberal double standards" shite all over again innit. And just look at the plethora of weasel words in his latest post. Not exactly debate as we know it, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 07:03 PM

Steven ....I dont generally abuse people on this forum.
As Al says your remark was insulting. I certainly dont accuse you of stupidity.

Further up this thread, I believe I said that I thought you daft. That was intended as a lighthearted response to what I presumed to be some banter from you.

"Ah, the Daily Mail on Mudcat. Can you demonstrate that the young men in question performed their actions in the name of Allah, were pointing to Mecca chanting prayers during the rapes, or were following instructions in the Q'ran? Don't be so bloody daft."

Now that statement is deliberately obstructive, as the attitude of some Muslim Pakistani men towards young British girls has been adequately illustrated by the statements of those most closely associated to the Pakistani Muslim community including members of that community.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 07:22 PM

Oh God, please read the thread, will you. Nice recanting there, by the way, saying that you were being "light-hearted." Ha bloody ha. And the Daily Mail bit of mine you quoted was a deadly serious challenge to your received wisdoms. I repeat. Show me that these young men did what they did in the name of Islam and I'll let you off saying your intolerant things like "Pakistani Muslim men towards young British girls..."

To show I make an effort, I read that tosh from Ms Phillips, whom God preserve, that you linked to. How wonderful the experience was. I mean, take this gem:

And the problem with the gay agenda, it has always seemed to me, is that it has sought instead to commandeer the public sphere by ­dictating a profound change in the moral norms of our society — indeed, to destroy the very idea of moral norms at all.

Ha, whose moral norms? Hers? (heaven forfend!) Christian ones? Establishment ones? Nice bit of moral imperialism there!

To cap that, as if that were possible, she doesn't miss the opportunity further down the article to have a pop at Islamic attitudes to gay people. Well, there's irony for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 01:20 AM

Akenaton: "As Al says your remark was insulting. I certainly don't accuse you of stupidity."

Well you're a patient and forgiving man, Akenaton. I think he has shown immeasurable amounts of stupidity in here, plenty of times!

Now as to the topic, It's sorta hypocritical, that many people, some in here, blast all Christians, because of what the Catholic Church did during the inquisition, so they paint all Christians with that brush, even when the Catholic Church was killing Christians who would not fall under their 'authority'...the same can be said about the Muslims, and the more radical zealots who are being CONNED by their 'superiors'. You'd think that that a Muslim, who thinks that blowing himself up, taking a lot of innocent people with him, was a sure way to martyrdom, and an 'E-Ticket to Heaven' to shake hand with Allah, and ask him where the 72 babes are, you'd think they'd be the first in line!!!...but No-o-o-o, they've gotta' hustle the simple-minded ones to do their dirty work, so that they, the 'leaders' can reap the benefits of this temporal 'power'(?)....maybe be 'King' of an area!

Some of you get pissed off at a Nativity scene, or a cross, on the grounds of separation of church and state, but give leniency to having Sharia law accommodated within our form of government. ..and Sharia law has direct allowances for parents 'honor killing' their children!...Go figure!
I guess its the liberal thing to think.....until it hits home!

GfS

P.S. Hi, Ake was just thinking about you the last couple days...we finally crossed paths again....Regards!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 01:44 AM

"Muslim mums and dads wouldn't let their Muslim daughters out at night, that's why."
Undeniably true, but a generalisation about BP culture.
To Lox, you are now a bigot Steve.
Welcome.
He would not even accept that " BP girls are discouraged from engaging in courtship."

Don you referred to Lox providing facts.
I wish you would remind me what they were.
I do not remember any.
Just negativity. The theories were wrong but he would not say why, just heaping abuse on the authors.
And no alternative theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 03:51 AM

Steven, these criminals dont require to perform their crimes in the "name of Allah", or strictly in compliance "with the Koran", they only require to be brought up in the midst of a culture which views the behaviour of our children as unclean and immoral.

As I stated earlier,even if this assertion was true, it does not give any other culture the right to practice racism against them, or dehumanise them into sex objects to be used.....often not for money, but to family members.

Regarding your last post, the norms referred to I suppose were society's norms. The norms of producing and contributing to an extended family.....normal breeding patterns....the norms which stabilise humanity and produce some sort of order in human existence.
Simply tacking a word like "marriage" on to certain types of human behaviour, does not make it necessarily beneficial to society.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 04:44 AM

Sorry GfS....Good to see you again.   Busy makin' music?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:12 AM

well i don't see liberal as a term of abuse. I think people should have as much freedom as possible.

Really theres too much abuse going on in this conversation for proper communication to take place. 'Weasel words' for godsake. Weasels don't talk.

On second thoughts - perhaps they do have learned debates with other weasels. Perhaps they have the answer to all our differences, and that's what we need - a weasel dialectic.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:13 AM

"Just negativity. The theories were wrong but he would not say why, just heaping abuse on the authors.
And no alternative theory."

Keith, the above ius either a lie or you are illiterate.

All of the above have been provided, you have just chosen to ignore them and your tunnel vision has been very specifically focussed on bolstering your hypthesis.

On which subject, I'm glad to see that more 'powerful' evidence has been provided to support your case.

The personal opinion of two politicians has been corroborated in undeniable scientific fashion by the opinion of a columnist for the daily mail.

So I suppose that settles it.

Interesting that since I dropped out Ake, Keith and GfS have all staged such a courageous comeback.

Also interesting that Keith should so brazenly misrepresent my posts.

Again, it shows one of two things - he is either a liar or he doesn't have the comprehension skills to understand.

None of his misrepresentations of my posts of course com eclose to this unbelievable bit of selective quoting.

Steve says: "Maybe the Muslim mums and dads wouldn't let their Muslim daughters out at night, that's why. There, achy tony. A stupid reply to your stupid points."

i.e, that would be a stupid point to make.

i.e he doesn't think so.

i'e he doesn't think thats really the reason.

Keith chops off a few words at the end and attributes this view to Steve.

"the Muslim mums and dads wouldn't let their Muslim daughters out at night"

And in addition, then puts the point to Steve that that therefore I would see him as peddling racist ideology.


I think on that point alone Keith blows his cover as a serious debater or even a person of integrity.

I would recommend to Alan and Steve to let this thread die, as it only exists so that the saddos can get attention.

That includes Ake, Keith, GfS and MtheGM, who really should be wheeled back in and strapped down before he hurts himself with the Play-dough cutlery.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:28 AM

Oh no, I forgot about Lord Ahmed.

Well Keith, I caan tell you that I have lived in a Moslem Ghetto significantly more recently than him.

I doubt very much if he has set foot in any of the poor Moslem areas for a good twenty years, unless it was to collect rent.

I lived in Britains most thriving Moslem community for a year aand a half, and I lived side by side with Pakistani moslems, and looked after their kids and they looked after mine throughout that time.

Being an opinionated person, i talked, deebated, argued with annyone who had aa point of view, and that was everyone from the very old to the very young, men and women.


But all that is by the by.


Opinion does not constitute testimony unless it is supported by evidence. Opinion is not evidence in its own right.

There is no evidence that Pakistani sex crimes are driven by a different motivation than other sex crimes. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that Pakistani culture by nature inevitably compels its constituents to be driven to sex crimes where other cultures don't.

This is clearly slander until research can show otherwise.

Keith could start developing his literacy by learning the difference between expert testimony and vague political opinion.

I think it is very sad that people should spend so much of their lives trying to prove that other cultures are Bad.

Especially as, while they are doing it, more sex crrimes are probably being comitted.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:30 AM

Thanks for that, Lox. You saved me from having to do a lot of typing there. Yes, they really have started to crawl out of the woodwork now, haven't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,alan Whittle
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:48 AM

Okay. One last try. Then I'm off to join the weasels.

How about if everybody stated their point of view on this subject without giving an opinion of the other guy with the seemingly opposing view?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:51 AM

I can't recall what I said that originally seems to have offended Lox so much; but it led somehow to my [a perfectly normal, twice happily-married, tho approaching 80th year, man] having become subject of his most peculiar fantasies: first of his coprophilia, and now of his bondage-orientation.

I'm not so much worried or offended for myself, as concerned for the state of (what passes for) his mind. For goodness' sake, Lox, ease off & stop breathing so heavy, before you do yourself a mischief.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:53 AM

Not a liar Lox.
Maybe I do lack the comprehension skill, but I genuinely can not remember you explaining the over representation.
Will you remind me?
Also the logical flaws you found in the explanations of Straw, Cryer and Ahmed.

I think you are wrong about Steve.
He probably does think Muslim daughters are not allowed out at night.
It is a commonplace.
He will tell us.
It is exactly the generalisation you said I should not make.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 06:00 AM

The other "elephant in the room", conveniently ignored by people like Don, is that senior police sources say "we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg in these prosecutions."
Child protection agencies and even the police are afraid to investigate complaints, as these investigations are portrayed as racial attacks and bigotry by "liberals".

Educate yerself as to weasel words. Here are the examples from the Wiki article:

"A growing body of evidence..." (Where is the raw data for your review?)

"People say..." (Which people? How do they know?)

"It has been claimed that..." (By whom, where, when?)

"Critics claim..." (Which critics?)

"Clearly..." (As if the premise is undeniably true)

"It stands to reason that..." (Again, as if the premise is undeniably true—see "Clearly" above)

"Questions have been raised..." (Implies a fatal flaw has been discovered)

"I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)

"There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)

"Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)

"It has been mentioned that..." (Who are these mentioners? Can they be trusted?)

"Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)

"Commonsense has it/insists that..." (The common sense of whom? Who says so? See "Popular wisdom" above, and "It is known that" below)

"It is known that..." (By whom and by what method is it known?)

"Officially known as..." (By whom, where, when—who says so?)
"It turns out that..." (How does it turn out?)

"It was noted that..." (A commonly used start of a line by Auditors with poor workpapers or little evidence)

"See why more of our trucks are sold in Southern California than in any other part of the country." (Southern California is a big vehicle market.)

"Nobody else's product is better than ours." (What is the evidence of this?)

"Studies show..." (what studies?)

"(The phenomenon) came to be seen as..." (by whom?)

"Some argue..." (who?)

"Up to sixty percent..." (so, 59%? 50%? 10%?)

"More than seventy percent..." (How many more? 70.01%? 80%? 90%?)

"The vast majority..." (All, more than half—how many?)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 06:05 AM

My God! You can't even trust a weasel these days!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 06:07 AM

Lox explained all that to you, Keith. And he did a very good job. Read and learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 07:49 AM

So you could give us his explanation of the over representation, and the logical flaws he found in the others?
Please.

And, do you think young BP girls are allowed out at night?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 08:09 AM

Keith, why don't you read it for yourself.

It is all in this thread.

It isn't Steve's or my responsibility to recycle it for you if you are too lazy to read it through and try to understand my arguments yourself.

I will know you have read them when your responses reflect that you have digested their meaning and understood them.

Intelligent debate requires intelligent engagement with opposing viewpoints.

In your case, it mainly involves sidestepping inconvenient information and rationale, selective quotation of your opponents, the creation of straw men and tunnel vision.

Noone has said that Moslems or British Pakistanis deserve special treatment ... that is ...

... Noone except you and Ake ... who argue that they should be treated differently on the basis that you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls, while the same crimes committed by other cultures must therefore inspired by a different motivation.

YOU, Ake, Jack Straw, Anne Cryer, Lord Ahmed and that Daily Mail columnist are the ones who think that British Pakistani culture should be treated differently.

I have been refuting that and arguing that ALL sexual criminals operate from the same motivation.


So Keith and Ake, why should British Pakistaani Moslems be given special treatment?

You've been trying to back up this idea for around a week now and still haven't provided any evidence more compelling than the point of view of two labour politicians, a House of Lords Peer, and a Daily Mail columnist.

I think thats quite long enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 08:10 AM

.


               300


.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 08:50 AM

Three Labour politicians, one of whom now a Labour peer.
I absolutely do not want special treatment for any group.
Why do you claim that?

I still can not find your explanation for the over representation.
It is not laziness.
Are you sure you ever gave one?

No explanation is provable.
All that can be said is that they are consistent with the facts.
If they are then they warrant consideration.
No flaws have been found in the explanations of Straw, Cryer or Ahmed.
Have they?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 09:08 AM

I asked several times for your explanation Lox.
This is the only time you responded.
You start by quoting me, but never answer.


"you have no alternative ideas."

The subject of the thread isn't "paedophile Gangs"

The subject is "Muslim Prejudice".

Is prejudice against Moslems an issue? Is it understandable? Why? What reasons? ...

... well one is that "they" traffick young white girls ...

(this is presumably after they've come over here and taken our jobs)

Well actually, this has nothing to do with Islam, or Pakistani culture, and there is no evidence or reliable argument that supports that accusation.

Wait - hang on - Keith thinks there is ... and he will fight to the bitter end to try to prove it, even when the very weak evidence he has provided is shown not to give any weight to the views he thinks are "reasonable".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 09:43 AM

I do not call you liar Lox.
We have all made posts that have disappeared.

There is no post of yours that explains,
"that the gangs in this case are predominantly made up of Pakistanis"
or
"In this case, the gangs are comprisedd mainly, though not exclusively, by men of Pakistani origin."

Please give us your explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:12 AM

Romanian Gangs are predominantly romanian.

Russian Gangs are predominantly Russian.

Pakistani gangs are predominantly Pakistani.


I have offered alternative explanations and I have found fundamental flaws with Cryers and Straws arguments and they are there to be read by those with the wit to read them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:04 AM

No, you have not.
And because you have not, you can not repeat them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 12:06 PM

It`s easy to see that this will be a three-pipe thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 02:39 PM

Whatever Keith,

All you are proving now is that you haven't read my posts properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 03:18 PM

Lox, I have really tried.
If I can't find it or remember it, others won't either.
Does anyone out there know Lox's explanation, or what faults he found with the other one?

Why not tell us again Lox?
Or direct us the the post.
Because it does exist, right?
People will start to wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 03:54 PM

Al ...I believe you are a liberal, a true liberal wishes to debate and understand his opponent's point of view.

Unfortunately those participating in this thread, who are apologising for the conduct of the Muslim Pakistani criminals, are "liberals".....definition being Fascists masquerading as liberals.
As you have noted, their M.O. is personal abuse, multiple posts which say nothing relevent to the thread, simply used as a mechanism to stop debate.
I am at the opposite end of the political spectrum from both Keith and Miss Phillips....but I never allow my political opinions to deflect me from obvious truth.
Keith has demolished all opposition here by simply stating the facts relating to the crimes.
He opponents have been reduced to stuttering repetitive parrots, there is no defense for what has happened to these children.
They are unable or unwilling to answer any of the points he raises.

Miss Phillips, in the link I posted tells of vitreolic abuse received in response to her article ....including death threats, this from promoters of a "liberal" agenda?

The large Pakistani muslim community in Glasgow is a typical example of why multiculturalism is a failure.
There is no integration of cultures the numbers of mixed marriages can be counted on one hand and usually mean excommunication from the Muslim side of the family.....racial blackmail?

There is a wealth of evidense available, from care workers, police, independent experts, Ex Cabinet ministers, MPs. etc stating that these crimes were cultural in nature......the opposition have offered up no evidence to the contrary.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:39 PM

"There is a wealth of evidense available, from care workers, police, independent experts, Ex Cabinet ministers, MPs. etc stating that these crimes were cultural in nature"

Where?

Its your claim - back it up.

So far the only evidence you have shown us is a columnists opinion from the Mail - and as Steve points out rather beautifully, she argues two opposing views in the same article.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 06:48 PM

Unfortunately those participating in this thread, who are apologising for the conduct of the Muslim Pakistani criminals, are "liberals".....definition being Fascists masquerading as liberals.
As you have noted, their M.O. is personal abuse...

I find the apparent lack of irony in the way you express yourself to be very touching.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 10:49 PM

And what has your contribution been Lox?
Your position is just that all minorities are above criticism, and no culture may be questioned.

Even to state the obvious truth, that BP girls are discouraged from engaging in courtship, is to be guilty of "wild generalisations."

You dismiss the theory put forward by three prominent, Left wing politicians with deep knowledge of the community, but you are unable to describe any flaw, or provide any alternative.

Demanding proof is an empty gesture.
Such theories are not susceptible to proof.
Even yours if you had one.

The theory is consistent with the facts, self consistent, has no logical flaws, and no alternative offered.
But you will not even consider it.

So what has been your contribution Lox?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:27 PM

You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,"

Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment.
It is a factor that most groups do not have to deal with, and it is only a suggestion.

How can you be certain (CERTAIN!!) that men, made to marry late but deprived of any intimate relationships, might not be, just very slightly, predisposed?

We are all individuals, with individual weaknesses.
The over representation is a fact.
This de-racialises it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:37 AM

Steven....my whole statement was loaded with irony....:0)

Perhaps the irony escapes you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 03:35 AM

Commended to attention: two stories in this morning's Times:

p 3 ~ "Thousands of young people put at risk as families defy courts over forced marriage"

p 30 ~ "Karzai law promise tested by lovers' stoning death film" --

Just how long can Lox and Steve & all their oh-so-worthy, well-meaning, antiracist, my·mind·is·made·up·so·please·do·not·confuse·me·with·facts lot go on wilfully turning a blind eye to the reality of the threat of Islamism?

{Lox ~ I have no colostomy; shower daily & do not suffer from BO; am not in a wheelchair; am not into bondage: so what charming piece of rude abuse are you going to find to fling at me this time, you contemptible little cad? Are you seeing anyone about these sad and alarming obsessions of yours? If not, you certainly should.}

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 04:06 AM

... & btw, Lox, does it not occur to you that there are probably Catters reading this thread who are wheelchair-bound or colostomy-dependent? I wonder what they must think of your delightful choice of matter·for·insult, you nasty little man?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 04:11 AM

I think he might have left again.
We should install a revolving door!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 04:32 AM

Well, I personally think that stoning and forced marriages are bad things. I hope that makes you happy. But the point is you seem to want to make a case against Islam. Actually, when you think about it, you tend to hear about stonings because they are rare. Hundreds of people put to death by the state in the US and China are so workaday that you don't see them in The Times very often unless you search around on the bottom of page 33. That isn't in any way to justify stonings, but it's worth remembering that there are over a billion Muslims on this planet and you hear about stonings, how often? I'm an atheist and I think Christianity has done much damage, but I'm not going to make a whole case against it on the basis of a few errant priests. I have far better arguments. Stonings are horrible and it's good that we get to hear about them, but I have to wonder what your motive is in pointing up this one example when so many other rotten things are going on in the names of any religion or none.

It's quite interesting, actually, that not all young Muslims are opposed to arranged marriages (and, in many cases, the pejorative western epithet "forced" is not the best term to describe them). Maybe this whole "marriage" business needs a good looking at...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:00 AM

I am not 'making a case' against Islam or Muslims, Steve; but against Islamism ~~ and don't pretend you don't know the difference. I know the adherents of this particular mode of the faith are far from a majority: but they are uncontrollable by that majority, & by their nature are going to have the most impact, which will be most felt ~~ or did the Twin Towers just happen to fall over, or that London bus on 7/7 suffer from spontaneous combustion? The truth, as you well know, is that there will be a few well-meaning and ineffectual voices raised from within Islam against Taleban & Al-Qaeda, to which they will pay precisely no attention; but the majority of Muslims will just sit back & let things proceed; many of whom will secretly ~ or not even, in every case, so secretly ~ rejoice that that way lies the probable ultimate triumph of Jihad & the Da'wa. I would commend the wise saying of Edmund Burke ~ "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:06 AM

"And what has your contribution been Lox?
Your position is just that all minorities are above criticism, and no culture may be questioned."

Interesting tactic.

Responding to things I haven't said, but ignoring the things I have said.


"How can you be certain (CERTAIN!!) that men, made to marry late but deprived of any intimate relationships, might not be, just very slightly, predisposed?"


Another ridiculous argument.

Pay attention to the refutation so you remember it.


You could say this about any influence - what paper they read, whether they live near power lines, whether they have beards, whether they were abducted by aliens.


Without EVIDENCE that any of these things are responsible for crimninals trafficking in young women, all these suggestions, including yours, are just hair brained nonsense.

You still have no evidence to support your claim and you still concentrate solely on one factor that dribves these criminals to their crime to the exclusion of all other variables.

HHow do you know it isn't their food, or the absence of alcohol, or a reaction to the cold weather and rain?

Are they all possible reasons?

Yes.

But there is NO EVIDENCE suggesting these things are true, hence they are just imaginary constructs.

Like your hypothesis Keith.

It is an imaginary construct and there is NO EVIDENCE to back it up.


Now please concentrate and try to digest that refutation and then try to remember it so that you won't have to ask me to repeat it later.

The basic substance of it may already be familiar depending on how bad your menory loss is.


Thank you for confirming your position though - I deleted "inevitable" and replaced it with "slight" and got this:

"their culture inspires a slight predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls"

Can you confirm that that is your opinion of British Pakistanis?

Do you belueve that British Pakistanbi culture inspires a greater propensity for child abuse than other cultures? or is this just a meaningless statement that applies to all cultures.


Because that would confirm for sure whether you are proposing a bigotted hypothesis or a genuinely considered one.

The absence of any other suggestions combined with the above sentence, with "slight" substituted for "inevitable" doesn't bode well for you.



MtheGM, I'm glad I've pissed you off as that was clearly your intention when you posted to this thread.

In addition, you are in no position to comment about foul language.

I hope you like your reflection.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:14 AM

Of all the pompous crap ...

"I am not 'making a case' against Islam or Muslims, ..."

You hadn't made any case about anything ... are you mad?

"... but against Islamism"


Oh - I see - so younf blinged up gangsters in flashy cars abducting girls and trafficking them is a new tactic of Islamist extremists ...

This is pure gold ...


... this on the other hand is plain lies and slander:

"but the majority of Muslims will just sit back & let things proceed; many of whom will secretly ~ or not even, in every case, so secretly ~ rejoice that that way lies the probable ultimate triumph of Jihad & the Da'wa. I would commend the wise saying of Edmund Burke ~ "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"."


I'll see you at the next EDL demo then shall I?

nob

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:15 AM

but the majority of Muslims will just sit back & let things proceed; many of whom will secretly ~ or not even, in every case, so secretly ~ rejoice that that way lies the probable ultimate triumph of Jihad & the Da'wa.

Yeah, well, that's religion for you. The majority of Christians sit back and let the Pope spread his ill-considered dogma about birth control around the world, forcing millions of African women into poverty and ill-health. If you're not anti-Islam tell me why you single out Muslims for this responsibility to speak out.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:19 AM

" "their culture inspires a slight predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls"

Can you confirm that that is your opinion of British Pakistanis?"

It is my opinion that it is a reasonable suggestion.
The over representation is a fact that requires an explanation.
Something is predisposing them, and it is more likely to be something sexual in the culture than your alternative list. (wild generalisations?)

If it did give rise to just a slight predisposition, then only a tiny minority would succumb.
And that is exactly what is found.

It is consistent with the facts, self consistent, contains no logical flaws, and no alternative yet suggested.

The only problem is your mantra that only Western culture may ever be questioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:31 AM

Lox ~~ for the past year or more I have carefully avoided any use of "foul language" ~~ I have recently called you "a contemptible cad" and "a nasty little man": these are the sorts of usages I employ in this kind of controversy on this site. Do you really regard these as "foul language"? My, what an innocent. I defy you to find anywhere, since an unfortunate spat I had on another thread with Suibhne well over a year ago [since when we have much buried our differences & are on good terms], an instance of my having used anywhere on this Forum anything that even your Maiden Aunt Jemima would regard as "foul language".

You, on the other hand, in addition to your charming insults, not just to me, but, I repeat. to those of our Cat-colleagues who might be unfortunate enough to be in wheelchairs or dependent on colostomies, habitually and constantly employ all sorts of choice phraseology.

I think you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself; but I don't for a second expect you are. And should apologise, to me & to them; but I don't for a second suppose you will.

Where, anyhow, is this post in which you choose to infer that I invited this sort of immoderate and inappropriate response from you? I can't identify it, Can you?

Or, more widely, can anyone else on this thread? Can any of you see where Lox is coming from in his insulting posts addressed so specifically to me? Because [warning ~~ "foul language", MtheGM-style, coming up] I'm dashed if I can {"That's what I am, Jeeves ~ I am positively dashed!"}

I am sorry to have drifted a bit into some personal dispute; but I assert that I didn't start it, and I really don't see why I should remain silent under the obnoxious Lox's deliberate provocations.

(Do you think "obnoxious" foul language, then, Lox. Ah diddums!...)

And I hope it keeps fine for you...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:41 AM

And there is evidence.
Ahmed experienced that sexual deprivation himself as a young man and he believes that it is quite capable of giving rise to the observed pattern of crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:47 AM

M,
You did refer to smoked salmon in connection to Lox.
That does make you something of a bounder.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 06:09 AM

Well, Lox does mean smoked salmon: if not after that comestible, why did Lox select his Cat-name? Anyhow, it's scarcely "foul language", is it? I really can't see it as occasion for all this scatter-gun obloquy, which passes me right by because it has no basis in any sort of fact or reality in relation to my own situation (so I don't see the point of his referring to all this as my 'reflection'); but, I reiterate yet again, it must all appear peculiarly distasteful to anyone who is in a wheelchair, or needs a colostomy ~~ or even, I suppose, labours under the responsibility for caring for anyone such.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 06:14 AM

I agree with M on the use of derogatory language in reference to people who are wheelchair bound, or who have had major surgery....or old people in general.

This is despicable, I know for a fact that there are many older people here, some have to use wheelchairs occasionally.

We dont all "smell funny".....and even if we did, the odour would be like rose petals, compared to that which emanates from one particularly obnoxious poster

Perhaps another apology would be in order.....to the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 07:52 AM

"Yeah, well, that's religion for you. The majority of Christians sit back and let the Pope spread his ill-considered dogma about birth control around the world, forcing millions of African women into poverty and ill-health. If you're not anti-Islam tell me why you single out Muslims for this responsibility to speak out."====

I don't dispute what you say, Steve. But the answer to your question is that, despite the Pope's authority over some of his own co-religionists [mainly, as you say, in the 3rd World ~~ I think few Euro RCs practise birth control much these days ~~ have you read David Lodge's "How Far Can You Go?"?] ~~ Xtianity is not nowadays a proselytising religion as it was in the days of the Crusades & The Holy Office [Inquisition]. OTOH the function of Islamist Jihad is Da'wa. That is the aim of the Islamists & the reason for Taleban & 9/11 & so forth. They see an entirely Muslim world as their holy, Koran-commanded, mission, and will use any means possible, from stoning adutresses to flying planes into skyscrapers, to achieve it.

AND WHATEVER YOU MAY SAY, YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT & it is idle to deny it. You know as well as I do that that is where the current danger lies as adduced in my previous post to which you responded as above. In sum, the Pope is not trying to take over the world; Bin-Laden, Al-Qaeda, Taleban, the Islamist movement, ARE; and you know it.

I hope that answers your question.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 07:58 AM

""Keith has demolished all opposition here by simply stating the facts relating to the crimes.""

In your dreams!

""He opponents have been reduced to stuttering repetitive parrots, there is no defense for what has happened to these children.
They are unable or unwilling to answer any of the points he raises.""

You can't really be that dim, so I suppose you are just on your usual anti "liberal" troll.

Nobody, but NOBODY, has defended or attempted to defend what happened to those children.

The argument here is simply about the way in which three or four posters here are affected by the words "Muslim", "Islam", "Asian" and "Pakistani", the mere mention of which sets them foaming at the mouth.

Your claim that Keith has demolished all opposition by presenting facts is ludicrous.

He has presented only the opinions of a group of politicos and self styled "experts" whose outpourings he regards as proof of his case.

He doesn't even quote them honestly or accurately, as I have pointed out several times. Jack Straw was at pains to point out that these crimes were "Not a predominantly Asian problem, but disproportionately a white problem".

That didn't fit Keith's agenda, so it was ignored.

All that I want to see is a balanced and logical appraisal before drawing conclusions. Raw figures based on this local matter are statistically insignificant unless one also reports the total number of this kind of case over the same period, in the same area.

Does anybody believe that there were only seventeen cases in thirteen years?....No?

In that case all the rest must have been committed by predominately white groups.

Keith's answer is to ignore the logic, and attempt to broaden the area:

""Derby was typical of a pattern of exploitation being tracked by police and experts around Britain.""

And there is one controversial factor that many of the experts in the field are often not happy to discuss freely. The race of the abusers.

The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim.""

Even if this statement (unsupported by a shred of evidence since Keith doesn't give sources, probably doesn't have credible sources) were true, it is also true that these towns are likely to be atypical of the country as a whole, since they all fall within the coast to coast strip of country between Birmingham in the South, and North Yorkshire in the North which, according to public records contains 59.63% of the Pakistanis in the UK.

If anybody has any concern with the plight of the victims, I would have expected some insistence on the whole picture.

Those who react with an instant knee jerk to a "Muslim" crime are not screaming about the crime at all. They are not bothered about the victim. It is the perpetrators they home in on, and their critical faculties (if any) go on hold while they pursue their agenda of finding a justification of their "Muslim = BAD".

I know Keith won't bother to read this, so would somebody mind explaining it to him?

No point trying to explain it to Ake.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:01 AM

And Lox, the above answer to Steve might be regarded as some reply to your last fatuous post to me. I decline to dispute directly with you, because frankly you are clearly just not intelligent enough to make such a procedure worth while; can't think why anybody bothers to do so, in fact. Trying to argue with your entrenched parroted repetitious point-missing non-points is much like trying to batter down a brick wall with one's head.

Please don't bother to reply, as I don't propose to waste any more time reading any post with your name at the top.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan whittle
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 08:52 AM

Oh well! That's cleared that up!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 10:37 AM

Come on Michael, don't beat about the bush, out with it....say what you mean, man! :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 11:50 AM

Don, I did give that source. Yorkshire News I think.
Just google the text. It is cut and paste.
You are wrong about what Jack Straw said.
This is from BBC site.
However, speaking on the BBC's Newsnight programme after the case, Mr Straw said vulnerable white girls were at risk of being targeted by some Asian men.

Continue reading the main story
"
Start Quote
The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim."
End Quote
Concerns over sex abuse grooming
He said his own constituency was one of the areas where it was a problem and called on the Pakistani community to be "more open" about the abuse.

He said: "Pakistanis, let's be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders' wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders.

"But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men... who target vulnerable young white girls.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:14 PM

Keith,

"It is consistent with the facts, self consistent, contains no logical flaws, and no alternative yet suggested."

Wrong, it contains the logical flaw of being just one of many variables.

It also conatins the logical flaw that sexual abuse and trafficking are not exclusive to British Pakistanis.

And there are many probable alternatives, which apply to the whole community and not just Moslems, many of them just within the British and international Media, and many more that are intrinsic to British and European culture.

But most importantly, you STILL have no evidence.

Lord Ahmed may project his feeling onto others as much as he wishes.

Would you like to suggest that, being English, you know from your childhood experience what drives English rapists to their crimes?

Wait - let me guess, that logic only applies to Moslems.

The only way to test your hypothesis is to do a proper study, that rules out all other variables first, and then clarifies how these sex crimes could only have been committed by British Pakistanis, and couldn't have been committed by Whites.

And Keith, lets not forget that these gangs did in fact have white members (maybe they were non Moslem Islamists).


"It is my opinion that it is a reasonable suggestion."

i.e a legitimate and supportable argument.

Yet there is no evidential or logical support for it.

So that leaves you with nothing more than "because I think so"


"If it did give rise to just a slight predisposition, then only a tiny minority would succumb.
And that is exactly what is found."

And if any other variables, like those shared with other demographics, that might give rise to "just a slight predisposition" then the same could be said.

The only way your hypothesis can work is if and when all other variables are eliminated and it can be proved that sex crimes committed by Pakistani Moslems are different in nature to sex crimes committed by other demographics.

Scientific experiment requires the elimination of variables in order to form a reliable hypothesis.

A hypothesis cannot be said to be reliable until all variables have been accounted for.

In your case, you are deliberately and selectively ignoring other variables and similarities with other cultures, consequently, your hypothesis is unreliable.

The greater the number of unconsidered variables, the less reliable the hypothesis.

There are hundreds of non Islamic cultural influences that have not been factored in, let alone ewwliminated, which renders your hypothesis entirely unreliable.

That is the flaw in your logic.

And finally,

"And that is exactly what is found"

In other words, because a tiny minority of Pakkistanis are sex criminals, therefore Pakistani culture slghtly predisposes Pakistanis to sexual abuse.

According to your logic, all Pakistanis are therefore slightly predisposed to sexual abuse as distinct from other people who are not affected by Pakistani Culture.


That mate is More Slander.


As for MtheGM, Ake, and so on, ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:33 PM

Yeah, I fall asleep when shouted at too....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:42 PM

MtheGM

"WHATEVER YOU MAY SAY, YOU KNOW I AM RIGHT ... grrrrr ... salmon .... lox ... etc ... blither blither ..."

hahaha ... zzzzzzzzz ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:49 PM

Don, some more points from your mega post.

You faked a quote (Jack Straw) to help your case.
Devious.

You talk about us "frothing at the mouth"
All the anger and abuse comes from your side.
We have been very measured in the terms we have used in comparison.

"Does anybody believe that there were only seventeen cases in thirteen years?....No?"

Only 17 cases of this particular crime actually.

Even in those areas, they are much less than half the population, so they are massively over represented.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:53 PM

Lox, your mega post.

If we are looking for an explanation for BP over representation, we must look for factors specific to them.

Something that it is reasonable to link the the nature of the crime.

That does away with every single silly alternative factor you put up, but leaves the one I have drawn your attention to.

You have not found a flaw, or produced an alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:54 PM

Keith,

genuine investigation would begin as follows.

A very small number of British Pakistanis have committed some sex crimes.

A very small minority of other demographics have also committed sex crimes.

It is reasonable to suspect that there is a common factor which inspires all these sex crimes to be committed.

i'e a shared characteristic possessed by all the sex criminals.

On ths basis we may deduce that, if it is a shared characteristic, which is very likely, then it is not one unique to one or other demographic, as it would no longer be shared.

If it is cultural, it must therefore be a cultural factor shared among the various demographics.

Therefore, it cannot be Islamic or Pakistani culture that is to blame, as that is not a shared characteristic.

It must be something else.

What do they have in common?

Well thats what a study might eventually find out, but theres so much to sift through that it could take years.

There's your logic Keith.


You start with the conclusion and call it a hypothesis, and then stand up for it to the bitter end.

And your conclusion is that British Pakistani men are disposed to rape in a way that other men are not.

That mate is called discriminating on the basis of race to the esclusion of all other factors.


That is what you, Ake, and now MtheGM are all doing.

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:59 PM

"BP" as you call them, are only overrepresented in these cases.

They are not overrepresented in sex crimes in general.

The only observable factor that makes them distinct is that they choose their victims openly on the street and drive around in flash cars.

Keith, are you sayng that driving round in Flashy cars is peculiarly representative of "BP" culture?

I would have called that very westernized behaviour.

So it isn't that.

What else is there about these crimes that is peculiarly "BP" by nature?

Until you can find something peculiarly "BP", your argument remains unsupported.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 03:01 PM

Oh, bugger. I had read that last, uncharacteristically brief post addressed to me, before I noticed who it was from.

So, for the last time, Lox ~~

I wasn't talking to you. So just butt out, Prodnose. {I was working last night, reviewing a good production of Much Ado About Nothing: I am reminded of the line "I wonder you will still be talking, Signor Benedick; nobody marks you".}

And that, M Le Saumon Fumé, or whatever name you like to be known by, you captious, pretentious, pernickety little snob, is positively the last word you get from me. So go back to zzzzzzz: best place for you, you preternaturally unpleasant apology for an organism and gross grotesque waste of space, you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 03:03 PM

Nice try with the excuse for not having to take account of all possible variables.

Until you do, and as long as you refuse to do so, your hypothesis is racist one.

Why else would you refuse to acknowledge that other influences could be to blame.

Your argument is "I can see only one reason, therefore there is only one reason."

Whereas in fact it only proves that you have tunnel vision.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 03:22 PM

True enuff. from THAT perspective, we're all racists.

From the other end of the tunnel, are YOU sure YOU have taken account of all the variables before branding people as racists?

You can see only one explanation for our dialogue, that doesn't mean to say its the only reason.

Other influences could be to blame.

perhaps its because YOU have tunnel vision.

or perhaps not....who gives a shit?

Lets climb out of the tunnel and be friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:59 PM

I think the point is that British Pakistanis, and I only use the term to be consistent with the thread, are over-represented in these cases. I have no doubt as to the veracity of Keiths figures. Lox has even agreed that it is an over-representation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox - PM
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:59 PM

"BP" as you call them, are only overrepresented in these cases.

They are not overrepresented in sex crimes in general.

The question of why there is an over-representation is the one that can be subject to racist conjecture.

The suggestion is, I guess, that simply by quoting the figures, it displays a racial motive? I don't accept that premise in all cases I am afraid. While I would suspect that certain right wing politicians, who shall remain nameless here, do have that hidden agenda, why should I suspect that Lord Ahmed or Jack Straw are acting in the same way?

I did, incidentaly, put up what I felt were reasonable reasons for such an over-representation earlier but only Keith chose to respond. And then to only agree that he, like myself, did not have an answer!

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 02:31 AM

Shall we accept an empasse?
Summary.
We started by contrasting reaction to revalations of child sex abuse by small minorities of priests and of Pakistanis.
Some thought is significant, others not.

While acknowledging the under representation of BPs in all other non terror crimes including other sex crimes, there is a massive over representation here.

Lox has suggested it has to do with their cars.
He once lived near some BPs.
A former Home Secretary, with an intimate knowledge of his local BP community had another theory, which was added to by Ahmed who had himself grown up in the community.
He is a BP.
Some thought they were probably right.
Others somehow just know they are wrong.

I have nothing more to add really.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 02:32 AM

Can we agree to put no more than two points at a time to each other please?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 04:54 AM

"Lox has suggested it has to do with their cars."

No Keith -

Once again you fail to respond to my actual post, so instead you make up a point of view and respond to that instead.

So you are creating straw men again

Which is basically telling lies.

What I said was that the only factor which distinguishes these abductions and rapes from those committed by other non Pakistani gangs is that the victims were abducted in cars fgrom the street.

Apart from that, there is no difference in the way these girls were abducted and raped.

So was the manner in which they were abducted and raped particularly Pakistani by nature?

No it wasn't.

"He once lived near some BPs."

No, I lived in a predominantly Moslem Pakistani area for nearly two years.

Another lie.

Is that really the only way you have of responding to my points? Lie about what I said?

The rest of the same post also indicates that you have completely ignored everything I have explained to you.


Alan,

Just to clarify: - if you read back you will see that I called the hypothesis that British Pakistanis are culturally disposed to paedophilia and rape a racist hypothesis.

That is not the same as calling keith a racist, but it does beg the question, why is he so single mindedly sticking up for it to the exclusion of all other possibilities.


Dave

""BP" as you call them, are only overrepresented in these cases."

Note the words "in these cases".

In other words, in crimes committed by "predominantly" British Pakistani Gangs, i.e gangs that are predominantl;y made up of british pakistanis, it can be observed, that the criminals are preominantly Pakistani.

I think we should award Keith a Phd for deducing that revealing insight.

SHOCK HEADLINE - 90% of Pakistani gang members are Pakistani!

Keith A of Hertford, a prominent blogger today stated that this shows that Pakistani culture is naturally predisposed to rape and paedophilia.

Empasse? ... followed by straw men? ...

... exactly how many lies do you want me to allow to go unchallenged?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 04:56 AM

"Can we agree to put no more than two points at a time to each other please?"

The idea that geuine debate can be quantified like this is just plain absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 05:04 AM

"the only factor which distinguishes these abductions and rapes from those committed by other non Pakistani gangs is that the victims were abducted in cars fgrom the street."

There have been no none Pakistani gang that has been found to be involved in such a crime, and that is the only crime under discussion.
Gangs forming for the purpose of street grooming.

Why such gangs have formed is what Straw Cryer and Ahmed spoke about.
What is your explanation?
(Not cars then. Sorry.)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 05:23 AM

Keith, They are gangs that abduct and rape women and children.

There are gangs that do that from many demographics all over the world.

The only difference is they way these gangs go about abducting their victims.

Is it that they win their victims trust and then abuse it?

No - thats a pretty common tactic - the romanian gang in the news last week also used that tactic ... so whats different? ... they win their victims initial confidence (grooming) on the street.

Again, none of this aupports your hypothesis that Pakistani culture predisposes those who live within it (Pakistanis) to rape and paedophilia.

Wy am I agreeing to your ridiculous escapist terminology?

What is Pakistani culture?

It is the system of norms and values than can be observed to exist amongst pakistanis.

What is British Pakistani culture?

It is the norms and values that can be observed to exist amongst Pakistanis in Britain.

Which are not exclusively defined by their Pakistani heritage, but also by the environment they live in Now - Britain.


Keith, the best you can argue is that Pakistani Abductors and rapists have used different means to other rapists to win the confidence of their victims.

Why hhave Romanian and Russian Gangs formed Keith?

What is your explanation?

Why do any organized crime gangs form keith?

come on - if you are serious about investigation, then do it properly and stop being so narrow minded.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 05:39 AM

"Why hhave Romanian and Russian Gangs formed Keith?"

I do not know why any form Lox.
The explanation for the BP gangs was not mine.

Amended summary.

We started by contrasting reaction to revalations of child sex abuse by small minorities of priests and of Pakistanis.
Some thought is significant, others not.

While acknowledging the under representation of BPs in all other non terror crimes including other sex crimes, there is a massive over representation here.

Lox has suggested no explanations.
He lived near some BPs for two years.
A former Home Secretary, with an intimate knowledge of his local BP community had another theory, which was added to by Ahmed who had himself grown up in the community.
He is a BP.
Some thought they were probably right.
Others somehow just know they are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 12:57 PM

Dave's suggestion.
"I am not disagreeing or agreeing - just wondering if the figures have been skewed by an inherent predjudice against asian gangs by police? Or are the groups of non-moslem paedophiles more sophisticated and not as easy to convict?"

Dave, would there not have been some outcry from the community, or the liberal press, if that were the case?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 04:14 PM

Personally, I think the most telling feature of these abductions, is the FACT that not one of the unfortunate victims has been Muslim......am I the only one to find that strange, considering that these criminals must have access to Muslin children.

Surely it is not for moral reasons, as these creatures must be completely immoral?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 05:03 PM

"The explanation for the BP gangs was not mine."

Oh really? Then what is this?

"My hypothesis is that the absence of girls available for sexual relationships in the BP culture may be linked to their young men being over represented in this type of crime."

So you are not only lying about British Pakistanis and about my words, but also about your words.

By the way, could your expert witness and arbiter of Morality possibly be convicted criminal Lord Ahmed? Expelled from the Labour Party in 2009?


You have nothing Keith.

Your summary is "feebly" provocative at best and sheer deluded fantasy at worst.

The first post is about "Muslim Prejudice".

The posts about Pakistanis were made in this context.

Your defence of these posts, and your hypothesis were made in this context.

Your argument has been torn yto ribbons, so the only tactic you have left is to shut your eyes, pretend it never happened, and tell lies.


And I love Akes preposterous argument that if the liberal press didn't make an outcry against something then it never happened.


You are a couple of poisonous old fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 05:17 PM

""All the anger and abuse comes from your side.
We have been very measured in the terms we have used in comparison.""

Classic Keith.....Accuse others of what you do yourself.

Quote the posts in which I have abused you personally rather than attacking your arguments and attitudes!

If you can't then STFU!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 06:00 PM

Dave, would there not have been some outcry from the community, or the liberal press, if that were the case?

Probably, Keith, probably. Like I said. I don't have the answer like some seem to think they do. I just know it's a difficult, distasteful and often dishertening subject.

When people get so tied up in whether the crime is a racial or cultural one they loose track of the unfortunate victims I think it may be time to call it a day. Surely it should just suffice to say that these people are criminals of the worst kind. Maybe if identifying why there is a spate of predominantly asian gangs doing these attrocius things in the UK then it would help to stop them. But we all know such arguments are primarily for our own self gratification and to show how much more intelligent our arguments are than our neighbours.

In this case I am afraid none of them are. Including this one. Sorry.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 06:16 PM

""Only 17 cases of this particular crime actually.

Even in those areas, they are much less than half the population, so they are massively over represented.""

You are doing it again!!!

Only seventeen cases involving Pakistani or Muslim defendants, and an unknown number of cases which did not involve those groupings......i.e. White perpetrators.

Now, are you going to insult everybody's intelligence again, and pretend that the foregoing isn't true?

In just the five years from 2004 to 2009 there were 1330 cases of sexual grooming nationwide. There are no figures for the other eight years, but it seems reasonable to assume that the 1330 would be at least doubled.

The area under discussion would surely have produced many more than seventeen of those.

In answer to your reliance on cut'n paste from newspapers, here's one for you to read.

""Joan Smith   The Independent


The truth is more prosaic, in that these horrific crimes against children are not racially-motivated in the obvious sense; bluntly, they are about a business opportunity. Gangs are making money out of a demand for very young girls, and Straw is right to suggest that the victims who are most easily available tend to be white.

It's an undeniable fact that many of the defendants in these cases are from a Pakistani background. But there's no evidence that men from one ethnic origin are more likely to abuse girls than any other. External trafficking to the UK often involves gangs from Eastern Europe, but that isn't to say there's something in the genetic make-up of Russian or Ukrainian men that makes them more likely to turn young women into sex slaves. Former Soviet states have high levels of unemployment, alcoholism and domestic violence, conditions in which sexual abuse and trafficking flourish.""

What makes your sources right and this one wrong?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 06:30 PM

Read it again Don.
"It's an undeniable fact that many of the defendants in these cases are from a Pakistani background"
It then says that in all cases of abuse there is not an ethnic dimension.
I have acknowledged that from the start.
Only in street grooming.

I do not dispute your figure for grooming.
We are only discussing street grooming by gangs.
The have only been these 17 cases.

Frothing at the mouth.
Your posts are full of anger and aggression.
Mine are not.

Dave, it is OK to be unsure and open minded.
Beware of belligerent certainty.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 06:48 PM

Futile occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, economic pillage in the U.S. by the Military Industrial Complex, Boeing, Martin Marietta, etc. Wall Street and adding to this the demonization of Muslims; Osama is laughing at the U.S. and the world. Al Quaeda seems to be on the rise.

Islamophobia is reminiscent of the great Red Scare.

Not much difference in the level of violence between the Christian Bible and the Muslim Koran.

You want power and control politically?   First you have to find a scapegoat.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 07:03 PM

"It then says that in all cases of abuse there is not an ethnic dimension.
I have acknowledged that from the start.
Only in street grooming."

Not true, you have also confirmed that you believe that British Pakistani Culture predisposes British Pakistanis to the rape of teenagers.

To be precise, you posted the following.



"You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,"

Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment."



It follows according to your Logic that British Pakistanis are more predisposed than other demographics to abusing underage girls, on the basis that they are British Pakistanis (I am unaware of any other demographics that can be said to be representative of British Pakistani culture).

Perhaps you could clarify Keith what YOU think - in YOUR opinion, are British Pakistanis, as a result of their culture or otherwise, more predisposed to abusiing young teenagers than other demographics?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 07:28 PM

"Beware of belligerent certainty."

Keith posts a hypothesis that Pakistanis, as a result of the pressures of their culture, are slightly more predisposed to sexually abusing underage girls than other demographics.

He insists, beyond all doubt that his hypothesis is reasonable ... ie it is a legitimate and supportable point of view.

He argues to support his hypothesis for A WEEK.

He provides no evidence, and his arguments all depend on a deliberate tunnel vision to function, if not outright lies.

And he warns about belligerent certainty.

Are you having a laugh?


Keith,

My position is that neither you nor I nor anyone else is qualified to assert the causes of these crimes.

My position is that to understand the causes, a proper study would have to be done as there are many variables that COULD have contributed.

My position is that your hypothesis is uncertain, unreliable and tenuous.

My position is that your hypothesis lacks evidence and even a meaningful argument to support it.

My position is that we cannot be certain about why these crimes are happening.

Let me say that again ... "we cannot be certain" ... and in the case of your hypothesis, there is no evidence at all to give it even the vaguest legitimacy.

We cannot be certain but ... no ... no buts ... we have no evidence at all.

But your certainty that it is reasonable, despite being unable to support it, means that you have defended it through thick and thin FOR A WEEK.

Your determination to prove a racist hypothesis, i.e. a hypothesis that has as its foundation assumptions that discriminate on grounds of race and its culture to the exclusion of all other variables, and in fact which rejects other variables out of hand before even considering what they might be, is very worrying.

Why would you spend so much of your life trying to sell a racist idea?

Your posts get more farcical by the hour.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 07:53 PM

Personally, I think the most telling feature of these abductions, is the FACT that not one of the unfortunate victims has been Muslim......am I the only one to find that strange, considering that these criminals must have access to Muslin children.

Surely it is not for moral reasons, as these creatures must be completely immoral?

Why don't you just have done with it and claim that these guys shagged all these underage white girls in the name of Islam? Can't you see how stupid this is? Maybe you are only allowed to shag white girls whilst your bare wagging arse is pointing to Mecca. Somebody help this bloke!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 12:13 AM

Lox, you can not challenge what I say, so you must impugn my motive.

I have stated repeatedly that BPs are under represented in all other non terror crime including other sex crime.
It is an established fact anyway, so there can not be a predisposition to rape.

The massive over representation in this crime is also a fact.
Is it fair to say that you think it wrong to speculate on the reason?
Was it wrong to speculate on the reason for their massive over representation in infant mortality and crippling inherited diseases?
Both devastate young lives.

When eminent people with impeccable credentials produced an explanation, I chose to listen, but you just got angry.
You dismissed them with much abuse.
Why?
Ideology!
An ideology that meant you knew with unerring certainty that they had to be wrong.
Like a religious conviction.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 03:36 AM

Islamophobia is reminiscent of the great Red Scare.*
Not much difference in the level of violence between the Christian Bible and the Muslim Koran.**
You want power and control politically?   First you have to find a scapegoat.*** Stringsinger
=====
Three statements liable to rebound on the asserter's head:~~

* Anyone who remembers such incidents as the Berlin Airlift; the Czech takeover; crushing of Hungarian uprising by Soviet tanks 1956 (cont p 94); and can still use the term Red Scare as an attempt at diminishing litotes is an idiot, frankly. There was plenty to be genuinely scared of; just as there is with Islamism now.

** For differences between present differences in proselytising intent between Xtianity & some, smallish but predominant, forms of Islamism, please see my post above of 2 Feb 07.52 AM.

*** A perfect description, surely of the present attitude & activities of Bin-Laden, Al-Qaeda, the Islamist "Brotherhood", &c?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 03:51 AM

"It is an established fact anyway, so there can not be a predisposition to rape."

Oh Good - so you don't think this any more:

""you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,"

Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment."


Your last post again fails to affress any of my pointsm but just gives yet another inaccurate synopsis of the discussion.

"Is it fair to say that you think it wrong to speculate on the reason?"

No - but this speculation has been wrung out and hung out to dry.

It is wrong to concentrate solely on blaming "British Pakistani culture" (as if it were somehoow isolated) to the deliberate exclusion of all other possibilities.


"The massive over representation in this crime is also a fact."

Again, this is misleading and disingenuous.

In all crimes committed by Raul Moat, Raul Moa was overrepresented.

In all crimes committed by the Sicilian Mafia, Sicilians have been overrepresented.

In all crimes committed by predominantly Pakistani gangs, Pakistanis have been overrepresented.

All are meaningless statements.

The only thing that differentiates these crimes is the manner of abduction, and the oly thing unique about the methods employed by these gangs is that they abduct their victims from the street in flash cars.

That distinction is not a factor that can be attributeds to Pakistani cylture.


"Lox, you can not challenge what I say, so you must impugn my motive."

This is another lie very clearly contradicted by the fact that all your arguments have been answered and rebutted.


So - what other aarguments would you like to dredge up to support this racist hypothesis?

PS - I note you have also ignored my many quuestions ... why is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:07 AM

There are some things I intended to address but overlooked.
Inevitable when dealing with Lox's multiple, long, ranting posts.

Ahmed the convicted criminal.
He was culpable in a fatal road accident.
Inexcusable, but a driving offence, however serious, does not undermine his testimony on this issue.
A low attempt to discredit by smear.

You call me "liar" because I referred to "my hypothesis" when I claimed it was that of Straw and Ahmed.
It would have been more friendly to ask me to clarify.
I did not come up with the hypothesis.
It is not of my making.
It is only mine in that I put it into this debate.

Let us not call each other liar without making sure first.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:14 AM

"PS - I note you have also ignored my many quuestions ... why is that? "

Er, because there are so many, buried in long, multiple posts.

The crime we are discussing is street grooming.
Only BP gangs have been shown to be doing it.
That is probably significant.

No one has just looked at BP gang crime and said "BP gangs are doing these BP gang crimes."
We are saying "why are BP gangs and no one else doing these crimes?"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:36 AM

I would also ask again, if this crime is purely "money orientated", why are the perpetrators predominately Muslim and the unfortunate child victims exclusively non Muslim?

Is life really so full of coincidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:44 AM

"The crime we are discussing is street grooming."

More disingenuous claptrap.

The crime mate is Rape.

Street Grooming is the means by which these rapists capture their victims.


"Er, because there are so many, buried in long, multiple posts."

and

"There are some things I intended to address but overlooked."

are both at odds with the claim: "you can not challenge what I say".


In addition, you admit that you aren't even reading my posts properly before you reply to them and that that is somehow my fault for posting thorough argument.


Which in turn shpws that you are respondiong to selectively chosen lines out of context.

I suggest that before you respond to my posts any more, you Read them and digest what my actual arguments are.

It will require the use of your brain, and concentration, which you may find arduous and inconvenient, but which may help you at least to stop contradicting yourself.

Who knows, you may even find a genuine argument to support your hypothesis.


By the way keith, a SMEAR is a LIE told to discredit somebody.

Lord Ahmed is a convicted criminal, convicted in a criminal court, of a crime, and jailed for it.

No smear there, all evidentially supportable fact.

Not that it has any bearing on the argument, I just thought it funny that you should be condemning the criminal tendancies of british Pakistanis on the basis of a comment from ... a Pakistani criminal ...


Finally, I laughed at loud at your mealy mouthed dissociation from your own hypothesis ...

... how did it go again? it wasn't your hypothesis it was theirs, it was only yours because you argued it on this thread ... so if you hadn't been on this thread it wouldn't have been your hypothesis ...

Ahhh .... so its the threads fault you had that hypothesis is it ... did it make you have that hypothesis? ...

... nasty mean thread!


What other preposterous self satirizing crap are you going to come up with next I wonder ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:52 AM

"Is life really so full of coincidence?"


Interesting question.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:54 AM

How would I have the knowledge to come up with such a hypothesis?
I have not even lived in a Muslim area for nearly two years, like some experts.

The crime everyone else has been discussing is not rape.
It is street grooming, though it did often lead to rape.
That is the only crime with an over representation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:08 AM

Keith is correct again.

"The story, carried by the Times, states that these are first cases in the UK to brought under section 53 of the 2003 sexual offences act, which outlaws "trafficking" within the UK."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:10 AM

Sorry mate, that Back Door leads straight into a brick wall.

"Street Grooming" exists nowhere in the statute books.

It is a media term used to describe the way these particular rapists go about capturing their victims.

But why stop there when I am able to point out yet another self contradiction.


You claimed (wrongly) that this debate started with a comparison between Abuse committed by clergy and Abuse committed by Predominantly Pakistani Gangs.


Now you say its about street grooming.


Now, either you are suggesting that Catholic priests have been "strreet grooming", i.e cruising around in low riders, smooth talking underage victims into ther cars and then abducting them, or you are talking about rape.


As if the issue of "street grooming" means anything without the crime of rape being committed at the end anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:12 AM

As far as I am aware, the crime of "grooming and trafficking" for sexual purposes does not necessarily include the crime of "rape".

A groomer and trafficker may not have sexually assaulted his victim to be guilty of the crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:18 AM

Here's a funny video of a boxer who keeps on punching long after he has been knocked out ...


hee hee

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:22 AM

Ake,

the crime of "street grooming", does not exist.

See Richard Bridges posts above which offer the most informed opinion on this subject.

Then pay attention to my subsequent post in which I argue that it should be illegal as it is comparable to kerb crawling which is illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:26 AM

It did start with that comparison, and then went on to discuss the nature of the abuse.

Left Wing Liberal Muslim journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has just commented on Ahmed's contention.
"It was time, he told the British Muslim ­community, to look more closely at the ­underlying causes of the crimes committed by such grooming gangs. Time for Muslims to do more to promote UK-based marriages.
For giving an honest, informed and ­heartfelt opinion, Lord Ahmed of ­Rotherham has been assailed, abused and ripped apart by the ­religious and cultural guardians of those ­communities in a reaction that has been utterly disgraceful.
So let me say loud and clear that the coerced marriages Lord Ahmed is talking about are inhuman. Those parents who enforce them claim they are legitimate and say they provide the only way to ensure their young remain linked to extended ­family networks and prevent them becoming 'westernised'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:39 AM

Some Asian husbands trapped in loveless, dead ­relationships become ­frustrated, their desires ­emotionally distorted. And yes, as Lord Ahmed says, they prey on young white girls for their perverse sexual satisfaction.
Sex, for them, is not reciprocal or an act of consent. It is taken as a right, regardless of what their wives — or indeed, those young girls they prey on — think.

I recently met a young ­Muslim woman called Munee, who told me she was brought over from Pakistan to marry her cousin when she was 17.

With brutal candour, she said to me: 'It was like rape every time because he didn't want me and I didn't want him.' She ran away. And, she told me, her husband now has a 13-year-old white 'girlfriend'.
But her husband is far from acting alone in the Pakistani community. One man I met, called Taher, looks back with ­revulsion at his previous self, for he too used to prey on young white girls. Today he works for a charity and says he feels desperately sorry for the ­victims of arranged marriages. 'I was crazy — a young man with sexual needs married off to a young virgin. She was very sweet, but there was nothing between us,' he says.

'I would not sleep with her, so I started cruising with these guys looking for easy sex with white girls.'

A Number of Asian men run off to get away from forced marriages. I know of stories of savage sexual and physical abuse and ­emotional persecution meted out to rebellious sons.
He continues: 'There was one really sweet teenager — her mother was a drunk — who really got attached to me. She changed my attitude. Everybody had failed her, so I stopped behaving like that.

'I still feel guilty and filthy for what I did in the past. And I now want to help these families.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1353512/Forced-marriages-A-Muslim-peer-linked-unhappy-arranged-marriages-Asian-gangs-g

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 06:52 AM

Just been reading your post Keith,

Yasmin Browns comments included this phrase:

"Lord Ahmed of ­Rotherham has been assailed, abused and ripped apart by the ­religious and cultural guardians of those ­communities"

eh?

Hang on ...


I though you were saying that he represented those communities?

Is that not true?

Are they in fact angry with him?

So he doesn't actually speak for British Pakistanis as you claim?

Well thanks for clarifying that.


"Some Asian husbands trapped in loveless, dead ­relationships become ­frustrated, their desires ­emotionally distorted"

How interesting - is this a phenomenon that only exists in Asian Marriages?

Or could it be possible that it applies across the board?

Or is the point perhaps that only Asian men respond to being in loveless marriages by committing rape?

Why don't white people in loveless marriages respond by committing rape?

If they do, is rape a realistic consequence of being trapped in a loveless marriage?

So now we know - rapists are not vilent men who seek to control and humiliate women, but they are lonely unloved men who are looking for enotional succour for their poor neglected souls.

But back to these communities and elders etc who are allegedly rounding on Lord Ahmed in such numbers ...

... do their opinions not matter, or is it only the opinion of a wealthy journalist and a wealthy aristorat that represent the views of British Pakistani communities?

It seems to me that Lord Ahmend has alienated himself from the actual community who DISAGREE with him.

So now whose views represent Grassroots British Pakistanis more accurately Keith?

Mine thats who!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:05 AM

Lord Ahmed of ­Rotherham has been assailed, abused and ripped apart by the ­religious and cultural guardians of those ­communities"

Just the religious and cultural guardians.
(and you of course)
Not the whole community.

Who represents them?
LOX!
"that's who"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:29 AM

Why do you keep on squabbling Keith?

You know what this bloke thinks - you know you don't agree with him. Nuff said, really. Last week it was with Jim Carrol.

Don't you feel the need for peace in your life?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:38 AM

I do know what this bloke thinks.
I enjoy exchanging views with people of a different outlook.
It can sometimes broaden my own outlook.
(Not Lox or Jim obviously.)

I do not understand why those two, and Don, get so angry and nasty.

It should be just folk, with a love the same songs, having a friendly banter.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:46 AM

Once again Keith, you attempt to divert attention away fromn the fact that you have failed utterly to explain your long string of self contadictions and to answer any of the questions or arguments put to you.

You allege that you don't have time to read my posts, but you do have time to go trawling through the Daily Mail.


But of course you haven't actually taken the time to read the article she posted.

It talks about violence against a wife from her husband.

It talks about Pakistani men being unfaithful to their wives with white girlfriends.

it talks about young Pakistani men cruising for White girls.

And it talks about a man who subjected his wife to violence and rape and then subjected young white girls to rape.

i.e. he was a brute and a rapist from the word go.

Why hasn't he been arrested for these crimes?

Why didn't Yasmin Alibhai Brown go straight to the police - "officer, a man has just confessed to me that he has committed numerous acts of statutory rape"?

She holds him up as a martyr and glowingly reports as to his helpful charity work ...

There are deep and unpleasant inconsistencies in her story.

In addition, we know from the verified report that the crimes reported in the times were organized by a gang annd that the ringleaders were convicted.

Why has this guy been spared?

Keith meanwhile argues that when men are lonely they go out to rape to seek emotional succour.

What the fuck do you think rape is?

Do you think its about lonely people looking for someone to make them feel less lonely?

Such an outrageous load of tripe deserves no response.

On the subject of cultural disposition toward violence agiainst wives,

did you know that in the UK marital rape wasn't a crime until 1992 because legally a wife was considered the property of her husband in common Law?

So how much does that cultural aspect of BRITISH Pakistanis lives affect cases of domestic violence?

Is there anything peculiarly pakistani about the crime of domestic violence?

NO!


And finally, Keith thinks that my contention that there is no support for the idea that British Pakistani culture is responsible for the abduction and rape of white girls does not represent British Pakistani views but only Moslem clerics.

In that case he must believe, if I am wrong, that British Pakistanis accept that they have a cultural predisposition to abduction and rape of underage girls.

hmmm ... how likely is that?

I think you would have to travel quite deep into the recesses of Keiths fantasy world to find existence of that paradigm.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:48 AM

"It can sometimes broaden my own outlook."

Your outlook is fixated on proving that British Pakistanis commit these crimes, not for the same reasons as other demographcs do, but because they are British Pakistanis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 08:06 AM

Not true.
I have not the knowledge or experience to explain what has happened.

Essentially the same explanation has now been given by Straw, Cryer, Ahmed and Alibhai-Brown.

I think they are probably right, and certainly merit attention.
You somehow just know that they must be wrong, but you can not articulate how you know this.

Let us leave it there.

I will answer any questions not buried in screenfuls of text, but let us leave it there.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 08:19 AM

I am Equally disgusted by Muslim anti women attitudes, and the sexual and physical abuse of minors, that has been carried out by RC priests and condoned and ignored by the higher e3chelons of the Roman catholic church.
Abuse is abuse, whoever the abusers, or whatever their religion , they should be punished according to the law of the country that the abuse was commited in.
If I went to a Muslim country and committed an offence AGAINST THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY, I would expect to be dealt with according to the law of that country, Not by English Law, If a Muslim or Hindu or jehovahs witness or anyone else commits an illegal act in England, they must expect to be dealt with by English Law

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 08:38 AM

"You somehow just know that they must be wrong, but you can not articulate how you know this."

No Keith, I have given very thorough attention to this view and found it to be shallow its premise fundamentally flawed and unsupported.

You wouldn't know this as you haven't bothered to read, let alone digest and understand my posts.

Your reason for backing ut is that I am thorough.


GSS,

"If a Muslim or Hindu or jehovahs witness or anyone else commits an illegal act in England, they must expect to be dealt with by English Law"

The criminals who committed the crimes reported in the times wre convicted andd jailed.

This debate is about keith and Ake arguing that these crimes are the somehow unque to British Pakistanis and that this is becausde British Pakistani Moslem clture makes them slightly more predisposed to committing such crimes.

Such a hypothesis is not only unsupportable, but constitutes little more than paranod delusion.


I am concerned that one of Keiths star witnesses, as reported by Yasmin Brown, has apparently got away with his crimes.

His other star witness, Lord Ahmed is of course already a convicted criminal for an unconnected offence.


I would hope that all rapists fo all women, underage or not, were given proper trials and convicted of their crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 08:53 AM

I would hope that all rapists fo all women, underage or not, were given proper trials and convicted of their crimes.
not just women, abusers of all nationalities and all tastes, that includes homosexuals who abuse minors too.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 09:00 AM

"You allege that you don't have time to read my posts,"

No, I do have the time, but this is a hobby, not a job!
No one has to read all of your posts, or mine.
Everyone is free to pick what they respond to.

I am sure I am not the only one who glazes over when your mega posts appear.
If you want to be read, be brief.

Try to be a bit more like me Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 10:42 AM

The latest convictions of Pakistani Muslims in the North of England, were brought under "section 53 of the 2003 sexual offences Act"

The crime of rape does not constitute part of that section.

Amendments relating to prostitution

.Trafficking

57.Trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation.
58.Trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation.
59.Trafficking out of the UK for sexual exploitation.

The charges were brought under section 58....rape need not be involved....street grooming is part of the process of "trafficking".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 11:08 AM

Well Ake, of the last 2 reports I have read about Trafficking, the first referred to a romanian gang in manchester, the ringleaders of whom (another family operation) were also convicted. The second stated that the vast Majority of trafficking of children goes on in London and the largest group of victims are african children.

"street grooming is part of the process of "trafficking". "

Trafficking is not exclusive to Pakistanis by even the wildest Margin of error.

The only thing that makes these gangs different is the way they capture their victims - on the street.

You state that "street grooming is part of the process of "trafficking"", but you are merely expressing an opinion, you are not referring to any legal definition.

In fact, upon analysis, it is clear that trafficking, which is the process of exchanging commodities (in this case the young girls are treated as commodities) does not include "street grooming".

First the victims are captured, then they are trafficked.

Street grooming is merely the method of capture.

Trafficking of minors, majors, boys, girls, men or women is not a crime committed predominantly by Pakistanis.



Good Soldier Schweik, I agree whole heartedly with your last post.

If you were concerned that i had left anyone out, perhaps we should make sure we don't neglect haermaphrodites and transexuals who also should never be subject to rape or trafficking for the purposes of abuse.

I think we have covered that now.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 11:45 AM

What makes these gangs different, is that they target non Muslims.

They then "groom" them and "traffick them to other members of the Pakistani community...mainly relatives.
The children are then dehumanised and treated as commodities...as Mr Straw says, like pieces of meat.
In my opinion this crime is aggravated by the cultural background of the criminals, who are taught that young mainly white young Non Musil girls are unclean and immoral.

Even if these children were deemed immoral by the self righteous bastards who teach Islamic Fundamentalism, the practice of trafficking these young girls would still be racially inspired.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 02:43 AM

Was Alibhai-Brown and Ahmed lying, and Straw and Cryer deluded?
If not, Lox is wrong and the grooming and abuse of young girls by BP gangs IS a signicant issue.

Which is easier to believe?

He lived in a muslim area for a year and a bit.
The others have rather better credentials.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 07:07 AM

"Was Alibhai-Brown and Ahmed lying, and Straw and Cryer deluded?"

Their arguments are fundamentally flawed and I have shown how.


Keiths repeated tactic of comparing them with me is maeningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 08:07 AM

Ake,

I posted this video on its own thread a while back.

Watch it the whole way through, and listen to his story.

The dehumanization of Women and young girls is not limited to any culture.

I would suspect that the reason why gangs prey mainly on white girls is the same reason as the internet is full predominantly of porn featuring young white girls.

But here's the video anyway.

I hope you watch it as whether you look at it in or out of context, it is a powerful one.

You have to see it all though to get the point, so don't be fooled at the start into thinking its something you've heard before.

Misogyny


.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 08:48 AM

I see Cameron has played the race card today.

I wonder Lox if you're maybe making it too easy for Cameron. You call people names like racist, when they are voicing quite legitimate concerns. If moderate politicians can't debate openly - can't say something is going wrong with a part of the community that is producing suicide bombers and now these terrible sex crimes, you are making it very easy for the tory party - which as we have we have seen in the past is a far from moderate party.

Kinnock did the same sort of thing when he he insisted on a going for a policy of nuclear disarmament - at a time when Galtieri could have solved all his problems with one nuclear bomb, had we been so disarmed.

Principles are something that people will respect when you are in power - not a way of demonstrating to the electorate that you are too weak to face up to the problems and responsibilities of power.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 09:26 AM

"You call people names like racist"

No - I've been repeatedly clarifying for some time now that the hypothesis that British Pakistanis and Moslems are culturally predisposed to the enslavement and abuse of underage girls is a racist hypothesis.

It is a racist hypothesis.

Discussion is a good idea.

Investigating a subject with a view to finding out what is going on and why is a good idea.

Starting off with a racist hypothesis and then defending it thoruhg thick and thin is not a helpful way of learning anythng about the subject.

That is a single minded approach, which merely investigates the marit of a single hypothesis.

If you investigate the crimes and their causes properly, and at the end of your investigation you have eliminated all possible variables except the one which discriminates based on race/religion, and if the evidence you uncover supports that hypothesis repeatedly, then pperhaps you might be onto something.

In this case neither of the above has been true. There is no real evidence and there remain many alternatives.

The fact is that Misogyny is a global issue, and if you doubt that then just go down to your local newsagent and look at all the magazines on the top shelf which feature young white girls alomost exclusively, or type in the word "sex" to google and follow up on one of the many porn links that will come up, and notice that young white girls predominantly are being treated as a commodity by men of every culture all over the world.

It is not a peculiarly Pakistani fascination.

Alan, I would like to invite you to actually read my posts instead of just stating, as keith has been, that i just go around calling people racist.

What I did do was ask wy he was so loyal to these ideas.

The cinversation has of course moved on since then and so, it seems, has Keith, so I have no wish to revive it as it was a headache.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 09:39 AM

I will compare you to them Lox, because you are asking us to believe you and dismiss what they say.
You say that "Their arguments are fundamentally flawed and I have shown how."
They must be devatated!
Straw.
He served as Home Secretary from 1997 to 2001, Foreign Secretary from 2001 to 2006 and Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons from 2006 to 2007 under Tony Blair. From 2007-2010 he was the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and the Secretary of State for Justice, appointed as part of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's first Cabinet. Straw is one of only three people to have served in Cabinet continuously from 1997 to 2010.

But you can spot flaws invisible to him.
Or, you could be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 09:42 AM

400
Alibhai-Brown.
Ugandan-born British journalist and author of Indian descent. Currently a regular columnist for The Independent and the Evening Standard,[1] she is a well-known commentator on issues of immigration, diversity and multiculturalism.[2][3] She is a founder member of British Muslims for Secular Democracy.

But what does she know compared to the great Lox, who lived near some Muslims for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 09:52 AM

Go ahead.

Compare away, it means nothing.

You have nothing better to argue which shows how weak your position is.

And I'm not bothered about whether anyone is devastated or not.

It is irrelevant.

In this debate, my criticisms of their comments stand unchallenged, in particular those of cryer and Brown.

Khan and Straw two merely give an opinion without saying why they have that opinion.

So just like you, they provide no real evidence.

I think Alan and others, including me, would be very interested to learn more about this subject.

The longer we spend discussing one of the weaker hypotheses to the exclusion of others, the less likely we will be to ever learning anything of any real value.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 10:03 AM

Thank you, but I do not require your leave to "go ahead" and "compare away."
Another who compared to you knows nothing.

As a resident of Rotherham, Ahmed has spoken on behalf of the communities in that region, particularly the families of the former steelworkers of the 1960s, from the Indian subcontinent who are now second or third generation British. He has expressed that he is anxious to see that these regions continue to live peacefully amidst the growing move towards the far right across Europe, and strives to encourage positive integration into society so that people of all cultures can live together harmoniously.

Born in the region, Ahmed has a personal interest in seeing a peaceful resolve to the ongoing bloody dispute in Kashmir and seeks international mediation to achieve this. As well as being an active figure in the Indian Subcontinent, he has worked on the plight of Muslims around the world ranging from the collapse of former Yugoslavia, especially to the Bosniaks and Palestinians. He has been on many delegations to the Arab world, the US, Eastern Europe, Africa, the former states of the USSR and the Far East, meeting with heads of state to discuss their respective problems and how he may be able to assist them.

Ahmed helps with various charitable causes and is on the board of several organisations from local groups such as his position as President of South Yorkshire Victim Support, to international bodies such as his board membership on the SAARC Foundation.

Ahmed was among the founders of The World Forum, an organization set up to promote world peace in the after math of the 9/11 with an effort to build bridges of understanding between The Muslim World and the West by reviving a tradition of Dialogue between people, cultures and civilizations based on tolerance

But, Lox has spotted flaws in his testimony, so we should discard it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 10:29 AM

Again Keith,

You are misusing the word testimony.

He is neither witness to these crimes,nor an expert scientific or psychiatric witness qualified to comment on the motivations of these criminals.

And still you have no evidence or argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 10:32 AM

"don't you know who I am"? was never a succesful tactic in any debate.

"Don't you know who he is" is equally meaningless.

If you were to provide me with some research he had done on this issue then that would be useful.

Just saying "Lord Ahmed thinks so and he is Pakistani so he must be right" is so facile and weak an approach as to be laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 10:34 AM

"If you were to provide me with some research he had done on this issue then that would be useful."

That is of course verified and accredited research, not the kind that you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 10:37 AM

He does not do research.
He is an authority.
How many heads of state have consulted you on cultural issues Lox?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 11:00 AM

Show me anywhere that anyone has ever consulted antone else on the "issue" of Pakistanis being culturally predisposed to the abduction and abuse of young whit girls?

He is not an authourity on the sexual behaviour of pakistani gansters any more than you or I.

Where the hell you think you are going with this line of argument I have no idea, but you are likely to make a right fool of yourself if you try to suggest that being a Pakistani politician that that somehow gives him deep indight into the minds of Traffickers and child abusers.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 11:18 AM

"He is not an authourity on the sexual behaviour of pakistani gansters any more than you or I."

I would say that he IS more of an authority than you or I.
I would like to know why you think he is not.

Where am I going?
Your position has been that there is no significant issue of specifically BP gangs grooming and abusing young girls.
All these eminent, respected, intelligent and knowledgeable people, speaking from their own first hand experience, say that there is.

I am pointing out the arrogant egotism, verging on megalomania, of you telling us you can see flaws in their assertions that are invisible to mere mortals, so that we should dismiss all their testimony in favour of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 11:31 AM

"I am pointing out the arrogant egotism, verging on megalomania, of you telling us you can see flaws in their assertions that are invisible to mere mortals, so that we should dismiss all their testimony in favour of yours. "

Keith, I have offered no testimony.

There is nothing arrogant or egotistical about questioning a hypothesis.

If there are answers to the inconsistencies that I have highlighted, then someone is at liberty to provide them.

As for invisible flaws, they are only invisible to you because you can't be bothered to read them.

Megalomania?

You maen like you suggesting I should Know my place and not dare to question your point of view or the point of view of politicians that share your point of view?

three politicians and a journalist have expressed a point of view - THATS IT.

Are you suggesting that questioning politicians is "megalomaniac"?

thats what I've done. I've questioned their views.

Noone has provided satisfactory answers.

Least of all you.

Perhaps you could get a job as Lord Ahmeds bodyguard ... or better yet, his chauffeur.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 11:34 AM

Ake moans about freedom of Speech, yet here we have Keith suggesting that I amn arrogant for daring to question the opinion of a politician.

Perhaps I should Doff my hat to the noble lord as he passes by in his carriage too?

This gets more and more bizarre the deeper Keith digs in.

Its ok keith, we aren't in the trenches anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 11:47 AM

You are entitled to your opinion, but we have to decide what your opinion is worth.
Someone else, with slightly more knowledge than you, who thinks there IS an issue.

A retired Lancashire detective has backed Jack Straw for speaking out over the sexual exploitation of young white girls by men of Pakistani origin.

Blackburn Labour MP Mr Straw suggested some white girls were seen as easy targets for sexual grooming.

Former Det Supt Mick Gradwell said it was an issue that had been clear for many years and needed to be addressed.

He said investigations into the sexual exploitation of children had suffered because of political sensitivity.

"I know that police officers know what they're saying is true, but they're not coming out and saying it because you can't feel comfortable, because of allegations of institutional racism, that you can come out and say that a culture or a race is suspected of this sort of crime.

"If there were people who frequented a particular public house, who were going out and doing things, you would target that particular trend," he said.

"There is without doubt a trend, as Mr Straw says, in a small number of men of Pakistani origin, who regard young, white girls as easy meat."

Mr Gradwell, who retired from Lancashire Constabulary in 2009, said he hoped the former home secretary's comments would lead to a reduction in these sorts of crimes.

"What will be interesting is if, as a result on the debate on Mr Straw's comments, is whether first of all these offences reduce, and secondly whether actually information comes forward to detect some previously undetected offences.

"If crimes do reduce, it has been worthwhile saying it.

"It's difficult to talk about. Really it's only somebody like Jack Straw, a former home secretary who has represented Blackburn, a diverse community, for 31 years, who could come out and say what he said."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12167131

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 11:49 AM

I think that answers Als question very nicely too.

We should indeed be ble to discuss these issues openly.

Telling ordinary mortals that they shouldn't be so egotistical as to question the opinion of a politician is in direct conflict with that view.

Perhaps when Keith has finished Proving that Pakistanis are culturally inlined to despise and abuse white girls, and when he has finished telling me to shut up and accept the word of my superiors, he can go and get his brown sirt out of his cupboard.

Or perhaps he only mistakenly gave the impression that I should bow to authourity and be suspicious of Pakistani culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 11:49 AM

If I had any hair left I`d pull it out!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 11:52 AM

"You are entitled to your opinion, but we have to decide what your opinion is worth."

Again, you are sidestepping my arguments.

Strange that you should spen so much time involved in a debate, yet refuse to engage in it or even to read the arguments of the person you are debating with.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 12:39 PM

In addition, without going hunting for many similar comments of this nature fromKeith Vaz,

I wonder why Keith is so one sided in his reporting of politicians who represent Pakistani voters.

(Keith Vaz incidentally represents the ward where I used to live)

(from keiths article)

"Keith Vaz, Labour chairman of the home affairs select committee, said it was wrong to stereotype a whole community and a proper inquiry was needed."

Should keith not doff his hat to Keith Vaz and apologize for doubting his authourity?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 01:05 PM

I take heed of Vaz and others.
I do not just rubbish him and say I have found flaws.
You are certain there is no issue.
You just know.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 02:18 PM

"You are certain there is no issue.
You just know."

And now you are back to making shit up.

Keith,

YOU are the only one advancing a hypothesis.

You are fighting tooth and nail for it.


And you are telling me that I am getting above my station for daring to disagree with the right honourable members.


but I bet you'll be back to fight for it before the night is through.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 02:34 PM

No.
I acknowledge that there is a debate.
If your insight is based on having Muslim neighbours for a while, I am more informed than you are.
But I do not pontificate about it.
I compare the evidence and believe that there is probably an issue.
You "know" that there is not, and claim to find flaws in everything said against that.
You simply discard the opinions of all those good people.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 04:14 PM

Pakistani Muslims target white children, because mainly white women pose for sex mags.

Hmmm..... Oh well, I suppose we are wasting our time debating the issue....I better tell Mr Straw, Mrs Cryer and all the rest.

Bet they'll be kicking themselves for not thinking of that.

So simple really, just disengage brain and problem solved!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 08:14 PM

No Ake,

The media sells white women all over the world as sex objects.

Hollywood moviess do it, the sun does it, internet porn does it, sex mags do it, the mafia do it, berlusconi does it, etc etc.

White women have been defined as commodities and as sex objects long before British Pakistanis had the idea.

But Ake never complained about it until those nsty dirty Moslems, who refuse to integrate in Glasgow (according to his goan mate) started doing it.

I see you paid the video no heed.

Disengage brain and return to manra 'its the "liberals" what done it' 'Moslems think they're better than us' etc ...

Keith says,

"You "know" that there is not, and claim to find flaws in everything said against that.
You simply discard the opinions of all those good people."

Keith states with absolute certainty what I "know" ... how he nows this is of course a mystery. as I do not claim to have any received knowledge, unlike this example of his apparently received knowledge.

Making shit up again in the absence of an intelligent or evidentially supported argument.

He aappears to have bedome a stuck record, or is he more like a malfunctioning bit of software, or a perpetual feedback loop, repeating the same lie over and over again.


Keith,

Unlike you, I read the posts you provided thoroughly and then I thought aboout them, scrutinized thgem intelligently, and responded to each of your points and to the points made by your 'experts'.

As you would expect from a sreious debater, I looked for evidence (the stuff you need to support a hypothesis) and I looked for inconsistencies and inaccuracies (the stuff that makes a hypothesis unreliable).

I found no evidence, but I found several inconsistencies.


You haven't even bothered to read the posts you allegedly disagree with (how would you know?), and it seems you haven't even properly read the articles you posted.

You certainly haven't attempted any explanation of the flaws I have pointed out.

All you have is outrage that i am not more humble in the face of my feudal masters, and your standard last resort of making shit up.

You are fixated on your hypothesis and you can't handle it that it doesn't stand up, and you can't handle it that you have no arguments or evidence left.

I'm starting to think that te real reson for you making shit up is that you are having a childish sulk.


My position, repeated many times now, is that this hypothesis is only one of many and it is not reliable.


Prove that my reasons for doubting your hypothesis are wrong ... please ...

... but stop behaving like a 5 year old.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 08:16 PM

"I compare the evidence and believe that there is probably an issue."

Would you mind sharing it so that we can do some comparing too?

Or are you making that up too?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 03:20 AM

Sometimes I am glad to be wrong.
You are not certain there is no issue.
It is not just ideological dogma.
You think that there is no issue, from looking at the evidence.
Please state that.
It is the reciprocal of my position.

You ask me to share the evidence I base my opinion on.
It is the informed opinion of expert witnesses, some of which I have posted, and the hard evidence of conviction statistics.

Will you BRIEFLY restate your evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 04:44 AM

Islam, in my opinion, has a great many deep problems, caused by the many sick and dangerous individuals within it, many of whom have been almost brainwashed since birth to hate, hate, HATE.

It can only be cured by the truly peaceful and good Muslims themselves finally standing up TOGETHER and saying "ENOUGH! This is NOT being done in my/our names any longer!"

Many will not do that because they are frightened/terrified of the repercussions...and that in itself shows just how bad the evil is inside what is purported to be a religion of peace and love.

Just as the Roman Catholic Church is now blowing apart, as Truth starts to finally surface, so must Islam also blow itself apart, to rid itself of the evil that has overtaken it for far too long.

Quite frankly I'm sick to death of people being called 'racist' if they dare to stand up and say "You know what, this is so wrong!"....and it's that shocking attitude which has led us to the state the world is now in...

Wafa Sultan is one of the few Arab women who's had the guts to take a stand against the women haters, the bullies, the thugs and tyrants of Islam...and she now lives her life in the USA in hiding because of it, because those men know that she speaks the truth and is therefore a huge danger to them all.

I sometimes think that many do not truly understand the depth of evil that runs through Islam at the moment, or if they do, then they are too fucking scared to say so...

Personally, I'd like to see any crazed fundamentalist, whose sole purpose in life is to kill others or wreak terrible emotional or physical damage upon them, put up against a wall and shot.

I do not care from which religion those fundamentalists come, nor what the colour of the skin is either.

Evil is as Evil does...and this fuckingly troubled world right now is in the grip of some pretty Evil Folk who don't give a rat's arse for anyone or anything other than their own evil, cruel and bullying agendas.

We, The Good Men/Women and True have been way too silent for way too long, bullied into submission and silence by those who have decreed that no-one has the right to be judgemental or have an opinion, and if anyone DARES to do either, then they are hounded for being nothing more than right wing racists...

That idea, that principle, has allowed the Gates of Hell to swing wide open.....

It is way past time for the Good and True to close those gates, forever.

This world has changed beyond recognition. We now live in an Age of Suspicion at every turn, because we have allowed all of this shite to happen in the name of bloody 'political correctness'.

We have done so at our peril.

Only love can drive out hate.
But also, only truth can drive out lies.
Only Goodness can drive out Evil.

The choice belongs to the whole of Mankind, no matter what religion, what creed, what colour or background.

It's a simple and stark choice, and it's staring us all right in the face, challenging us as never before.

Whether we take up that challenge, time will tell...but I tell you what, if we don't then the world as I once knew it is going to hell on a handcart, and taking most of us with it, because the longer we take to wake up to Evil, the deeper this Evil will penetrate into all our socieities.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 05:08 AM

WELL SAID LIZZIE - you're spot on and I applaude you for it.

Quote from the BBC website:

"State multiculturalism has failed", says David Cameron

Now, following on Germany's PM, ours is openly saying it too.

It's mainly in regard to the tenets of modern Islamic fundamentalism. Perhaps the light is even dawning in the corridors of power and that 'turning a blind eye', then 'the other cheek' doesn't actually work . . . duh!

Perhaps it's also designed to engage the 'silent', peaceful majority of Muslims to actually get involved to stop the damage to society and to their own religion and how it's regarded by many now. How long before 'many' becomes 'most'?

Just to head off the 'you're a racist lobby'. In my view, anybody who wants to work, settle and live in peace WITH us, is welcome in my Britain.

But I'll not stand back and give it to people who are fanatically trying to destroy both it and my lifestyle.

This is why I started this thread, I don't think the British public are the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 07:31 AM

Keith,

I deal in meaningful statements.

My position is that there is no real evidence or supportable argument to support your hypothesis.

A scientist will tell you that anything is possible, but some things are more probable than others.

It is possible that Moslems come from Mars, but the absence of evidence makes it improbable.

Saying "I cannot be certain" that Moslems don't come from mars does not make it a reasonable suggestion.

Likewise, saying that I can't be certain that your hypothesis is wrong is also meaningless.

So I stick with the observation that your hypothesis lacks proper evidence, except for the personal feelings of 3 politicians, a policeman and a journalist, whose views are disagreed with other politicians and community representatives, both secular and religious.

None of the above is testimony, it is just opinion, and all on a subject (cultural influences on mental health) that would require proper scientific research and that would still probably be without any firm conclusions.

I also stick to my view that the arguments abnd suggestions of these politicians are flawed and unrealistic.

Whether I am certain or not is of no significance to anyone. My observations on the soundness of the hypothesis you share with straw etc are significant.

That hypothesis is unsound and unreliable.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 07:47 AM

So your conviction that there is no cultural dimension is not based on any evidence at all!
My suggestion that there is, is soundly based on the evidence of a number of expert witnesses, and the history of convictions.

You claim to be able to see reasons to dismiss the evidence provided by all those eminent, knowledgeable people with first hand experience.

Another non contribution.
You provide nothing.
You just spout your ideological dogma and ignore everything put in front of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 07:55 AM

"So your conviction that there is no cultural dimension is not based on any evidence at all!"

Why do you have to keep making shit up?

Is it really that hard for you to actually exist in realty and actually respond to my points?

No Keith.

Try Again.


There is no real evidence to supoport your hypothesis.


Thats it.


First comes the hypothesis, then comes the analysis.

Upon analysis, it is clear that the hypothesis is unsupported.


Got it yet?


Somehow I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 07:59 AM

Evidence for my opinion just given.
I will restate it.
The coniction statistics and the informed opinions of expert witnesses.
Your evidence?
You forgot to post it!
Not a lie.
Not making it up.
You have posted no evidence at all.
Just negative, non contributions.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 08:31 AM

Maybe you two could PM each other????

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 08:56 AM

Keith,

You need to learn how evidence and hypotheses work.

I cannot prove that there ISN'T a monkey hiding behind the moon.

But I don't have to.

If somebody wishes to assert there IS one, then it is their responsibility to find the evidence.

In the absence of evidence, there is no reason for me to believe there is one.

If someone believes there is a monkey behind the moon, then it it nonsensical for them to insist that I prove there isn't one.

Its their hypothesis, they nee to show why they believe it to be true, and then they need to subject their evidence to analysis to see if it proves what they think is true or not.


You THINK that British Pakistani culture has by its very nature contributed to the crimes committed by a gang of kidnappers and child abusers.

You need to say why you think that.

You need to provide evidence of your claim.

The only evidence you have provided is the opinion of 5 people who also "think" that British Pakistani culture has contributed to these crimes.


That isn't evidence, its just people agreeiung with you.

Yasmin Alibhai Brown claims to have provided some evidence, the apparent testimony of a man who allegedly participated in these crimes.

But upon analysis, we find that there is something wrong with this evidence.

We oly have Yasmin Alibhai browns word that he did what he said he did, and there are problems with her account.

These have been explained above.

That evidence is unreliable until the inconsistencies pounted out are explained.

The other information that you brandish as evidence is the stats - that in these particular crimes, the criminals were mainly pakistani.

But this statistic is meaningless.

It is the same as saying that in crimes committed by the italian Mafia, all the criminals were italian, and therefore Italian culture predisposes italians to organized crime.

It is like saying that as most liverpool supporters in the Kop at anfield are Englishl, therefore being from England culturally predisposes people to support Liverpool.

Your stats show that in Pakistani Gangs, the majority of crimes were committed by Pakistanis.

And in addition to that, not all the gang members in the Pakistani Gangs were Pakistani!

So that evidence doesn't stand the test of analysis either.


And that isn't even the end of it, because in eddition to your selective number crunching, you have also deliberately left out a whole range of unconsidered variables that could also be responsible for these guys doing what they did.

And finally, you havebnt't talen the time to analyze what is actually different about these crimes.

The only thing that distinguishes these crimes from other trafficking crimes is the method of capture.

And the method of capture, chatting girls up on the street and giving them lifts, is culturally a western passtime, not a culturally Pakistani passtime.


So to conclude, in short,

First comes the hypothesis, then comes the analysis.

Upon analysis, it is clear that the hypothesis is unsupported.


All that is left is a puff of thin air and keiths apparent bloody minded determination to slander pakistanis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 09:48 AM

"The only evidence you have provided is the opinion of 5 people who also "think" that British Pakistani culture has contributed to these crimes."
No.
I also cited the conviction statistics.
And, they were not just people, but recognised, eminent authorities worthy of the term "expert witness."

When I first heard of this, I did not assume a cultural dimension.
Why would I?
That is the default position, as with monkeys behind the moon.

But you do not post long, multiple, passionate posts to defend the default position.
Only if you have good reason to believe that no alternative is possible.

You have no reasons, except a certainty that all minorities are above all criticism, except sometimes Jews.
Only Western culture may ever be criticised.
You respond like a religious fundamentalist whose core beliefs are challenged.
Not like someone just holding a default position.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 10:19 AM

""I do not dispute your figure for grooming.
We are only discussing street grooming by gangs.
The have only been these 17 cases.""

Egregious bullshit.

Seventeen cases have hit the headlines, involving Pakistani gangs, in an area where there happens to be a large number of Pakistani residents.

These seventeen cases took place over a thirteen year period, but have been lumped together by the Media, assisted by a couple of failed politicians who are not noted for thinking before they speak.

This conglomerate of criminal acts, widely spaced both in distance and time (according to your own posts), have been seized upon with unholy glee in an attempt to classify all Pakistani Muslims as potential paedophile rapists.

No anger or aggression in my posts, merely frustration at the difficulty of getting the concept of balanced rationality into a closed and biased mind.

You have no idea whether there have been other gangs street grooming underage girls, but it suits your agenda to state categorically that there have not.

The reason why I am able to say that you do not know, is that this particular crime is not recorded separately, but under the heading of "Grooming".

I have checked the police website for Derbyshire, and it gives no specifics.

The only real fact that you do know is that these seventeen cases did occur, because somebody decided that they were somehow linked, and representative of a trend.

Go ahead and believe that there are no white gangs picking up underage girls in the street if you are daft enough, but don't try selling that crap as fact.

We both know it isn't.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 10:29 AM

"I also cited the conviction statistics."

Keith, again, try to read my whole posts before you answer it.

I de3alt with that comprehensively.

"And, they were not just people, but recognised, eminent authorities worthy of the term "expert witness.""

Your hypothesis is a psychological/anthropological one. Your "experts" are politicians.

They are not qualified to comment on matters of psychology, or annthropology, as they have never done any research into those subjects in relation to Pakistanis and sex crimes.

There is in fact NO research anywhere, which means there are NO expert witnesses.



"You have no reasons, except a certainty that all minorities are above all criticism,"

You're making shit up again keith.

"Only Western culture may ever be criticised."

Making shit up.

"You respond like a religious fundamentalist whose core beliefs are challenged."

No mate, I challenged YOUR hypothesis, and you are responding by making shit up about me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:21 AM

Don.

the Times published its own survey into the ethnicity of those convicted of on-street grooming. It found that over the past 13 years there had been 17 court prosecutions by northern and Midlands police forces involving such crimes.

Of the 56 people found guilty, three were white and 53 were Asian.
Detective Chief Inspector Alan Edwards said: "To stop this type of
crime you need to start talking about it, but everyone's been too
scared to address the ethnicity factor.

"No one wants to stand up and say that Pakistani guys in some parts of the country are recruiting young white girls and passing them around their relatives for sex, but we need to stop being worried about the racial complication."
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/73543,news-comment,news-politics,muslims-back-jack-straw-on-pakistani-rape-gangs

And, I offer the Detective Chief Inspector as yet another expert witness.

Lox, Your closed mind will not allow you to be influenced by the considered, informed opinions of people with a far greater knowledge than us.
I have supplied ample evidence for the conjecture.
It was wasted on you, but others may have found it illuminating.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:31 AM

Keith continues to ignore what I've said as he has no answer.

So He makes shit up instead, and repeats the same old assertions again and again.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:34 AM

""Can we agree to put no more than two points at a time to each other please?""

If you are too lazy, or too arrogant, to read our posts and respond to them, why should we be expected to show you the courtesy you demand?

Come to that, if you don't read the posts why should your offerings receive any credence at all?

Every single utterance from you has been answered multiple times, so if you won't join in proper discussion just what are you doing here?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:43 AM

""No one has just looked at BP gang crime and said "BP gangs are doing these BP gang crimes."
We are saying "why are BP gangs and no one else doing these crimes?""

And none of the rest of us are at pains to dehumanise British Pakistanis by calling them BPs, a technique previously used by some very nasty racists.

Still it does enable you to enter a spurious claim that you are trying to keep your posts short.

However, long is better if it leads to more cogent argument. You might like to give some consideration to that point.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 11:52 AM

I used the term British Pakistanis for a vey long time before switching to the abreviation.
Are you so desparate to hang a racist label?
Just trying to save time and keep my posts shorter.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 03:37 PM

Is it nor about time for Godwin's Rule yet? Maybe there have been no specific mention of Nazis yet but there now the political correctness gone mad card has been played, it won't be long...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 04:01 PM

Here comes the cavalry!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 04:06 PM

The cavalry--I bet they`re armed with sabers.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 04:26 PM

Not sure about the sabres but I can smell horse shit...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 04:29 PM

lol

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 04:47 PM

The past few posts were brought to you by The Brotherhood of Chaos.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 05:15 PM

""I do not understand why those two, and Don, get so angry and nasty.

It should be just folk, with a love the same songs, having a friendly banter.""

I have answered the accusation of anger several times, and your contention is no more true for having repeated it multiple times.

A love of the same music?

1. What has that to do with your record of years of denigration of other races and religions (Irish Catholics and Republicans for example), and lately Pakistani Muslims?

It's like you have a psychological need to feel superior to people who don't share your views.

2. How often do we see posts from you above the BS line?

Don't presume to know what music I like, since you don't bother reading posts on subjects we are discussing, let alone anything in the music section.

I'm sorry to be the harbinger of bad news, but you don't get to decide what we will or will not discuss.

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 05:39 PM

""What makes these gangs different, is that they target non Muslims.""

You just don't get it do you Ake?

They target what they find in the street. It happens that Asian (N.B. Asian, not Muslim, since many Muslims are either white or black) girls are not prominent in that grouping.

White Muslims would include some Croatian, Afghan, Iranian, Turkish etc.
Black Muslims would include not only many of African origin, but also many black Americans.

It is virtually impossible to target non Muslim girls, as one cannot know who they are, unless they are in Muslim dress.

Incidentally, the crime of grooming is dependent upon provable sexual intent. Otherwise they are just offering a lift, or a drink, or whatever. It becomes trafficking when (and not until) the victim is passed on to others for sex.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 05:50 PM

For the record, I have never denigrated any race or religion.
Not in this forum.
Not ever.
And Don will not provide any examples, because there are none.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 06:10 PM

""I also cited the conviction statistics.
And, they were not just people, but recognised, eminent authorities worthy of the term "expert witness."""

You yourself are insistent upon there having been only the seventeen cases during a thirteen year period, resulting in the conviction of 50 Pakistani Muslims (and six others).

This is an average of three defendants per case at nine months average between cases, over a thirteen year period.

Hardly the kind of figures which produce evidence of a statistically significant trend.

I say that it defies logic to assume that nobody but these few have picked girls on the street in thirteen years, and if that has happened those others have not attracted the attention of a Media which, like yourself, is intent upon proving Islam to be an evil religion, and not interested in anything which does not support that intent.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 06:19 PM

""For the record, I have never denigrated any race or religion.
Not in this forum.
Not ever.
And Don will not provide any examples, because there are none.""

Easily proven.

All anyone need do is read your posts on this thread, and re-open the many Northern Irish threads in which you played just as prominent a role.

I don't even need to repeat them. Anyone can PM Ard or Sweeney and ask them.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: JohnDun
Date: 06 Feb 11 - 08:27 PM

Here's a first for me.... below the line

Don, having met and spoken to Keith on many occasions I would certainly not label him a racist, however he does have strong views on several topics.

Putting all that to one side, I come to this 'debate' with an open mind.   My present views are that Muslim Prejudice is rife in the UK and also that prejudice and intolerance of each other's beliefs is the problem.

As a newspaper's primary aim is to sell papers, I try to filter out their sales pitch by reading 'between the lines' using known facts, figures and experiences to make an informed judgement.   As we all do.   The recent posts regarding Muslim men committing 'On-Street Grooming' crimes certainly got me thinking.

The Times researchers have selected their data (to sell newspapers?). 'On-Street Grooming' has only been an offence since 2006 and the figure of 17 cases since 1997 includes 14 occurring in the last 3 years.   3 cases in 9yrs then 14 in 3yrs cannot be right.   On-Street Grooming is also a very narrow subset of crime and does not include Internet Grooming for example, add this to the cases being taken from only 13 cities all with high Muslim populations and value of the statistics becomes dubious.

Newsnight (7th Jan) featured the compiler of the research, Helen Brayley, clearly point out the flaws in the stereotypical media use of her data.

I do not believe the figures quoted by the Times and state the latest Ministry of Justice statistics more clearly show racial percentages of Sexual Offences throughout England & Wales as being

White 82.1%    Black 5.0%    Asian 5.3%    Other 2.1%    Unknown 5.4%

This from a source not selling newspapers.

I do believe other reports I have read of Muslim community leaders and spokes-people admitting there are issues with some Muslim men's attitude to non–Muslim women and I consider this to be a cultural issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 01:28 AM

Thanks John.
As I have said so many times in this discussion, BPs are under represented in all other non terror crimes, including sex crimes, and only a tiny minority are involved even in this one.
I might start using an abreviation!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 03:36 AM

Don, I have debated NI many times as you say.
I have only ever denigrated the paramiltaries.
I love Ireland and all things Irish, not least the music, but I detest what the paramiltaries have done and the misery they have caused.

If you are going to accuse a fellow Mudcatter of something so base, you should at least have something specific to justify it.
I am no such thing, so you will find nothing.
You should have looked first and accused after.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 04:53 AM

I am not going to make a habit of multi posting.
I just realised that I am guilty of what I accuse Don.

I claimed that Lox regards all ethnic minorities as being above criticism, and only allows Western culture to be questioned.

I had better withdraw, but at least it is not as nasty an accusation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 07:43 AM

Yes, I too have noticed that the ethnic minorities are fiercely defended whilst the Western cultures come in for a bashing.

Interesting we're not allowed to point this out otherwise we're automatically a closet (or open) racist.

Against the backdrop of the Prime Ministers's speech, it might be that the issue is finally getting addressed and perhaps a period of re-alignment is forecast.

I don't think we'll see it here though. These groups are staunchly defended and I puzzle as to why. What has to happen before they 'wake up'?

I suppose it's a bit like those who recently did the 'sack cloth and ashes' bit because several hundred years ago, Britain (like almost all imperial powers back to the much-loved Romans and well beyond) endorsed/encouraged slavery.

Must make them feel SO virtuous. Utterly unreal, but virtuous nevertheless.

Ah well, pin withdrawn from another social hand-grenade.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 12:19 PM

"I claimed that Lox regards all ethnic minorities as being above criticism, and only allows Western culture to be questioned.

I had better withdraw, but at least it is not as nasty an accusation."
Actually Keith, i don't see this as a reaon to withdraw.

You can accuse me of anything you like and i won't be offended.

But if you commit to that claim you ave to be prepared to justify it one way or another.

That applies to any claim.

And if you make a claim that doesn't stand scrutiny and I care about the subject, then you can expect a robust response.

And if you make false claims to discredit me when you have no other argument left, then you can expect to be soundly rebutted.

My ego is not that sensitive.

I believe that my style of argument is honest and demands honesty from my opponent.

I have spent this thread attacking your arguments, your sources and your tactics.

I sometimes get very passionate about these things, and if I perceive that a debating opponent is being dishonest in his approach I will not give up until either I am ahown to be wrong, or until my opponent atarts being honest.

But You have done or said nothing that affends me personally.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 12:26 PM

"Ah well, pin withdrawn from another social hand-grenade."

mm hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 12:42 PM

"I believe that my style of argument is honest and demands honesty from my opponent." asserts the egregious Lox.

Just a small reminder: Lox's style of argument against me, not all that many posts ago [it just feels like a lot!], was to accuse me of wearing an inefficiently fitted colostomy bag, suffering from BO, being confined to a wheelchair, & using foul language. Oh, all very honest. In fact, just for the sake of clarity, he knows absolutely nothing about me ~~ we have never even met, I am delighted to say.

To use the foulest language of which I am capable when writing on this forum ~~ Lox is an unconscionable liar; a boring boor; a point-missing fool; and a stinking swine.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 01:11 PM

Haha.

At least when I contribute to a thread it is because I have something to say on subject.

You on the other hand Michael do so because you want people to pay attention to you.

You think you are being funny, or controversial or something ... fuck knows really ... but the fact that you manage to restrict your comments to me on this thread to the subject of salmon, as opposed to the belligerent and irrelevant shite I am used to, doesn't change the fact that the only comment you had to make in response to me was designed to piss me off.

Well it seems that it was you who ended up feeling all hurt and hard done by, hence your self righteous whingeing.

I personally couldn't give a monkeys.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 01:40 PM

See what I mean?

An unmiitigated stinking swine, I should have said. A disgrace to the Cat. A bore and a boor. If there is one person in the entire Universe I do not wish to pay attention to me, it must be him.

He really is pathetic, isn't he?

And he knows my name as I make no secret of it. And has the impudence to address me by it. I wonder who or what can be hidden behind that silly name he chooses to be known by, of the meaning of which he is so loth to be reminded?

I now renew my above-mentioned intention to read no post with his name at the top, which I confess I must have forgotten: on this or any other thread he pollutes with his primping pig's-breath of a presence. So any brilliant sallies he can find in response to this will be wasted on me.

Someone else can have a go: his fatuity and boringness make him a sitting target on which I cannot be bothered to waste any more thought or energy.

And so farewell to this thread, which has gone on much too long anyhow.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 04:14 PM

It was good of you not to take offence at my accusation Lox.
May I put this to you.
I would be the first to acknowledge that there is a long history of prejudice and discrimination against ethnic minorities.
People like yourself have stood out against it and defended them.
Is it possible that to jump in and defend can become a reflex, even when not merited?

In this case, there is not much doubt that an over representation exists.
You have been fair enough to acknowledge it.
To me, and others, it seems very likely to be a cultural issue, and when the likes of Straw, Ahmed and Alibhai Brown come out and say it, it seems confirmed.
Is it possible that your denial is based more on what has gone before than on current events?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 05:14 PM

Keith.

No worries.

Please do me a favour and read this whole post carefully with a view to understanding my actual point.

You don't have to agree with it, just make sure you have digested it before you comment.

I begin with the short answer:

I believe your question is answered in my previous post.

If you make a claim, then you should be prepared to properly support it or concede that it is not properly supported.

You have provided support, but I have found reasons why that support is not sufficient.


Now to clarify that point in the context that you have specified:

If the subject was: "Is Kenny Dalgliesh a good manager", I wouldn't particularly care how ell you backed up your arguments.

But as the subject is whether an entire racial demographic is or isn't culturally inclined to abduction and abuse of teenage girls, it is extremely important that I am 100% sure of the claim before accepting it.

This is not just because it is important not to make cultural generalizations, but also because there are people, like the EDL, who would seize upon such hypotheses as "evidence" to justify their political stance.

If there were strong evidence, that proved beyond doubt that Pakistani culture was at the root of these crimes, then I would concede that the hypothesis had merit and face up to the tough challenge of finding solution.

And if there were evidence which ruled out all other possible explanations and contributory factors, then I would again concede that it was the only remaining alternative.

But the truth is that we are no nearer proving any link between Pakistani culture and these horrendous crimes than we are to proving that the moon landings were faked.

And no investigation has even been attempted to discover if there are other possible reasons why these criminals did what they did.

People may 'feel' or 'think' what they like, but people have a funny knack of getting swept up by feelings and hunches and not saying - "right, if this is true then its important and therefore I need to investigate it absolutely thoroughly because the potential ramifications are really serious" - and instead they go round in mobs and picket Paediatricians houses, or beat up peaceful people on the street, or shove excrement through families letterboxes, or threaten small children with dangerous dogs.

All the people who do that stuff are sure that they are right and they don't need much so called 'evidence' to motivate themselves into further acts of stupidity.


So when i see people presenting hypotheses that justify the most common excuses for violence, be they racism, misogyny, or ... religionism (sic) ..., yes I jump right in to put a stop to it.

It doesn't matter that you aren't racist, if your hypothesis supports a racist viewpoint.

When someone like Keith Vaz describes Jack Straws comments as "dangerous", he doesn't just mean that they are politically borderline, he means that ordinary people could end up becoming involved in violence, either from those wanting to punish their scapegoat, or from the scapegoats themselves.

The EDL and similar groups don't need any more political oxygen than they have.

So prove your point beyond reasonable doubt, as in a court of law, or concede that it does not stand the test of scrutiny.

Would the mothers of the girls who were kidnapped and assaulted win in court if they took an action out against the "community leaders"?

No way - it wouldn't even get beyond the preliminaries, as there is no evidence or argument that could possibly support Anne Cryers suggestions that community leaders could have somehow prevented these crimes.

Maybe OJ simpson was guilty of killing his wife, maybe he was innocent - we may speculate about that to our hearts content and it will not result in hatred, resentment, defensiveness and aggression brewing on our streets.

This issue of whether British Pakistani ethics and morals are somehow to blame for the actions of organized criminals is a whole different ball game.

If you want to assert it, you muust be prepared to prove it or concede it.

It is not a subject upon which we have the luxury to idly speculate.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: josepp
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 06:03 PM

I just tried some cream in tea for the first time. Tasted like shit. Goddamn fucking brits. That's why you don't have an empire anymore. No taste.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: josepp
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 06:12 PM

Anybody want to by a carton of cream--slightly used?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 06:23 PM

Josepp, no Englishman would ever put cream in tea.
A little cold milk.
We argue about whether it should go in before or after the tea.
The cream is added to jam, which is a distant relative of your jelly, spread upon scones, baps, or similar bakery products.

Good post Lox.
Thank you.
Who could doubt your motivation after reading it?

The trouble is that there will never be "evidence, that proved beyond doubt that Pakistani culture was at the root of these crimes."

My opinion, which I do not put above yours, is that that does not preclude critical consideration of the possibility.

It can never be proved why priests abuse children.
(Similarly, a tiny but significant minority.)
No one ever suggested that it was wrong to speculate about that.

Vaz says that it is dangerous to speculate.
Oxygen for the EDL.
He is right, but it is also dangerous to be seen to suppress debate.
To make them a special case.
That suggestion, of a conspiracy of silence, is meat and drink to EDL.

So, we can agree that there is no proof.
I disagree that it is wrong to make reasoned, sensible conjecture.
Luckily, what we say here on Mudcat makes no difference to anything.
Just old folkies putting the world to rights.
Or not!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 07:02 PM

"My opinion, which I do not put above yours, is that that does not preclude critical consideration of the possibility."

I certainly agree that we should not "preclude critical consideration of the possibility."

In fact, as you may have noticed, I gave it extremely critical consideration.

"He is right, but it is also dangerous to be seen to suppress debate."

Again, noones right to debate has been suppresssed.

Rather, I have debated vigorously on this issue and kept it alive where other debates might have sunk without a trace - and twice I have urged you not to withdraw.

As for old fogies debating, I am very cautious to underestimate the power of ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: josepp
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 07:06 PM

This was half&half which is part milk and it didn't help.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Feb 11 - 07:42 PM

""Yes, I too have noticed that the ethnic minorities are fiercely defended whilst the Western cultures come in for a bashing.""

Perhaps you and Keith might try to come up with an example of me "bashing" any Western culture.

I assure you that you cannot do so.

Throughout this and other examples of your anti minority threads, I have consistently accused you of bias (which is supported by any scrutiny of your posts) and asked that you take a more balanced view.

Keith responds by reading the following,

""As a newspaper's primary aim is to sell papers, I try to filter out their sales pitch by reading 'between the lines' using known facts, figures and experiences to make an informed judgement.   As we all do.   The recent posts regarding Muslim men committing 'On-Street Grooming' crimes certainly got me thinking.

The Times researchers have selected their data (to sell newspapers?). 'On-Street Grooming' has only been an offence since 2006 and the figure of 17 cases since 1997 includes 14 occurring in the last 3 years.   3 cases in 9yrs then 14 in 3yrs cannot be right.   On-Street Grooming is also a very narrow subset of crime and does not include Internet Grooming for example, add this to the cases being taken from only 13 cities all with high Muslim populations and value of the statistics becomes dubious."",

and taking it to be an endorsement of his views on the subject, rather than the rebuttal it undoubtedly is.

It is impossible to penetrate a mind that intent upon bias and prejudice.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 02:06 AM

Lox, no challenge.
Josepp, use it in strong coffee with a little Irish Whiskey.
Don, Will you accept that you tend to take the side of the underdog, eg Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, minority issues, etc.?

Re the survey Don, the author was saying that its results had been overstated, not that they should be discarded.
I am not going to try any more to persuade you that the over representation is a reality.
The rest of us have moved on from that.
You are entitled to your opinion.

That poster ended by saying, "I do believe other reports I have read of Muslim community leaders and spokes-people admitting there are issues with some Muslim men's attitude to non–Muslim women and I consider this to be a cultural issue."
That can hardly be seen as a "rebuttal" of my views.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:32 AM

Josepp, never put cream in tea - to do so is a heresy, and no-one with British blood in his/her veins would ever do that!

As stated before, a little cold milk or, preferably, a slice of lemon, is all that's required.

Cream is for coffee and gateaux.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:35 AM

Bloody HTML! Why can't we have an edit facility for taking out underlining that wasn't intended!

Should have been:-

As stated before, a little cold milk or, preferably, a slice of lemon, is all that's required.

Cream is for coffee and gateaux.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 12:54 PM

"But as the subject is whether an entire racial demographic is or isn't culturally inclined to abduction and abuse of teenage girls, it is extremely important that I am 100% sure of the claim before accepting it."
LOX spot on, of course the answer is no,likewise not every Roman catholic is a sodomite or sexual abuser neither is every priest, in fact the majority of priests are not.
however the majority of muslims do regard women as second class citizens, that does not mean all of them do.
but if a majority do believe this because of their religion, I am inclined to condemn that aspect of their religion, THIS IS NOT RACIST.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 01:37 PM

``however the majority of muslims do regard women as second class citizens, that does not mean all of them do.
but if a majority do believe this because of their religion, I am inclined to condemn that aspect of their religion, THIS IS NOT RACIST.``

It isn`t racist, imo, BUT, I think you may be misled in saying ``the majority of Muslims``. The majority of their religious leaders may think that, and one would have a very short life-expectancy were one to disagree with those who interpret god`s law.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 02:20 PM

"and one would have a very short life-expectancy were one to disagree with those who interpret god`s law."

Depends where you live.

It doesn't apply to British Pakistanis.



It could easily be argued that it is the British aspect of British Moslem culture that is responsible for young women beig treated as sex objects to be bought and sold.

This is because in Britain, young white girls have been viewed as sex commodities in the sex industry and in the mainstream media since the early 20th century, when you could effectively watch black and white porn on the promenade.

Before that, and up until 1992, married women were seen by the law as being the property of their husband.

White girls are sold to us every day in the media as sex objects, and they command the highest fees in escort agencies.

Everybody wants a pretty young white girl as a symbol of success.


Islam doesn't permit the sexualization of young women in the same way as British culture does.

In the kids section of Woolworths in Peckham 3 years ago you could buy a range of playboy accessories for your 3 year old daughter.

Islamic culture dresses its girls up in a way that emphasizes who they are and not what they look like.

It dresses little girls modestly and not like porn stars.

It is western culture that produces child pornography, and promotes and legitimizes the commoditization and abuse of young white girls in the process in the eyes of the rest of the world.

So if you were a young British Pakistani, what would be more likely to influence you to abuse children?

Islamic culture or British/Western culture?


Before we cast the first stone we should take a good long look at ourselves!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 02:55 PM

'"and one would have a very short life-expectancy were one to disagree with those who interpret god`s law."

Depends where you live.

It doesn't apply to British Pakistanis.'



And WTF said it did?


As a btw, a fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. (Churchill)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 03:13 PM

"And WTF said it did?"

well ... er ... this is a thread about Britain ... duh!


"a fanatic is someone who can't change his mind ..."


I see you haven't been paying attention, or you would have noticed that Keith and I have reached a genuine impasse, and not one based on giving up, but one based on seeing the argument through to a conclusion acceptable to us both.


... and won't change the subject."


.... er ... 999 ... (wink ;-) ) (nice disguise) ... this is a thread about Moslems in Britian ... and it had reached a natural conclusion till you jumped in ...


... So if you are bored, go elsewhere ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 03:18 PM

LOX spot on, of course the answer is no,likewise not every Roman catholic is a sodomite or sexual abuser neither is every priest, in fact the majority of priests are not.
however the majority of muslims do regard women as second class citizens, that does not mean all of them do.

Well, you'd have to do a survey to back that up. In the meantime, I could do a similar survey to find out whether my hunch that the majority of white Caucasian males regard women as second-class citizens is true.

Anyway, I thought the Sodomites was a mountain range in the Alps.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 03:47 PM

Sometimes it DOES apply to BPs.
From BBC site.

Honour-based violence in the UK
Murders have sometimes taken place after a family reacted violently to their son or daughter adopting the trappings of western culture.

It's thought that up to 12 honour killings happen every year. They usually occur within South Asian and Middle Eastern families.

One of the most well-known cases is that of Banaz Mahmod, from Surrey, whose murder in 2006 was organised by her father and uncle.

She had left an unhappy arranged marriage after which she started a relationship with another man. The 20-year-old was strangled and hidden in a suitcase which was then buried underneath a Birmingham property.

The police were criticised for mis-handling Ms Mahmod's situation when she contacted them on a number of occasions before her death.

Shahien Taj, from the Henna Foundation, said: "Honour is supposed to be a positive word. Clearly, calling a killing an 'honour crime' is a contradiction of terms.

"A lot of talk and dialogue takes place after a crime has happened, but this is too little too late. If you really want to deal with an issue, you have to unpack it in its true context."

Forced marriages and honour violence
Organisations that deal with honour-based violence also help forced marriage victims, as some of those killed in the name of "honour" were trying to escape coercion into matrimony.

Laws to prevent forced marriages and provide a way out for those already in unconsented unions were introduced in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in November 2008.

Anybody convicted of trying to force someone into a marriage could be jailed for up to two years.

Within the first year, 86 Forced Marriage Protection Orders were implemented.

But as one worker who specialises in the issue said, "The sticking point is that potential victims don't want orders served on their parents - or whoever is responsible - they just want a way out of the situation."

Rise in 'honour' crimes
In December 2009, the Metropolitan Police reported that there had been a huge rise in recorded incidents motivated by "honour."

They said 211 incidents had been reported in London - 129 of which were criminal offences - between April and October.

The increase may partly be due to police being instructed in September 2009 to assume honour crimes have been committed in more situations.

Nazir Afzal, from the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "It will be about making sure we look for the signs so that we don't miss cases."

Detective Chief Inspector Gerry Campbell of the Metropolitan Police told The Guardian, "Young woman are predominately the victims of honour-based violence but we are seeing an increase in young men and boys – it's now about 15% of the total numbers."

He also added that 25% of their cases involved people under the age of 18.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 03:51 PM

One in 10 young British Asians believes so-called honour killings can be justified, according to a poll for the BBC's Asian Network.

In one recent case, two men were jailed for life for murdering their relative after she fell in love with an asylum seeker.

Greengrocer Azhar Nazir, 30, and his cousin Imran Mohammed, 17, stabbed Nazir's sister Samaira 18 times at the family home in Southall in April 2005.

The 25-year-old recruitment consultant was killed after she asked to marry an Afghan man - instead of marrying someone in the Pakistani family circle.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:22 PM

Perhaps you and Keith might try to come up with an example of me "bashing" any Western culture.

I am sure you are right, Don. You would not bash western culture. But a hell of a lot of people do just that. I will just repeat a little of Lox's post above, in case you missed it.

Islam doesn't permit the sexualization of young women in the same way as British culture does.

In the kids section of Woolworths in Peckham 3 years ago you could buy a range of playboy accessories for your 3 year old daughter.

Islamic culture dresses its girls up in a way that emphasizes who they are and not what they look like.

It dresses little girls modestly and not like porn stars.

It is western culture that produces child pornography, and promotes and legitimizes the commoditization and abuse of young white girls in the process in the eyes of the rest of the world.

If that isn't bashing western culture I don't know what is:-)

That aside though - We seem to have an inherant ability to laugh at ourselves. How many times have you seen Morris dance or Folk music lampooned by the media? How many people poke fun at western sosafely walk down the high street in Islamabad?

I agree with the fact that Islam is given a very rough deal nowadays. But lets not pretend that that religion promtes a perfect society while the western world sinks in the mire of it's own depravity. Both views are extreme. And very dangerous generalisations.

DeG
(Extreme moderate party)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:30 PM

Oh - and btw - The Catholic church doesn't permit the sexulisation of young girls or priests buggering altar boys but that doesn't stop it happening. Just because Islam 'does not permit it' doesn't mean to say it doesn't go on. Whenever and wherever you get anyone with that much power in the community, some of them will abuse it. Whatever religion or culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 04:57 PM

Dave , the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic church[ not to be confused with other Catholic churches]I am referring to the Roman Catholic church.
the VATICAN and a number of BISHOPS has consistently turned a blind eye to sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic church, they have permitted abusers to carry on as priests, and have subsequently apologised for not taking decisive and correct moral action against abusers, in practice that means they have permitted the abuse and buggering of young minors.
imo the problems with both religions is exacerbated by their ridiculous dogmas[in the RC church the non allowance of marriage], and in the Muslim Church, Their religious attitude to women.
I have not noticed many Elders in the Quakers with these attitude problems , so whatever religion or culture comment is just not true,
The majority of problems have been with these 2 particular religions, it is an attitude that treats people as sexual objects OR AND SECOND CLASS CITIZENS rather than humans who deserve respect.AND it is partly a RESULT OF RELIGIOUS DOGMA /DOCTRINE.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 05:09 PM

Child sexualisation.

Pakistani human rights activists are outraged at reports that a long-running blood feud in a remote corner of western Baluchistan province has been resolved by the handing over of 15 girls, aged between three and 10, for marriage.

"There has to be action," said Asma Jahangir, a leading rights campaigner. "These people who force others to sell their daughters must be sent to prison."

The new government in Islamabad, led by the party of the late Benazir Bhutto, has promised to act. "We will not allow young girls to be traded like this," said the information minister, Sherry Rehman. "The culprits who tried to do this will be arrested. The orders have been given."

But Jahangir said those orders had not been acted upon. "There is a dysfunction in the whole system. They are not listening to the government," she said. "We need to see them being more effective than just rhetoric."

Vanni, an ancient tribal practice in which feuding clans settle their differences by exchanging women for marriage, is illegal in Pakistan. In 2004 the Sindh high court outlawed all such "parallel justice" systems. But the writ of government is weak in rural areas, and local police often turn a blind eye.

The current controversy started with a row over a dog, said Muhammad Paryal Marri, a researcher in northern Sindh for the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/05/pakistan.humanrights

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 05:29 PM

The Muslim has become the new Communist.

I'm personally more concerned about the Christian Caliphate in the U.S.
They think they own the Second Amendment.

All religions seek in their own way to influence others, some through violence.

You can take the Koran or the Bible and read into it what you want to foster
an ideology.

You can also do that with the U.S. Constitution.

Prejudice is prejudice regardless of to whom it is applied.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 06:00 PM

The Muslim has become the new Communist.

Or the new black (irony intended). But the advantage of Muslims to white racists is that it's far easier to be racist when you can apply a veneer of exotic religion over it first.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 06:06 PM

Prejudice is pre judging,I am judging people as a result of their actions, that is not prejudice.
Abusing people whether it be by the Roman Catholic church or the Muslim church, or by Fascists/Nazis or Soviet imperialists, or Americans[ overthrowing democratically elected governments "Allende"] is WRONG.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 06:49 PM

The whole issue of the exploitation of women and children in this society is a "red herring" in this discussion. This attitude and behaviour is a bye product of raw capitalism.
I see none of the "liberals" here calling for the destruction of the capitalist system.
I see the removal of capitalism as a necessity before we can even think of constructing a decent society.

What we are talking about is the attitude of a number of Muslims living in western countries, towards young non muslim girls.
These people are brought up to believe that Western values are corrupt, Western women are immoral,Western children sexualised and "easy meat"

This may or may not be true, but it does not mean that these children should be targetted by predatory Muslims, to be trafficked as sex objects.
In my opinion these crimes are on the increase because the protetion agencies involved are afraid of falling foul of "human rights legislation" which ensures bias in favour of the criminals.

This has nothing to do with race or skin colour and everything to do with religion and culture
The stoning of women for adultery, the hanging of homosexuals for practicing sodomy and the forced marriage and trafficking of children should not be associated with any religion which we "tolerate".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 06:58 PM

"Or the new black (irony intended). But the advantage of Muslims to white racists is that it's far easier to be racist when you can apply a veneer of exotic religion over it first."

So....now it's racist to criticise the excesses of religion or culture

You cant have it every way Steven...no matter how "liberal" you are
You promote homosexuality, yet support the rights of people to practice a religion which dictates that homosexuals should be put to death. You promote womens rights, yet support the rights of people to practice a religion which deprives them of their rights

Thats before we start on killing the infidels.....get a grip!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 08:21 PM

Er, excuse me. You completely misinterpreted what I said there. Being racist to black people shows you to be a nakedly-racist person. Being racist to Muslims ("Pakis," yeah?) is easier to disguise because you can pretend that it's their religion that you hate when what you really mean is that it's them that you hate. All you have to do is dig up the Sharia/presumed misogyny/arranged marriages stuff and attack them for that. The effect is the same: you cast people you disapprove of as "the other." Another way of doing this is to refer darkly to "the threat of Islamic fundamentalism" every time anything happens in a country in which Arabic people happen to live. Look at all the mutterings about Islamic extremists "taking over" in Egypt this past couple of weeks, Egypt, a country with strong secularism and absolutely no footholds for Islamic extremists (I've heard both the Taliban and al-Qaeda invoked this week in the context of Egypt, which is the daftest thing I've heard for months). I do not "promote" homosexuality. What a ludicrous idea. I'm very happy for anyone on this planet to express whatever sexuality they want to and I'm not up for promoting one kind over another. Of course I support the right of anyone to follow whatever religion they want to (I hope they won't mind my butting in with my atheistic notions occasionally), though I'm not happy about organised religion of whatever colour dominating people's lives, which is an entirely different matter. As for religion and women, gosh, the different faiths are much of a muchness really. Here we are in the 21st century with backwoodsmen in Christian faiths opposing women bishops and so on. They're as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned. Finally, everyone except my mother calls me Steve, but if you really insist on using my unabridged moniker it's Stephen, not Steven.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Feb 11 - 11:31 PM

What this interminable thread has demonstrated so clearly is how dangerous firmly-held principles can be to the intellect. Of course racism is an evil ~~ I am sure we all agree about that. But just note how the whiff of it, and the terror of being possibly associated with its remotest manifestation, can rob intelligent men like Steve & Don {not to mention the vain, fatuous, priggish, self-regarding GolidLox, whom it robs also of all his manners and his sense of proportion} of the wee-bit sense they had, rendering them absolutely impervious to the reception, or even the contemplation, of what are demonstrably incontrovertible facts, in the defence of their deeply-held beliefs. Of such insistent obstinacy is dangerous fanaticism made.

Sincerely

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 04:03 AM

Here is prejudice BY muslims.
It is so severe, it is described here as "slow motion genocide."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5TJ962yi7w&NR=1

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 04:05 AM

Sorry.
Link here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5TJ962yi7w&NR=1

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 07:35 AM

muslim prejudice means the pre judging of muslims regardless of individual actions.
there are within those people who worship allah, differences just as there are differences in the christian religion, here is some information about the Ahmadiyya Muslims
The motto of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is “Love for All, Hatred for Noneâ€쳌.
So it is incorrect to lump the Ahmadiyya muslims with those muslims who have been found guilty of abusing western women. judge each person on their own individual actions but be aware that certain factions within both christian and muslim religions encourage and or condone the abuse of women children and animals.
incidentally I agree with the person who stated that the capitalist system encourages people to exploit others.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 08:57 AM

... while the non-capitalist system leads to nothing but sweetness & light, such as the Moscow Trials, & the Berlin Wall, and the Cultural Revolution, & er er er er...

Um...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 09:14 AM

MGM, that was state capitalism[even though it went under the misnomer of communism]or even Soviet Imperialism.Like wise the Chinese model, has true communism yet been practised?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 09:33 AM

No, Dick. Wonder why not, now... So dream on. & I wish you joy of it when it does come.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 09:41 AM

What this interminable thread has demonstrated so clearly is how dangerous firmly-held principles can be to the intellect. Of course racism is an evil ~~ I am sure we all agree about that. But just note how the whiff of it, and the terror of being possibly associated with its remotest manifestation, can rob intelligent men like Steve & Don {not to mention the vain, fatuous, priggish, self-regarding GolidLox, whom it robs also of all his manners and his sense of proportion} of the wee-bit sense they had, rendering them absolutely impervious to the reception, or even the contemplation, of what are demonstrably incontrovertible facts, in the defence of their deeply-held beliefs. Of such insistent obstinacy is dangerous fanaticism made.

Sincerely

~Michael~

Oh, give over, Michael. No-one is disputing incontrovertible facts. We're disputing the use to which certain disingenuous people with suspect motivations are putting them. There is a difference, you know. You are confusing facts with opinions, like the Daily Mail always does, and calling people nitwits who don't happen to share yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 09:58 AM

I am not calling anyone a nitwit, Steve. I shouldn't dream of such a thing [with one obvious exception on this thread!]. I am not confusing facts with opinions; but I am happy to replace the word 'facts' with 'statistics' if you prefer. And I have no pre-judged 'opinions' on this question, so nobody could 'happen' to 'share' or not to share what do not exist; but I suspect, as I say in the post you quote back at me, that you do ~~ i.e. that if conclusion to which the statistics lead could conceivably carry any possible connotation that anyone could possibly, even if mistakenly, interpret as in any way 'racist', it must be set at a vast distance without any further question being asked or consideration given. Do you deny holding such a view? I simply prefer to let the statistics lead me to the conclusions, rather than to deny their validity because of any entrenched presuppositions. For which reason I find your use of the derogatary adjective 'disingenuous' somewhat - uh - disingenuous.

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 10:46 AM

...can rob intelligent men like Steve & Don {not to mention the vain, fatuous, priggish, self-regarding GolidLox, whom it robs also of all his manners and his sense of proportion} of the wee-bit sense they had, rendering them absolutely impervious to the reception, or even the contemplation, of what are demonstrably incontrovertible facts, in the defence of their deeply-held beliefs. Of such insistent obstinacy is dangerous fanaticism made.

You type this garbage then you accuse me of making derogatory remarks as if you alone have the monopoly rights. Oh well.

Here's the root of your problem:
I simply prefer to let the statistics lead me to the conclusions

Simply is right. Unfortunately, statistics can be abused and quoted partially, tendentiously and out of context. "Simply letting them" is lazy and not good enough, is it? But you talk as if delving a bit deeper than the statistics we're presented with is neurotic. I would rather call it the appropriate use of the brain myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 10:54 AM

I didn't accuse you of any derogatory remarks, but only of one derogatory word, Steve. In what way have you 'delved deeper'? I note that you offer no reply to the question which is the true gravamen of my post.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 11:03 AM

"Neurotic", moreover, is your word, not mine. I have nowhere accused you, directly or by implication, of any neurosis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 11:19 AM

... and I don't fling words like 'garbage' at you, either; but endeavour to respond with moderation and courtesy to the points you make. Mind you don't become abusive like poor old GoldiLox, now.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 11:35 AM

""I will just repeat a little of Lox's post above, in case you missed it.""


No, I didn't miss it DeG, but I'd like you to tell me which specific points in that post are in your opinion untrue, or substantially inaccurate?

If Lox has posted inaccurately to try to make a point, then your following comments are of course justified.

If however he has reported facts which are a matter of public record (as I am fairly certain he has), how does this in your or anyone else's estimation constitute "Western Culture bashing"?

You see, Keith, Ake, and MtheGM accusing us of being anti West is a very unsubstantial smokescreen designed to hide the fact that while we ask for a balanced response based on solid evidence, they have nothing more than a desire to bash Muslims based on equally unsubstantial opinion which must be true because they choose to believe it.

Tell me DeG, do you believe that in the last thirteen years in a coast to coast area ranging from the Midlands to the North of England there have been only 17 cases of street grooming, and all committed by just 50 Muslim Asians, 3 non Muslim Asians and 3 white men who may or may not be Muslims, as Keith repeatedly states in the hope that it will be accepted as fact.

Or do you perhaps accept my contention that it is much more credible that these are the only cases which have been extracted from the total figure of grooming in general, by those with an anti Muslim mindset who, like Keith and Co have seized with glee the opportunity to exercise their prejudice?

Why else would they steadfastly refuse even to consider the possibility that I could indeed be right? After all they believe Jack Straw without question, but then he has the same bias.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 12:01 PM

There, Michael, see what I mean about statitics? Why don't you let Don's simply lead you to the conclusions then?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 01:45 PM

"Why else would they steadfastly refuse even to consider the possibility that I could indeed be right? After all they believe Jack Straw without question, but then he has the same bias."

Straw, and Cryer, and Ahmed, and Alibhai- Brown, and the senior police officers, active and retired, and the local press, ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 01:53 PM

Dick. The fact is that wherever there are people in power, some people will abuse that power. No exclusions for catholics of whatever ancient city, moslems of whatever sect, politicians of whatever party or any other group you can mention.

Don. I have no idea whether what Keith says is true but unless someone can disprove it, factualy, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I do know that what Lox said, be it true or not, was posted to paint 'British Culture' as something sordid against a background of moslem purity. Neither stand point is true. There is good and bad in all societies and it is tarring all people in that culture with the same brush that I dislike.

I have not heard Keith say that all Pakistanis (of whetever nationality) are child molesters. I have not heard Lox say that all British people pedle porn and sexualise young girls. All either have said is that certain members of those societies are guilty of some crimes. Surely that is taken as read? I don't understand your point. Why is saying one any worse than saying the other?

Now, I think I will go away and start a thread of how smelly, house metal freaks are predjudice aginst beer swilling, bearded folkies. Doubt if it will run as long though...

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 03:44 PM

Steve... you have certainly misinterpreted my post.

To be against a group of people(Pakies yeah?, because of their skin colour or place of origin is of course crass idiocy. why do you accuse me of this, when my stance is against the excesses of the Muslim religion....the fact that the criminals happen to be Pakistani is immaterial....the salient factor being the effect Islam has on their culture.

To say that all religions are equally abusive is a knowing lie...either a lie or ignorance.

A quick trawl through the internet will show very many cases of murder and mutilation performed by Muslims against Christians.

There are literally dozens of cases cited. Keith has cited only one or two.

Then there are the horrible punishments handed out to members of their own religion who are deemed to have transgressed.

The burying alive of teenage girls who have had sexual intercourse with an infidel.....and "honour" killings come immediately to mind.

These people and you "liberals" are supporting not a religion, but a cult of madness.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 05:01 PM

So, is a Muslim morris team on the cards in the near future - we ask with baited breath....?

Can they be trusted with all those sticks about - not to engage in merciless floggings? Or perhaps they could do a flogging workshop at Sidmouth? After all we don't want to be little Englanders, there is always room for a healthy interchange of cultural values. I'm sure a fter a few slip jigs and knocking out a corn dolly or two, the beard and sandals gang would enjoy a more diverse approach to the folk arts.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 05:46 PM

.... er ... 999 ... (wink ;-) ) (nice disguise)


Lox is a nice disguise too, don`t ya think.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 05:53 PM

This Debate was finished off long ago.

Thre is no testimony here that would be admissable in any academic paper, or in any court of law, to support the hypothesis that Moslem Culture is any more likely to influence young AND OLD men to become involved in organized sex crime than any other cultural influence.

All we have is a foregone conclusion masquerading as a hypothesis that is being defenced tooth and nail by its adherents, all plodding on with their blinkers on like a bunch of shirehorses.

And any suggestion that they might be wrong is taken as Bashing the West.

The reason for my post above is to show just one of many other significant influences on British Pakistanis that exist in addition to Islam.

One of these is the culture of the country where they live (Britain).

Much of Britain sexualizes its kids at a very early age.

If you don't believe me just type "sexualization of children in Britain" into google and see how many results come up.



Meanwhile MtheGM goes on like a Father Jack about "incontrovertible facts".

Ask him to produce any though, and the best you'll get is a list of the latest words he's looked up in the dictionary, not all of which he fully understands, but which after a few days of jiggling he can sometimes make look coherent.

It doesn't disguise the vacuity of his posts however, as he is completely ignorant of the facts, let alone what they signify, or for that matter what the discussion is actually about.

He is to be pitied ... if only I cared ...


Ake meanwhile sits like an easter Island head, silent for post after post, before repeating exactly what he said in his last post. He is a rock of ages in every way - hard, unmoving, and impenetrable - and as interesting to discuss anything intelligent with.

If you want to develop, improve on or widen your understanding, he is definitely not the man to talk to.

Not to mention Private eye 999, with his cape fluttering in the wind and his underpants on the outside, shouting like a neglected kid til someone pays attention.


You remind me of a guy I knew once who got angry after reading the first chapter of "Brave new World" because he reckoned it was a "paedo book".

I tried to explain to him that you need to read the whole thing before you know what its about, but he was steadfast.

Sad for him because he missed out on a great read.

I think some people are genuinely afraid to challenge their preconceptions and think the sky will fall down if they discover they are wrong.

So they push the same grindstone round and round and spend their lives justifying it.

Go condemn yourselves then.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 05:55 PM

Lox is short for my name, Lochlan, and is how my friends refer to me.

Is 999 short for your name?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 05:57 PM

It`s code for Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 05:59 PM

No shit!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 06:00 PM

Yeah. No shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 06:10 PM

Moving right along . . .

I can`t think of any society anywhere in which there are no forms of intolerance based on gender or religion or colour or economic condition, etc. Muslims are no better in that regard than any other religious group. Once the maniacs take over, the average Muslim who might wish to live in peace, raise a family, educate kids, etc., would likely agree. I was very happy when the new Mayor of Calgary was elected by the people of Calgary. He is Muslim--how practicing a Muslim I do not know. So, indeed there are places where your religion matters much less than your skills and abilities.

Pakistanis (I don`t use the term `Paki`) may be less tolerant, but I doubt it. Lox has raised some seriously important issues along with most other posters on this thread. Extremes of any sort--especially religious--are scary. Look to fundamental Christians (they sure as hell`s on fire ain`t good Christian) or fundamental Muslims (they sure as hell ain`t good Muslims) and go figure.

Sorry to have got carried away, Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 06:19 PM

No worries,

Sorry back.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 06:53 PM

my stance is against the excesses of the Muslim religion....the fact that the criminals happen to be Pakistani is immaterial....the salient factor being the effect Islam has on their culture.

Let me assure you, old chap, that Islamic culture/religion/community simply don't come into it when you're in the process of shagging an underage girl. It's lusty ol' testosterone, mate, that wonderful substance that cuts across all barriers. That and rotten education. Education provided, supposedly, by the state.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Feb 11 - 11:10 PM

Lochlan ~~ thank you for having at last come out as to the origin of your Cat-name. I did genuinely believe you had adopted it becoz you like smoked salmon; hence the misunderstanding and its misuse: which, however, I can't feel altogether worth the alarmingly [as to your preoccupations and obsessions] abusive & mannerless obloquy thus occasioned...

Words are there to be used. Such vocabulary as I may employ is all present within my normal compass: the image of my sitting there with Roget or Chambers looking to challenge the comprehension of those less semantically well-endowed is a most entertaining one.

Steve ~ if I could make heads or tails of Don's statistics I might be convinced by them.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 02:34 AM

Don, you are certainly right to say that there must be more than these 17 cases.
That is just the actual convictions, in this limited area.

This good lady has worked with 400 families (FOUR HUNDRED!) of young girl victims since 2002, and she believed even that is just the tip of an iceberg.

This from the Guardian.
Hilary Willmer, of the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping, said that since 2002 her group had supported 400 families where girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men. "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg." But she cautioned against treating the matter as a race crime. "It's a criminal thing."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 02:39 AM

Helen B again, quoted by Yorkshire Post.
"At the beginning we worked on the assumption that girls were groomed by individual pimps, but later discovered widespread pimping networks, much like international people trafficking gangs. Shopping malls, games arcades, places around takeaways and parks are common meeting places.

"The girl (who's typically aged between 13 and 16, but can be only 11 or 12) may meet the man alone, or be introduced by a friend who already knows him. He is usually quite a lot older and good looking, well-dressed and may well have a fast car. He'll meet her regularly, shower her with gifts, give her drink and maybe also drugs, take her for rides, tell her how special she is. He may have sex with her, but not at first, and he will discourage her from telling her parents about him because "they wouldn't understand".

"At some point further down the line he will take her to a flat or down an alley and tell her that in return for all the things he has done for her, it's payback time and she has to do something for him. She will then probably be gang raped. She will be confused, weak, think she's in love with the pimp, but also feel ashamed and guilty. She goes home and takes it out on her family and also drops out of education."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 03:28 AM

I am adding Helen to my list of expert witnesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittlw
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 04:34 AM

He's got a little list.....!

Calm down Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 04:51 AM

Keith seems perfectly calm and rational to me, Al. Unlike some on this thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 05:16 AM

Thanks Mike.
I try to be.
I just said Helen when I meant Hilary.
Is anyone going to give reaasons to discount Hilary's testimony?
Any flaws?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 05:17 AM

From Keiths expert witness.

"but later discovered widespread pimping networks, much like international people trafficking gangs"

Much like international trafficking gangs eh?

So not unique in any way?

hmmm ...

So probably not a British Pakistani cultural trait then?

Probably a trait shared by trafficking and forced prostitution gangs from other countries and cultures?


Well thank you keith, your expert witness, with whom I strongly agree on that point, has cast more doubt on your hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 05:21 AM

Hilary said,
"The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg."
Quoted in Guardian.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 02:28 PM

""I have not heard Keith say that all Pakistanis (of whetever nationality) are child molesters. I have not heard Lox say that all British people pedle porn and sexualise young girls. All either have said is that certain members of those societies are guilty of some crimes.""

Then you've not been listening DeG.

Keith has repeatedly stated that street grooming of underage girls is a predominantly British Pakistani and/or predominantly Muslim (he seems to believe that those terms are synonymous) crime.

He has also repeatedly stated that there are only those seventeen cases, and there have been no instances of White men committing the same offences.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 02:44 PM

"""The girl (who's typically aged between 13 and 16, but can be only 11 or 12) may meet the man alone, or be introduced by a friend who already knows him. He is usually quite a lot older and good looking, well-dressed and may well have a fast car. He'll meet her regularly, shower her with gifts, give her drink and maybe also drugs, take her for rides, tell her how special she is. He may have sex with her, but not at first, and he will discourage her from telling her parents about him because "they wouldn't understand".

"At some point further down the line he will take her to a flat or down an alley and tell her that in return for all the things he has done for her, it's payback time and she has to do something for him. She will then probably be gang raped. She will be confused, weak, think she's in love with the pimp, but also feel ashamed and guilty. She goes home and takes it out on her family and also drops out of education."""

The original one size fits all tale.

I first heard the identical tale about black Caribbean men back in the fifties, and I'll bet our US members have heard it about Hispanic men in the States.

It's the kind of generic mishmash of half truths and downright exaggerations that is spouted against the outsider of your choice in just about every society with a sizeable immigrant population.

A couple of dozen cases become a couple of hundred and then a couple of thousand.

The truth usually is that there are many different perpetrators, but the ones held responsible depend largely on the current prejudice-of-the-day.

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 02:46 PM

There's a man going round taking names

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 03:51 PM

"The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg."

Yes - this gang is Pakistani.

And they are "much like international people trafficking gangs"

So the Pakistani/Moslem gangs do not behave in a unique or different way to the non pakistani/non-moslem trafficking gangs.

So it cannot be argued that Islamic or briotish Pakistani culture is the driving motivation.

It must be a different motivation that they share with other trafficking gangs.


If it was British Pakistani/Moslem culture that was to blame, then their crimes would be somehow distinctively British Pakistani/Moslem by nature.


They aren't.


So your witness has shown your hypothesis to be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 04:02 PM

Don.
"He (meaning me)has also repeatedly stated that there are only those seventeen cases, and there have been no instances of White men committing the same offences."

No Don. Just those 17 cases that have resulted in convictions, in that area.
Those 17 cases appear to be the tip of an iceberg.

Hilary Willmer set up a charity to help victims.
Google her Don.
She has worked with 400 families of victims, as I reported.

According to The Guardian, she said "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg."

Google that too Don, and please do not blame the messenger.
You would have found the same if you looked into it with an open mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 04:13 PM

Keith has repeatedly stated that street grooming of underage girls is a predominantly British Pakistani and/or predominantly Muslim

Can we either hear that from the horses mouth, Keith? Or can you substantiate that with examples, Don? Even if is proven, may I point out that that is not what I said. Maybe I am not listening but I am thinking of sooty kettles and cooking implements for some reason...

What I actualy said was that Keith has never said that all Pakistanis are involved in this heinous crime. Want me to repeat it? Ok then...

I have not heard Keith say that all Pakistanis (of whetever nationality) are child molesters.

Now, rather than engaging in recriminations of who is and who is not listening can we get some actual facts?

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 04:35 PM

""Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:19 AM

" "their culture inspires a slight predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls"

Can you confirm that that is your opinion of British Pakistanis?"

It is my opinion that it is a reasonable suggestion.
The over representation is a fact that requires an explanation.
Something is predisposing them, and it is more likely to be something sexual in the culture than your alternative list. (wild generalisations?)""

Posted without comment.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 04:59 PM

Lox, this from The Telegraph.
She says "gangs" plural.

Hilary Willmer, from the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping (Crop), said while she welcomes the new initiative, tackling internal trafficking would be hampered by a law that dictates girls over 13 should give evidence against their handlers in court - something they are rarely willing to do.

"It can happen to any child from any family," she said. "The men, the gangs have all the experience. The children, the families and the parents are bewildered, don't know what's happening.

"In practice, unless the primary victim is prepared to give evidence then it's very difficult to make charges stick. The men know this, so they often wait until the girls are 13 before actually having sex with them."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 05:05 PM

Don and Dave, I have always acknowledged that only a tiny minority of the community are involved, but they are massively over represented in this crime, out of all proportion to the size of the community.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 05:33 PM

Don, you cut the next line from my post you just quoted.
It was,
"If it did give rise to just a slight predisposition, then only a tiny minority would succumb.
And that is exactly what is found."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 10 Feb 11 - 05:55 PM

"If it did give rise to just a slight predisposition, then only a tiny minority would succumb.
And that is exactly what is found."

This doesn't help your case.

It suggests that if a small minority of a community commit a crime, that therefore that whole community has a slight predisposition to commit that crime.

In fact, the fact that it is such a tiny minority shows that they are the exception to a wholly different rule.

And there is still nothing to suggest that that tiny minority were influenced by "their culture"" as opposed to other manifold possible influences.

And that is all assuming that British Pakistani culture can be identified and defined that easily.

Supporting your argument is like trying to carry water in a seive.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 02:05 AM

You, and anyone following this, will know that this community has a strong, well defined and distinctive culture.
That you have to deny this undermines your case at once.

Of course criminality is an exception to the rule, but it is remarkable that there are so many exceptions to this particular rule.
So it has been remarked on.

I suspect, based on the testimony of knowledgeable people, that there is a cultural explanation.
You seem certain that there is not, but can not say why in any readable way (less than half a page).

You are also unable to give alternative explanations in any readable way.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 04:15 AM

Lox, you say you lived for a year in a Muslim country and were treated with much respect. Have you ever thought how different that year may have been had you been a woman?

I worked for around 10 years in Harley Street, London. Our patients were about 90% Muslim. In those days there were hardly any hospitals in The Middle East and so patients were sent over en masse to London, New York, all over the world, for treatment, but London was one of the major places.

I dealt with thousands of Arab patients, dealt with their Embassies too on a personal level.

As a woman I have to say that many of the male patients, interpreters and Embassy staff treated me with disdain and some were blatantly sexual in their behaviour towards me, one patient finding himself on the other side of the room after he'd dared to touch my body.

There are many Muslim men who have a foul opinion of Western women. There are many who are also foul to their wives too. How do I know? Because we used to see these poor lassies when they'd turn up for treatment for their sick hearts...and their horror stories would pour out to the doctor, through their female interpreters.

I always maintained the maximum aloofness, expecting the utmost respect from ALL of our male patients. In no way whatsoever did I ever encourage them sexually, or flirt with any of them, or any of the male interpreters. Amongst the 'good guys' on the Street, I was respected and looked after.

When I had to go to The Saudi Health Office, at the top of Harley Street, to discuss the huge unpaid bills, I was nervous, to be honest.
It was Ramadan..tempers were short. Each time a patient was seen by a doctor he gave us an official pink form. This was returned when we submitted the accounts on a monthly basis. Without this we were told we would not be paid. I refused to return the original copies, as way too many had mysteriously 'disappeared' once they'd reached The Saudi Health Office....so I always sent photocopies.

So, this time I was summoned to explain why I was no longer sending in the original forms. I went up there, armed with a huge folder of pink forms, the orginials. I sat down and showed them to the accounts section, who blatantly denied that any of these forms, or patients, were real.

I was then told the Chief Accountant wanted to see me. The whole place was filled with men. One of them I knew. Bassim was an interpreter, a really decent guy and he saw me there. He whispered to me that he'd go with me to the Chief Accountant's Office and he'd be right outside, should I need him.

I walked into that office and was looked up and down, as if I were a piece of meat. The smarmy bastard behind the desk looked at the patients, the bills, the tens of thousands of pounds his embassy owed my doctor.

Then, he closed his file.

He stared at me and said "You show me some honey, and I'll show you some money."

I told him where he could stick his honey...then went outside to Bassim, who escorted me out of the building.

I was shaking when I got back, so threatened had I felt. My doctor was a brilliant surgeon but utterly hopeless with people and he refused to make an official complaint.

Years later, that same Chief Accountant came to see me again. This time I was working for a Cardiologist and Cardiothoracic Surgeon. I told the Cardiologist what had happened years back and he listened intently. I showed the patient in. 30 minutes later my doctor came out and asked me to write a report for this man. He told me that the Embassy wanted to send him back to Saudi, after allegations had been made about corruption within the Health Office, and he, the patient, was worried about the condition of his heart, saying he was too ill to return home.

Dr. Spurrell smiled at the man, then told him to take a seat outside while he dictated a report to me. The report stated that the patient's heart was in very good health and therefore he could return home as soon as it could be arranged.

Justice sometimes takes a while to swing into action.

I have to say that I was treated with great respect by many of our Muslim patients and by many of the interpreters too. It was no less than I deserved.

I also have to say that at no time did any of our non-Muslim patients ever treat me in a disparaging, overtly sexual way, nor look down on me as being lower than a camel.

Whether you like it or not there is a huge problem with the way many Muslim men treat women, not only Western women, but often their own wives, sisters, even mothers. They are spoilt rotten as children, and are taught that men are the superior species.

Until the women of the Middle East rise together and say "ENOUGH!" this will sadly never change. Until you see an equal amount of women on the streets of the Middle East, in the shops, mosques and everywhere else, this will never change. Until the majority of Muslim fathers thanks Allah for the birth of their daughters in the same way he does for his sons, this will never change.

I spent too many years with Princesses and Peasants alike taking refuge in our office, because they'd not mix with the men in the waiting room, or being told to keep myself out of sight, when the Ruler of Oman came calling, as he didn't want to see women around...

Fuck that, I made damn sure I kept wandering, slowly, across the waiting room when he was around..looked him straight in his bad-tempered eye too...

I also have presents from dear and much liked patients. My Hermes scarf from Sheikh Assaf with the scarab on it still sits in my drawer to this day...lovely memoroies of an intelligent and respectful man who adored his wife and daughters.

Muslims & Misogynists are sadly bound together at the moment. It is up to the Good Muslims to shout out about this appalling outlook and to rectify it as soon as they are able.


And before you blow a gasket, Lox...I'd also like to add that I watched 'My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding' recently and there too, within the Gypsy Culture lies Misogyny, bigtime...The young men, when asked if they thought men and women were to be valued in the same way looked astounded. Women are second class you see...their lives are ones of housework and raising the children, little else. If they get divorced they are never allowed to re-marry, if they want to stay within in the community...They are 'grabbed' by the young lads who want to show they're interested in them, which means the men can touch the most intimate parts of their bodies, chase them, force themselves on them, all in the name of 'men's right's' don't ya know...

To deny that some cultures have an appalling attitude to women is ridiculous. It does not mean that ALL within that culture behave or believe in this way, but it does mean that the Good Guys need to make their voices heard as never before to stamp out misogyny, wherever it may be found...and to have the guts to admit that some things within their culture are fundamentally wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 04:25 AM

And one thing that is fundamentally wrong is that some Muslim men think that ALL western women are 'up for it'. This is as racist (and depressing) as saying all Muslim men are misogynists.

However, I recognise that in my culture there is a great deal going wrong at the moment, and the lack of self-respect amongst young women is just one of those things. I'm appalled at how so many young people (and older too) behave these days.

I'm sure Sheikh Assaf would be equally appalled at how some Muslim men behave too, because it brings disrespect to him, as a Muslim, just as women having sex with complete strangers, in a drunken club night stupor, or flaunting themselves so blatantly, brings disrepect to me, as a woman.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 05:22 AM

He only claims to have lived in "a Muslim area" for under two years.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan whittle
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 06:29 AM

Congratulations Lizzie. A lengthy piece of writing on this thread that is coherent, interesting and readable - and moreover expert testimony, as opposed to the 'two legs bad, four legs better' restating of entrenched positions, sprinkled with personal abuse.

You have raised the tone of the neighbourhood.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 06:59 AM

PS Any chance of a romantic evening together?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 07:22 AM

Say something nice about me and you're on a promise!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 07:41 AM

Don't take up Al's offer, Lizzie - 'e drahns 'em in the barf! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 07:46 AM

And I agree with Al, how refreshing to read testimony based on substantial personal experience, rather than just endlessly repeated and entrenched dogma, and personal abuse, some of it appallingly aimed at the chronically sick and rooted in Ageism (which stinks just as badly as racism).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 08:33 AM

Another quote: From Daily Mail this time:

French president Nicolas Sarkozy has joined David Cameron in condemning multiculturalism as a failure.
Cameron launched a scathing attack earlier this months on 30 years of multiculturalism in Britain warning that it fostered extremism.
His damning verdict came just months after German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that multiculturalism in Germany had failed.
Now Sarkozy has joined the growing number of European leaders who have adopted identical views on multiculturalism.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355961/Nicolas-Sarkozy-joins-David-Cameron-Angela-Merkel-view-multiculturalism-failed.html#ixzz1Dem66UHL

Perhaps soon, the indigenous population might be listened to, without the 'automatic' smear of being racist by disagreement with the minority who promote ethnic groups as being beyond (fair) criticism.

Perhaps the Baroness needs to reconsider what she thinks . . . or says.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 10:53 AM

Oh go on Liz!

I will shower you with expensive gifts, dazzle you with my exciting lifestyle - your life will be transformed, and i will prey on yor naivety.

However, its probably fair to warn you that (due to my exotic racial origins) I will eventally make extravagany sexual demands. I can't help it - people from my culture are just like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 11:00 AM

Well said again Lizzie.

I worked for a year in Bangladesh, flying for their national airline as flight crew. I was appalled at how the crews treated their Cabin Crew.

They were both verbally and sexually abused. A captain can instantly end the career of any girl that refuses - this career is deemed an excellent chance to improve themselves and their circumstances. I was even offered a stewardess to be 'my friend' while I was in Bangladesh, I refused. These are all 'good Muslim men' all misogynists, all holier than thou.

Again, it is THIS I really object to. I don't like abuse full stop. I particularly don't like Muslims coming over here and acting like many of them do, I definitely don't like not being able to comment on it because I'd be accused of being a racist. What for? Telling it like it is? I don't think so.

So I am really pleased to see this realignment of values. I don't like politicians much either, but finally I am starting to hear that my particular viewpoint is coming into vogue.

Other people also object to the way these people act in OUR country, what's more, soon, we'll stop subsidising their hate campaign.

But if you misguided do-gooders out there wish to brand me a racist - then go ahead. I really hope that your disillusionment (when it comes) is not too close to you and yours. It's always easier when it happens to someone else.

Once more, well said Lizzie.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 11:18 AM

And then the good fairy cast a spell on the bad witch and they all lived happily ever after.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 12:21 PM

meaning that Liz and Brian are telling fairy stories..?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 01:42 PM

That's right, and I think I'm beginning to think it's beneath whatever dignity I've got left to post to a thread containing such vicious, brainless bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 02:03 PM

Agreed, Steve. It seems that some people just want to 'win'. Whatever that may mean to them. OK. I agree everyone else is right and I am wrong. There, see. You have won. Now can we stop this depressing argument and maybe use the time trying to help the victims? Perhaps even the perpetrators?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 02:45 PM

Why would you want to help the perpetrators?

I thought that was what this country had been doing for the last xx years. Who exactly is being vicious, perhaps the perpetrators David wishes to help? Or do I misquote?

It would appear that people who feel like I do are getting a voice, and on the increase.

Does that make us all bigots, I thought I'd been particularly straightforward - unless of course you are referring to others unnamed?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 04:07 PM

'Why would you want to help the perpetrators?'

Well if a tenth of what you're saying is right, they need help and plenty of it to adjust to living in our sort of society. The other option is sticking them all in the clink, which isn't really feasible.

What weakens the other side of rthe debate is ofcourse the endless persoanl abuse - now everyone is who disagress, or has had different thoughts and experiences is a brainless vicious bigot.

Liz is not a vicious brainless bigot. I have read her posts for years. I would not fantasise about a vicious brainless bigot.

This Brian May. i don't think he's the one out of Queen. I don't trust anyone who quotes the Daily mail as authoritative. he's well to the right of me politically. personally, Cameron playing the race card depresses the bollocks off me.

Keith says he's a Labour supporter. But he's obviously a bit like me in that I knew when Hattersly lost out to Kinnock in the 80's( so hot on the heels of Michael Foots humiliation) , the left wing of that party were politically unreachable and unelectable within our lifetimes. Consequently the stuff he comes out with ruffles the feathers of left wingers, sinn feinners and other idealists. The certainty with which he states a view that is essentially compromised is a reflection of his personality. he seems proud of views that I share, but i find I have no pride in holding.

If you find this company vicious, bigotted and brainless - just who do you debate with - yourself presumably. No wonder , you're unused to hearing differing opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 04:08 PM

the above poster was me

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 04:28 PM

Thanks for the explaination, Alan. Probably better put that what I am about to say!

In my opinion, anyone who would groom and then abuse a young girl certainly needs putting straight. That may include punishment - indeed I hope it would have an element of that - but it should involve help as well. I am not of the Victorian 'hang 'em' brigade nor of the Liberal 'let them do what they want' crew. Just what is wrong with punishing perpetrators and also helping them to not do it again? Th etwo are not mutualy exclusive.

Even if, in some instances, the only way we cam help them not do it again is by giving a suspended sentance. Suspended about six feet off the floor... Seriously though - I believe most people can be helped. If they then refuse help or continue their previous ways then, fair enough, shoot the bastards.

But, this has bugger all to do with the point in question. I am just halfway down my second bottle...

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 04:46 PM

I too, sense a shift in public opinion regarding implimentation of the "Human rights act".

People are saying, what a couple of years ago was "unsayable"
They have opened their eyes and just discovered that the Emperor really has nothing on.

How stupidly we can behave, when our emotions start to rule our heads.

We must always debate everything, every issue, every attack on our hard won freedoms, every incursion into our lives by vested interests and most importantly we should never allow ourselves to be bullied into silence.....they always try that one and this thread is no exception.
Those who maintain that there is no cultural element at work in the crimes against the very young girls, or in the treatment of women, homosexuals and "infidels" have offered up not a shred of evidence to support their contention.....they have simply resorted to abuse and name calling

In contrast, Keith has provided the views of people who are in a position to be fully aware of the facts.

The evidence from the courts supports the views held by these people, and the most alarming point, which is made repeatedly, is that protection agencies and even the police are being obstructed by
"Human rights legislation" from fully and openly investigating these crimes.

Orwellian "liberalism" has had its day.....thank fuck! Look to Europe and Scandinavia to see the future, the backlash has begun, the worst stupidities and excesses will be swept away, common sense will prevail......but just as we railed against the stupidity of "liberal fundamentalism", we must guard against the pendulum swinging too far.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 05:09 PM

Wafa Sultan speaking out about the bad side of Islam....

Maybe you guys who are in total denial about so much will finally open your eyes, your ears and your hearts and LISTEN to this woman....a woman who has DARED to stand up against the tyrants and bullies who rule Islam to their own ends these days and say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"

She is incredibly brave....I hope she survives.

Wafa Sultan talking from her heart about what is wrong with Islam

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 05:15 PM

The religion discriminates against women. Many religions do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 08:55 PM

As this thread has turned (predictably) into a discussion on the pros and cons of Islam, I thought I would share something both relevant and beautiful.

I hope you are lucky enough to be able to enjoy it.

Reading the Koran

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Feb 11 - 08:59 PM

*Yawn* It doesn't take religion to discriminate against women. And I'm an atheist saying that. We need a lot more honesty and a lot less hidden tendentiousness (of the type shown by Cameron this week) when we discuss minority groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 09:22 AM

Lox, did you mean to suggest that Lizzie and Briam were lying?
And Hillary Willmer, Jasmin Alibhai-Brown, Lord Ahmed, Anne Cryer, Jack Straw and those senior police officers?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 10:36 AM

"As this thread has turned (predictably) into a discussion on the pros and cons of Islam,"

The object of discussion for the last couple of weeks has been about whether the abuse of young girls is a "CON" of one particular culture within Islam.

There seems little doubt that it is, albeit that only a small minority are involved.

The comments that follow your video suggest that a murderous intolerance is often a con of Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 01:57 PM

Tell me this, because I don't understand...

WHY is it perfectly acceptable to shout out loud about the appalling behaviour of paedeophilic priests in the Catholic Church, and yet apparently no-one is allowed to mention the appalling treatment and view of women from many within the 'church of Islam'..?

Is it that those men who cry out about paedeophile priests are also misogynists, and therefore care not one jot about what many women within Islam have to suffer on a daily basis????

Tell me, have any of you read 'The Prince & I' or 'Not Without My Daughter'? Both books deal with the appalling treatment of women, written by those with firsthand knowledge of how they were treated...

There are those within the once beautiful religion of Islam who are, imo, quite frankly evil. I, unlike many others in here, am not afraid to say it.

Even Yusuf Islam himself has said things along a similar line, telling the Mullahs that the world sees much wrong with Islam at present, and therefore they have to change it for the better, speak out...

I'm sorry, but all this woollywoosssss thinking has opened the gates for tyrants and bullies in the most unbelievable manner you could imagine.

I am NOT saying that all Muslims are bad, gee whizz, of COURSE I'm not, but I am saying that there is a vast element who now use Allah's name in the name of hate, not love...in the name of Jihad, not Peace...

Wafa Sultan knows far better than any man or woman here on Mudcat....

I would also take this opportunity to say that there are also, imo, many within the Jewish religion who are using it for hatred and wicked things these days too.

ALL of them, Catholic Church too, need to have the Good Men and True speak out for Peace, for Love, for God, for Tolerance, for Women...because Holy Shite is going to happen if they keep quiet for much longer...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 02:00 PM

Oh..and Al, could I just ask you to call me Lizzie in future. I'm sorry to sound pedantic, but it's just a personal thing, that's all.

Thank you x

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 02:11 PM

Reading the Koran: I have done so in English translation. Again, it has good philosophy and I`m sure good intentions, as does the Bible. However, if the practitioners themselves have it interpreted by some real nasty sonuvabitch, the book doesn`t really accomplish what it set out to do. Just what the `leaders` have set out to do. Kinda like the Crusades--or Joe McCarthy in the USA, let`s kill a commie for Christ, or kill a ______________ for Allah. The various preversions in some churches is disgusting. But until people start calling bullshit bullshit, it will continue. It ain`t the books, it`s the interpreters. Very sad situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 02:16 PM

Blue clickies continue to defeat me. The url below depicts a n amazing young Muslim woman at the protest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwIY6ivf70A&feature=email

Women are discriminated against in most of the world, whatever religion or non-religion. My sons won't. It is not easy to deliberately raise sons who recognize and refuse to participate in discrimination, who respect woman and treat them as equals. The major religions seem to have been founded by men. The psychology of why men have such a perceived need for power .....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 02:18 PM

Well said, 999. That's it, *exactly*, in a nutshell.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 02:45 PM

As a racist and an ignorant bigot (apparently), what's worse is quoting from the Daily Mail (by the way I stopped buying newspapers over 20 years ago).

I didn't for a second state the Mail as an authoritative source, but such a statement from the French leader should be a cinch to check.

This thread has evolved into one about the merits of Islam . . . NO, not quite.

It is a thread addressing many of us's abhorrence of violence done (in this case by Muslims) to PEOPLE, but women in particular.

As has been said, Islam is a peaceful religion, as is Christianity et al. But vicious, manipulative people usurp them for their own ends. The are all abhorrent, that level of self interest usually turns out that way. Many/most politicians too stray down this kind of road, perhaps absolute power does corrupt absolutely.

Above, I stated that I did not approve of violence of any kind (including the abusive people here). But I'll keep plugging, because there are more people NOW echoing the point I tried to make earlier.

I find it amusing to see how vicious and vehement the do-gooders get when their paradigms are challenged. Do they spend too much time around like-minded people?

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible" seems to apply here.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 06:53 PM

You elevate yourself somewhat when you claim you are "challenging paradigms" (what an ugly expression anyway). You are doing no such thing. You are spouting intolerance and race hatred. I particularly don't like Muslims coming over here and acting like many of them do isn't challenging paradigms. It's no more than a shameful display of ignorance and bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 07:52 PM

"Don, you cut the next line from my post you just quoted.
It was,
"If it did give rise to just a slight predisposition, then only a tiny minority would succumb.
And that is exactly what is found."""

I cut the line because it is irrelevant to the point at issue in my conversation with DeG, in which he said ""I have not heard Keith say that all Pakistanis (of whetever nationality) are child molesters."".

When asked the question ""their culture inspires a slight predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls. Can you confirm that that is your opinion of British Pakistanis?"", you replied ""It is my opinion that it is a reasonable suggestion.
The over representation is a fact that requires an explanation.
Something is predisposing them, and it is more likely to be something sexual in the culture than your alternative list. (wild generalisations?)"".

However small the number of those who succumb to the temptation, and however slight that tendency may be, it does not alter the fact that you believe that all male Pakstani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency toward paedophile rape.

Your obdurate refusal to give more cautious and balanced suggestions the slightest consideration merely accentuates the degree of prejudice in your view of this section of Society.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 04:11 AM

OK, listen to this lady too. Here, Nonie tells how, when you're born your birth certificate is stamped 'Muslim'. You are not allowed to choose your religion, your way of life, you are literally 'committed to being a Muslim, whether you want it or not. And, you are not officially allowed to leave 'the state of Islam' either, because anyone who does is instantly at risk of being killed/murdered.

She tells how and why so many GOOD Muslims are frightened to speak out against the tyranny of modern day Islam, how 'former Muslims in America are in hiding, too frightened to speak out'...and how the Good and the Bad are moving out from the Middle East to all parts of the world.

You may find it hard to listen to....I hope you don't, because this woman is speaking the truth, and it's one that so many here seem to be in denial about. The longer you stay ostriches, the longer good and innocent people will have to suffer, both inside and outside Islam.

Nonie Darwish from 'Former Muslims Unite'

This is Part 1 of 3 videos which contains all 3 of the brave people from Former Muslims Unite who dared to speak out on US television.

It is these horror stories, which are true, sadly, whether folks in here like it or not, that cause 'Muslim Prejudice' around the world. That will not go away so long as ths evil tyrants of Islam are still in existence.

It is wrong to tar the good Muslims with the same brush as the evil ones, of course it is, but the evil is SO evil that it worries the shite out of many people around the world..and the silence about it, from the Muslim world itself, is deafening at times.

Perhaps, after watching these videos people may start to understand WHY so many good people keep their mouths shut and their eyes averted...

This evil, to me, comes from the same place as the Nazis, who ruled by fear and evil. Not all Germans were bad, of course they weren't...and so many would have been horrified at what was being done in their name...but sadly the evil won over the goodness of the German people, such was the power of that evil and the way it crept into the lives of every person, threatening every man, woman and child.

Speaking out about Islam should NOT be a crime, whether it comes from Muslims or Non-Muslims.

I cannot get my head around men who pour acid onto the faces of little girls who dare to go to school, purely to keep women from becoming educated.....I cannot get my head around anyone who would say that speaking out against that kind of perverted evil is remotely racist.

Wafa talks of how she receives death threats every day, how they know where her children are, how they are going to behead her....These guys are nuts...and it's not just the men because some women too have been trained to hate, to bully, to inform.....Every single day Wafa and other good Muslims live with the fear that this day may be their last, or the last for their children.

What is going on in the name of Allah is total evil and vile crap..and quite frankly the whole damned world should unite alongside every good Muslim on the planet to rid Islam of these nutcases once and for all, because if we don't, things are going to get worse.

Muslim law is being constantly pushed onto other countries..that is wholly wrong and should be fought against at every turn. Listen to Wafa and Nonie talking about it on the video, if you don't believe me...it's in Part 2 of the second link above.


Former Muslims Unite - Website

We should also unite against all tyrants within all religions who dare to use the name of God for their perverted wickedness.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 04:30 AM

'Sharia for Dummies' taken from the 'Former Muslims Unite'

And in case some can't access that page via the link above, here it is:

>>>>>>>>Sharia for Dummies
By editor • on August 26, 2010
Print
Comment Feed
Stumble it
Digg it
del.icio.us
Facebook
by Nonie Darwish, Big Peace, August 26, 2010

Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the US constitution is Sharia compliant. Now let us examine below a few laws of Sharia to see if Imam Rauf is truthful or a fraud:


1- Jihad defined as "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion" is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2- A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3- A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4- A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.

5- It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6- A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7- The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.

8- A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
9- A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of : 1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.

10- A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.

11- Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12- Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

13- Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14- It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.

15- A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

16- Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

17- No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18- A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.

19- Homosexuality is punishable by death.

20- There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

21- Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband's obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

22- Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: "I divorce you" and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

23- There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband's property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

24- A woman inherits half what a man inherits.

25- A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

26- The dowry is given in exchange for the woman's sexual organs.

27- A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

28- The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

29- A woman looses custody if she remarries.

30- To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

31- A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

32- A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered "Awrah," a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don't.

33- A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he "could be married to the woman he was caught with."

The above are clear cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed's life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the US constitution?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Cool, huh?




You know, going back to when I worked in Harley Street in the late 70s...I one day got a call from Dr. Bilal, he was the head of The United Arab Emirates Embassy back then, which was just up the road from our office. He called me in to talk to him, to tell me that The Saudi Health Office were spreading rumours about my doctors, saying they were charging for patients they'd never seen. He wanted me to know what they were doing because he not only respected the surgeons I worked for, but he also respected me. He was disgusted by what was going on, how the Saudi's were behaving.

Dr. Bilal, you see, was one of the Good Men and True, who was honest and kind and had integrity. He did all in his power to counter balance those rumours for us, bless him.

So, if anyone here wants to call me racist, they can stick their narrow-minded little heads where the sun don't shine, because I ain't. I had many people in the Arab world who I thought the world of, and who it was a privilege to connect with during my time in those two jobs I had. But damn it, I feel so heart sorry for the Good Men and True who are being so kept down by the thugs of Islam at the moment..


Don't be prejudiced against kind, loving and wonderful Muslims, ever...but be wholly prejudiced against the disgusting men who think they have the right to terrify the whole world into becoming Muslim, so they can rule everyone in fear and hatred, rather than just those poor souls who are already trapped within the current System of Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 06:09 AM

Well Lizzie that just about covers it. Well done - hell of a post.

However, I'll still be a racist, bigot for agreeing with you and nothing to do with the fact that I too lived amongst them as the only white man in 5 square miles of Bangladesh when not at work. I find this kind of oppression abhorrent and am amazed that people can't see it, but in fact it's simply that they won't.

I respect peaceful, loving people who contribute to the community, of whatever hue (but I can't because I'm a racist bigot)

Not difficult to see why white (YES, WHITE NON MUSLIM - just so the do-gooders are clear that I am making this distinction) girls are so attractive, the religion rather allows for that by the look of it, it's not as if they're valuable people being non-Muslim is it?

Up to the very recent past, we wouldn't even be able to discuss this without the Establishment coming down on us. I sense movement and in the correct direction, for once.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 06:29 AM

"Prejudice against Muslims has "passed the dinner-table test" and become socially acceptable in the UK"

That was how this thread Started.

The rest has been about Brian, Lizzie, Keith, MtheGM and AKE justifying why this is the fault of Moslems.

"It would appear that people who feel like I do are getting a voice, and on the increase."

Not on this thread.

Its exactly the same posters as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 06:39 AM

Excuse me, Lox, that is NOT the case at all.

I'm afraid though, whether you like it or not there ARE those who call themselves Muslims who are nothing more than evil men, prepared to do and spread as much evil around the world as they can, both to other Muslims, good ones too, and non-Muslims.

YOU are the one who needs to get your head together about this and admit it's happening...

As 999 said above, bullshit is bullshit....and for me that means however it's dressed up, or whatever religion or other 'cause' it dares to hide behind.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 06:50 AM

And if we are now daring to speak out about this appalling situation, which so many Muslims themselves live in fear about talking about, then that's a bloody good thing!

Would you have had all talk against Nazi's silenced, in the name of racism?????

Those within Islam who are evil, damaging this once proud and peaceful religion have succeeded in creating a silence about it for way too long, through fear, Lox, fear and nothing else...


It is way past time to break their power, to break the fear and to let the sunlight flood back into Islam again, to rid it of the Darkness for once and for all...

Egypt, Tunisia...perhaps they are the first wheels in the cog to start a new way forward, where the people's will is finally listened to and the dictators of old are removed forever....Iran has already silenced the BBC programme, apparently, for fear of her people hearing what's happened in Egypt..Of course, they won't be able to keep it quiet for long, but let us hope the Iranian people are the next to march for freedom.....

We are living in historial times...and I hope, hopeful ones too.

Silence is, in this case, NOT golden, but utter cowardice and stubborn refusal to believe what is right under your nose.

The good Muslim people need help with this one...and the rest of us daring to finally stand up and say "ENOUGH OF THIS BULLSHIT!" with them will be of tremendous help to them all.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 06:54 AM

Now we've got the whole set of screamers joined in an adamantine block of pure mindless prejudice there doesn't seem much point in bothering, so I'll use my time more productively elsewhere.

Anyone asking them to consider alternatives is automatically on a loser.

There are NO alternatives for them. Muslims are all evil, oppressive, chauvinist, paedophile rapists, made so by their cultural upbringing. Do they, I wonder, ever listen to themselves?

My guess would be NO!!



Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM

Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things.

Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb.

Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:50 AM

Don, WHY have you gone out of your way to say that, when I have gone out of my way to stress there are many, many good Muslims, but there ARE some very evil men within Islam who are controlling it, putting the fear of Allah into everyone..

WHY would anyone want to twist those words, and use them to make me, or others, look like racists???

I do not understand.

But I know one thing, it's that kind of mindless mindset that has brought us to this place we are now in, where so many are fearful of speaking out.

If you cannot believe the very words of the people from 'Former Muslims Unite', who are/were Muslims themselves, who are trying their hardest to wake the world up and GET DISCUSSION UNDER WAY, GET PEOPLE TO FINALLY TALK OPENLY ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING WITHIN ISLAM, then why would you believe anything I have to say.

You are completely free to believe what you want, but do NOT twist my words or leave out the very fact that I have stressed, over and again, that this problem is caused by specific fundamentally mental fundamentalists who are evil to the core of their very beings, imo.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: 3refs
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 08:15 AM

Some Canadian insight!

On the John Oakly Show, Toronto 640am

Steve Rockwell, Toronto Imam at the Sheikh Deedat Centre. February 09, 2011

It ain't workin here either!!!

http://www.640toronto.com/HostsandShows/JohnOakley/Audio.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 09:12 AM

"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency""


Keith,

I have refuted this point inside and out.

The only reason you don't know this is because you haven't bothered to read my posts.

Either that or you have deliberately ignored them.

I suspect the latter.

But either way, you have yet to respond to a sngle one.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 09:58 AM

With the best will in the world, everybody is making the best ayyempts thay can to respond to your posts, but if the precondition is to accept we are all racists and that our aims are motivated by right wing malice - well its a bit of a problem.

Having said that Brian, I can't believe you are that naive. Knowing the track record of the Daily mail for supporting every bit of right wing nastiness available to humankind, quoting them in such a debate is a bit like saying, 'I believe Mein Kampf hes some trenchant points to make on this subject.'

Buy it for the free dvds if you must, but don't read the bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 10:03 AM

"but if the precondition is to accept we are all racists"

I have clarified that my issue is with racist hypotheses.

Again, I invite posters to respond to my actual arguments, not ones that they have made up for me.

So far there has been no attempt to do this, let alone a succesful rebuttal of any of my points.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 10:15 AM

I use Google News and accept that it is 'supplied' by links to different sources of 'News'.

When I clicked on the Sarkozy's statement link, it just happened to BE the Daily Mail, I presume that despite any spin (any news source applies), that Mr Sarkozy said that - since it was a public statement about multi-culturism in France.

I certainly don't habitually take any notice of ANY news source because most of what we read (anywhere) has be edited by someone with their own agenda.

I don't think that constitutes being naive.

I am angry with myself about being naive enough in earlier years to believe our leaders, political, industrial and religious, actually knew better than the rest of us about what was good and what was not.

They didn't/don't. Now THAT was naive.

As for people twisting words, well they would wouldn't they, otherwise they cannot really maintain their viewpoint - cognitive dissonance.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:20 PM

Lox, I am sorry that I missed or forgot your reasons.
It was a while ago now, and there are probably others who, like me, are unsure what they are.

Since it will be restating, you need only be very brief.
Something like, "I can be sure that there is no cultural dimension because ......"

And, " The most likely caause of the over reppresentation is ....."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 01:37 PM

Keith,


As far as I was aware, you and I were engaged in a discussion.


I have read and engaged with each of your arguments, and I have scrutinized all your "evidence" and responded to it.

You on the other hand haven't even bothered to read, let alone understand my point of view.

Instead, all you have done is repeat the same mantra over and over again.


You profess to have a strong position in this debate, yet you don't even know what the debate is.


My posts are there to be read. Posting them again is unnecessary.

If you have failed to read them, that is your fault, not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:11 PM

I find it hard to understand your reluctance.
I have restated my case many times, and will do it again if anyone asks.
Alan, you have been following the debate.
Are you clear why Lox is certain there can be no cultural cause?
Lizzie?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:38 PM

Keith,

Why are you asking other people when you would get a more accurate account by scrolling up and reading it for yourself?

I note by the way that you have started reinserting the same words in my mouth as before.

Your debating tactic has reverted to making excuses why you shouldn't have to read your opponents post, and responding instead to points of view that you have made up.


I wonder why you would do that Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 02:48 PM

I was just hoping that if no one else knows why you can not accept a cultural cause either, you might remind us.

You have said that you do not accept that there is a distinct BP culture.
Is that it?
You would not want to risk ridicule by saying that again.

Does anyone here know why Lox rejects a cultural explanation?
Dave, you have been more than fair in you comments on this debate.
Do you know?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 03:31 PM

I know.....and I suppose underneath all the bluster he also knows.

Somee people just dont have the guts to admit they are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 03:40 PM

well what if he were not accepting a cultural cause. I can understand his reluctance - there really isn't a stereotypical Pakistani. I'm sure we all know people from that eytnic grouping who would never act in a bad way - like we are debating. however there is some weird stuff coming from the people holding forth in the mosques.

The week after the Rushdie story broke, there were little kids in the first and second year in the Derby Comp where i worked, saying that they wanted to kill Rushdie, and i don't mean one or two kids.

The older kids you could debate with, and they liked that. But young kids - you don't want to be seen to be disrespecting their cultural and community leaders.

I don't know what the answer is. I do know theres nowt to be gained by suspecting vile motives and being horribly rude about other people you are debating with.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 03:58 PM

"You have said that you do not accept that there is a distinct BP culture.
Is that it?"

Why not scroll up and find out?

It would make more sense than asking other people to do it for you.

And it would make more sense than making shit up.


"I do know theres nowt to be gained by suspecting vile motives and being horribly rude about other people you are debating with."


I was not debating with MtheGMm and his new nice as pie attitude belies the fact that he has never engaged with me on this forum except to either hurl abuse of some sort or to attempt to wind me up - this was the thread on which I decided I'd had enough.


The fact remains folks that NONE of my arguments has even been addressed, let alone rebutted.


When people start referring to them instead of whingeing and changing the subject, then they will BEGIN to look more credible.


And Alan - by definition, a hypothesis which discriminates solely on the base of race/culture and which deliberately excludes all other factors is a racist hypothesis.

I see no attempt to look for other explanations or to make any comparative assessment.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 04:29 PM

"And Alan - by definition, a hypothesis which discriminates solely on the base of race/culture and which deliberately excludes all other factors is a racist hypothesis."

So, if we think that culture might be the explanation for the massive over representation, we must unthink it, because it is "racist."
No theorising is permissable, or you are a racist.
Stop the debate, or be guilty of racism.
You must not even imagine such a thing.

Quite liberal Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 04:30 PM

"Lizzie?"

Wafa says it all so much better....

She's the author of 'A God Who Hates' and here she talks about her niece who, at the age of 28 took her own life, rather than have to endure the cruelty of her husband any longer. Of course, in Sharia law her husband was entitled to treat however he wanted.

She speaks about Muslims being victims of their own teachings and 'the problem is deeply rooted in Islamic doctrine'

Wafa Sultan on a woman's lot inside modern Islam and Sharia Law

Maybe he'll listen, maybe he won't...
I hope he does...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 04:38 PM

You betcha, Liz- good to know that the only abusive husbands in the world are all of the Muslim faith.

That clears things up awfully.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 04:41 PM

Cultural explanation....what terms of reference are you using for the word culture.

perhaps that is where the area of disagreement lies. The basic facts don't seem to be disputed = or at least not the main bone of contention.


Its hard to see what this argument is about. Apart from the fact that you don't trust each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 04:43 PM

Lox, the peole of India are not all brutal murderers.
There was a cultural group in India, called Thugee, who were massively over represented in the murder of travellers.

The true explanation was solely on the base of race/culture and which deliberately excluded all other factors.
Their culture allowed them to kill.

Was that racist?
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Secret-Societies/The-Thuggee.html

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 04:58 PM

"You betcha, Liz- good to know that the only abusive husbands in the world are all of the Muslim faith."

Show me where I've said that, Greg?

Then tell me why you feel the need to twist things around in such a way...?

I am talking about Wafa Sultan speaking about what happens under Sharia Law and how that is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the Islamic extremists.

IF a man behaved like that over here, he'd be in Court faster than you could say Boo! EVEN if he was Muslim...and probably onward into prison if justice were done..where he'd get pretty shoddy treatment from other prisoners..

It is not acceptable here to beat your wife senseless, or murder your sister or daughter because she dared to fall in love with a non-Muslim...

And thank God it's not acceptable here.

I'll leave you to spin........

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 05:00 PM

And Greg, please don't call me Liz, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 05:06 PM

"No theorising is permissable, or you are a racist.
Stop the debate, or be guilty of racism.
You must not even imagine such a thing."


Keith makes more shit up.

And continues to ignore my actual arguments.


Keith,

Hypothesizing is fine.

So is scrutiny of a hypothesis.

A theory that wilfully and exclusively discriminates on Racial/cultural grounds is a racist one.


And now for the lastes red herring ...

... keith wants to compare Moslems with Thuggees.

Thuggees were a religious sect devoted to human sacrifice.

Moslems are NOT a sect devoted to trafficking in underage girls.

End of comparison.



So keith has expanded his tactics.


1. Straw men
2. Ignoring opposing arguments
3. Introducing bizarre red herrings.


What next I wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 05:11 PM

Lox,
"A theory that wilfully and exclusively discriminates on Racial/cultural grounds is a racist one."

But, supposing it was true.
It was true about Thugee culture.
I was not comparing Thugee culture to BP culture.
I was only showing you that sometimes culture is to blame.
It is not racist to say that.
But you seem to be saying that it is.
Please clarify.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 05:24 PM

Keith,

that is the most absurd bit of nonsense logic that I have ever read.

Once again it is based on wrong assumptions about my argument (which you would not make if you went and read my posts).

When you are able to identify what aspect of British Pakistani culture is responsible for the crimes of Organized Trafficking Gangs, and when you can provide actual evidence that actually supports your hypothesis, AND when you can show that your hypothesis is the only possible alternative, then we can begin to have a discussion.


In the case of thuggees, it shows nothing about how "culture can sometimes be to blame". What a preposterous load of bollocks.

The case of Thuggees shows that Groups who exist to commit murder can be said to be inclined to murder.

Just as trafficking gangs can be said to be inclined to traffick.

Thuggees were a sect within Hinduism.

By your logic, hindus are predisposed to murder because some hindus are thuggees.

By your logic, British Pakistanis are predisposed to rape and trafficking because some British Pakistanis are in those gangs.



This is becoming more and more surreal.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 06:14 PM

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz.....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 06:22 PM

Of course, in Sharia law her husband was entitled to treat however he wanted.

Guess you heven't given the christian[sic] old & new testaments a close read, have ya, Liz?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 06:50 PM

Greg, In British law, a wife was considered the property of her husband and therefore Marital rape could not exist until paliament finally outlawed maritall rape in 1992.

You don't even need to look in religious text to find hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:08 PM

Al,

"Its hard to see what this argument is about. Apart from the fact that you don't trust each other."

The argument is as follows:

Keith Believes that British Pakistani culture predisposes British Pakistani Men to the trafficking and abuse of underage girls in a way that other cultures don't.

He believes it is this culturally inherent tendency that has motivated the crimes of recent reported cases of trafficking of underage girls for sexual slavery.

To quote him in a response to Don: "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency""

He bases this on the OPINIONS of 3 politicians and a journalist, none of whom are qualified psychologists or anthropologists and none of whom have done any research in this field.

He also bases it on an article which in fact argues an opposing view when read closely.

And finally he argues it on the basis of the HUNCHES of two police officers.

He ignores more probable cultural factors, he certainly ignores the probability of other explanations, and he presents no evidence that all other explanations are improbable.

He remains loyal to his hypothesis through thick and thin regardless of what is said, whilst ignoring opposing arguments, fabricating points of view on behalf of his opponents and coming up with increasngly far fetched analogies and comparisons.

I thoroughly dispute his hypothesis as it is groundless and discriminates on the basis of race/culture, to the deliberate exclusion of all other factors.

I hope that has clarified the matter for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 08:19 PM

A fair precis of your views, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 10:18 PM

===I was not debating with MtheGMm and his new nice as pie attitude belies the fact that he has never engaged with me on this forum except to either hurl abuse of some sort or to attempt to wind me up - this was the thread on which I decided I'd had enough.===

And with what exemplary charm and urbanity you did so, Goldilox darling: a real model of subtlety and wit for us all to follow, indeed.

♥❤Happy Valentine's Day, my little dilly-duckling❤♥

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 01:28 AM

Lox, BPs are massively over represented in infant mortality and serious, crippling childhood disease.
First cousin marriage is a part of BP culture.
By accepted theory, it is to blame.

But, "A theory that wilfully and exclusively discriminates on Racial/cultural grounds is a racist one."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 01:41 AM

Alan, it is a fair precis of my views, except that it does not say why I have been convinced by a few polticians, a writer, a victim support worker and policemen.

Ordinarily, I would not be so easily conviced.
Those witnesses are far from ordinary.
A reason should be given for discarding their input, other than the old jibe "racism."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 04:09 AM

'Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency""

Well all I can say is keith, that you shouldn't have been convinced. The evidence is all around you that many Muslims live reasonably happy family lives and are useful decent members of our community.

If you categorise a whole racial group - you do lay yourself open to the charge of racism - and worse, the real bastards get under the radar. Someone does need to focus on them and work out the base from which they work, and counterract the considerable damage they are doing to our society.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 04:36 AM

OK, a different path.....

Here you can listen to Christopher Lee talking about his portrayal of the founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam. He says how the film was never taken up worldwide, because of the situation regarding the bad side of Islam.....He also talks of hos Quaid was a man of great intergrity, honesty and vision....in the days before a strong, fundamentalist minority took over Islam and brought it to what it has now become, in the eyes of so many around the world...

Christopher Lee talking about his role as the founder of Pakistan


Here you can watch the entire film.......

His film 'Jinnah' - Part 1

'Jinnah' Part 2

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 04:42 AM

"Lox, BPs are massively over represented in infant mortality and serious, crippling childhood disease.
First cousin marriage is a part of BP culture.
By accepted theory, it is to blame."


Genetic science has done decades of research into the effects of procreation between siblings and cousins.

This has been the result of the application of rigorous scientific testing.

Otherwise known as scrutiny Keith.

So it follows that where more cousins procreate, there is a higher chance of birth defects in that community.


This is the exact opposite to your position Keith.

Your theory that British Pakistanis are culturally predisposed to making sex slaves of underage white grls is unsupported by any research or testing of any sort ... EVER.

And in fact, its longevity relies on you ignoring my arguments and making shit up.


So - one theory is reliable and well supported.

The other is full of holes and totally unsuported.


Anothger false comparison keith driving the nail mever more firmly into the coffin of your hypothesis.

Will you ressurect it for yet another pointless autopsy?

I suspect so.


But Alan, despite this glaring problem in Keiths position, he states: "Alan, it is a fair precis of my views"


Now - even if there were evidence, it would still be a hypothesis that discriminated on racial greounds.

In which case it would have been the first ever successful hypothesis in history to discriminate on racial grounds.


But in this case, the racial explanation is not the only one available, and of those available, it is not even the best.


But Keith insists on shutting out all other possibilities, and is loyal to it regardless of a lack of evidence, and a TOTAL lack of reliability when exposed to scrutiny.


Now - you can understand why I would be concerned that he has stuck to his guns, through thick and thin to defend an unsupported, fundamentally flawed hypothesis that discriminates on racial grounds.


It is very strange.


Almost as strange as the PMs I have received from people impersonating moderators who have been trying to threaten me to "accept that keith has won" or face the consequences.


So Keith - in the absence of reliable evidence or a sound argument, what is it about a racist hypothesis that you find so attractive?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 05:15 AM

Whya am I barred from posting anything longer than twenty five words in this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 05:16 AM

*Ah, that's better*

Lox, I think you have shown remarkable forbearance and patience in this thread. Your setting out of a logical, coherent, consistent explanation has been outstanding and I fully understand completely why you have done it and why you felt the need to do it.

However, you should know by now that you will never gain any accommodation from the keyboard warrior, Keith A - on a sofa somewhere - in Hertford. You will win the argument hands down. In fact you have already done so. The problem is that Keith The Armchair is only capable of diversion, mis-representation, deviation and failing to substantiate his wild and outlandish claims. His is a classic war of attrition and I honestly think he clearly believes that by wearing down his perceived adversaries he will have the last word and so will have won!

Ridiculous but true. But his time alone in his armchair clearly leaves him with a need for some form of social interaction. His approach on messageboards (well, to be absolutely accurate, THIS messageboard) suggests he will truly struggle to have any meaningful form of social interaction. Hectoring people and incessantly making outlandish arguments is not a recipe for success in that respect. Anyhoo, my point is that others - myself included - have chosen to ignore his tired and pathetic ramblings. Let him argue with himself. He will soon tire of it. Deny him oxygen for his increasingly lunatic posturing on this topic and on the topic of Northern Ireland and he will simply go away.

As with Ireland where, if memory serves, he spent a weekend at a wedding, his knowledge of British Islam and Muslims in the wider context is, I would wager, not based on any actual exposure to the people or to their faith or culture (too much trouble involved in setting down one's Daily Mail, getting out of the armchair and actually researching at first hand). Most rational people will base their opinions on more than an armchair assessment and allow a wider set of experiences to inform their opinions.

So, Lox, give it up. You have manifestly exposed the fatal flaws in the arguments put foward by the Armchair General, he will nevertheless not desist. You know this. Let him have the last word in his true schoolboy bullying fashion. Best just to let him fester in his own deluded mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 05:39 AM

Lox, how can you claim I am making a racial hypothesis?
I am not making it, and it is about a culture within a racial group.

Men are predisposed because there is no outlet for sexual relationships within the community, and no intimate relationship permitted outside.

But only a tiny minority, the weak and wicked, succumb.
Nothing to do with race, and the majority are completely innocent.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 05:55 AM

I'm going to take Cobras advice.

Keith beleives that British Pakistanis harbour a secret tendency to enslave and rape underage white girls in a way that is unique to them.

This arbitrary psychologcal profile is unsupported by any form of research or scientific evidence whatsoever and relies on the deliberate exclusion of criticism and other hypotheses to survive.

Keith is in a catch 22 situation.

If he doesn't give up, he continues to show himself up.

If he does, he fears that being taken as an admission that he is racist.


I can suggest a solution would be an admission that Straws and Cryers hypothesiis is a racist one.

But I suspect Cobra may be right that keith just needs the last word.

Its all yours Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 06:00 AM

You listen to someone as bitter, twisted and agenda ridden as Cobra, but not Jasmin Aibhai-Brown!
You only hear what suits you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 09:30 AM

Come on, you two. Only five more last words to and you'll be Jesus.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 10:27 AM

"Keith is in a catch 22 situation."

Oh dear!

"If he doesn't give up, he continues to show himself up."

I'll risk that.


"If he does, he fears that being taken as an admission that he is racist."

Only by a moron!
I am supporting a view put forward by others, many of Asian origin, that is based on culture and NOT RACE.

And, as that jibe is unsustainable, Lox leaves.
Again.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 10:45 AM

In your dreams, Keith! I fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 01:21 PM

Since I'm a racist bigot and you don't want to believe Lizzie, have a look at this on the BBC News website:

A 20-year old Pakistani woman who lived in northern Italy, she was murdered by her father who claimed he was "saving the family's honour".

Mohammed Saleem said he didn't like the way Hina was living her life and told the authorities she brought shame on his family.

So he slit her throat. Twenty-eight times.

. . . presumably that's OK - funny the judge disagreed with him and locked him up for 30 years.

She had the effrontery to eschew Islam and wanted freedom, so she died for it. Twenty eight times ??? He goes on to say he's a good father.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 04:12 PM

Just watching a BBC "Dispatches" documentary aqbout Muslim faith schools in the North of England......Tolerance dont make me laugh.

I urge all pro Muslim posters to view it on I player....then report back here and tell us that it is no more abusive or bigotted than Christianity!

I shall be waiting!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 06:36 PM

Since I'm a racist bigot and you don't want to believe Lizzie, have a look at this on the BBC News website:

A 20-year old Pakistani woman who lived in northern Italy, she was murdered by her father who claimed he was "saving the family's honour".

Mohammed Saleem said he didn't like the way Hina was living her life and told the authorities she brought shame on his family.

So he slit her throat. Twenty-eight times.

. . . presumably that's OK - funny the judge disagreed with him and locked him up for 30 years.

She had the effrontery to eschew Islam and wanted freedom, so she died for it. Twenty eight times ??? He goes on to say he's a good father.

Yes, very, very unpleasant, Brian. Now I'm sitting here with bated breath waiting for you to generalise from this particular case. I just know you can do it. It's what all bigots do.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 06:47 PM

Sorry, the first line of that should have been in italics too. Only the last line is me.


Now this from achy Tony:

Just watching a BBC "Dispatches" documentary aqbout Muslim faith schools in the North of England......Tolerance dont make me laugh.

I urge all pro Muslim posters to view it on I player....then report back here and tell us that it is no more abusive or bigotted than Christianity!

I shall be waiting!

Well, achy, as it happens I went to a faith school (two, actually) meself in the north of England. Catholic they were. Oh, if only I had a video to show you the intolerance and bigotry we were treated to! Catholics were better than everyone else, don't play with the proddy kids from the school down the road, no non-Catholics can go to heaven... Now I respect people who follow the Muslim faith just as I respect those who claim to be Christians, though the respect is predicated at all times on what kind of people they are. I do not respect their organised religions in the least, which is an entirely different matter. They are all as bad as each other, so please spare us the "Islam-is-worst" bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 06:50 PM

And the last paragraph of that should not be in italics. I'm having a positive gale of typing brain-farts. Shit, how to leave oneself open...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 11:54 PM

....and I'm NOT answering bullshit about this.....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:00 AM

I am afraid you are having some logic-farts to go with them, Steve. Two wrongs, as the proverb tells us, do not make a right. Especially when some wrong are so manifestly more wrong than others. Of course we all know RCs indulge in all sorts of propaganda for their faith as superior, the only true faith, &c.

Now provide an instance since the C17 of anyone judicially executed in any Catholic country for apostasy from that faith. Or of a Catholic daughter killed by her father, with the approval of the Church and its community, for wanting to marry a non-Catholic, or a statement that such a procedure brings 'shame' on the young woman's family.

And now deny that these are relatively commonplace events in Islam.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:23 AM

MtheGM, You have to know this about Steve..he is so full of shit, and just likes to stir up stupid arguments on here....He is all over the place, saying he is an atheist, and God is moronic, and so are believers in such, offering no proof of anything, including 'intelligence', when asked to prove or disprove the 'unseen', then argues about the 'wonders' of Islam....as a religion!!!!??!!!?

He is in definitely serious need of professional help...being as he spends many lonely, frustrated hours on here, trying to get attention, to his normally boring existence!

That's all!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 04:31 AM

No need to generalise from one particular case.
There are plenty right here in UK.
This from BBC site,date 2003.

There were 12 "honour killings" in Britain last year - six in London, according to Scotland Yard.

But Ram Gidoomal, of the South Asian Development Partnership charity, told BBC News: "There are many more that go unreported."

Victims were sometimes taken abroad before being murdered, he added.

It was estimated there were more than 13 honour killings worldwide every day in 2000.

Entire families can be involved.

And women have even been murdered for the "dishonour" of being raped.


The question for us is if Heshu had gone into a police station saying she felt at risk would she have been treated with the urgency her concerns warranted?

Metropolitan Police Detective Inspector Brent Hyatt
Mr Gidoomal told BBC News: "There was a case a few months ago, where a mother and her son took her daughter, his sister - and she was expecting - and murdered her in cold blood here in Great Britain."

This from the Independent, 2007.

For dozens of couples in the UK, such threats have become all too real. Police are now investigating more than 120 deaths they suspect of being "honour killings". It has been estimated that 12 women a year die in the UK as a result of such terrifying acts.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/love-that-can-be-lethal-muslim-couples-in-fear-of-honour-killing-455174.html

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 04:48 AM

Re "shame": the only shame really involved in all this unhappy business is that brought on their faith & their co-religionists by the small but vociferous, prominent and unhappily so effectual minority, the so-called Islamiist faction. There is where the true 'shame' lies. And if Steve and Don and GrottiLox can't see it, then a visit to the opticians would be advisable for them without delay.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 09:38 AM

Well, Guest ex-Sanitary, you forgot to play the rest of that anonymous video, the bit where he says that all we can do about it is wage a world war against Islam. Nuclear, naturally. I note that Mr Video appears to be being used by you as his proxy (y'know, I accidentally typed "poxy" there!), as you yourself are distinguished by having never strung two rational sentences together. At least he was fairly articulate (though reading), unlike your good self, but excuse me for stopping my praise for him right there. Still, I enjoy your inanity, and your exclamation marks, so please continue.

As for you, MetrotheGoldwynMayer, you who wouldn't recognise logic if it jumped up and bit you on the arse, I am no defender of Islam and never have been. Neither am I going to get into some kind of contest to see who's worse, them or the Catholics. I wish they would all just go away. And that wish is predicated on my knowing what they get up to, so litanies of lurid examples are not required.

Can either you or your ally Guest insanitary (how do you feel about having such a friend, actually?) advise me as to which of your suggested medical practitioners I should go to first, the therapist or the optician? Or should we just all accept that your facile and bigoted arguments are tits-up in the water seeing as how you've both resorted to infantile insults?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 11:33 AM

Drift ~ which Steve has started by trying to be clever about my nickname. Altho spelt slightly differently, Louis B Mayer, Sam Goldwyn's partner at MGM Srudios, was in fact my first cousin twice removed. i.e. my paternal grandfather's first cousin. I am still in touch with some Californian distant cousins. So the clever-clever use of the coincidence of my initials as a smartarse comment wasn't quite so bright, as the similarity of initials is not so adventitious after all.

I am interested in where Steve finds any 'infantile insults' in what I have written. I agree with him that all religion is nonsense; but maintain my view that some religions are more actively harmful to large sections of humanity than others. If Steve can really see no moral difference between 'honour-killing' of a daughter for bringing 'shame' to her family by wishing to marry out of her parents' faith, and often fatuous verbal propagandising for the superiority of one's own lot over others, then I call that an unfortunate deficiency in perception on his part. In what way this can be construed as an 'infantile insult', I do not know.

Despite the warning I received above, for which however I am not ungrateful, I think that Steve is probably a well-meaning man of principle, who happens to have let his inherent hatred of racism in any form rob him of his sense of proportion in this instance.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:04 PM

Well no, it does go slightly beyond asserting Catholic superiority. There's the pitching of millions of African women into grinding poverty and ill-health by virtue of the blinkered dogma on birth control for starters... the tacit suppport of the Vatican for the Nazis and hush-hush about the Holocaust and the facilitating of the escape of war criminals to South America... oh, don't get me started. Like I said, I just wish they'd all go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:29 PM

Well, I agree with your last point 100%, Steve; but I fear & suspect that 'wishing' will be as far as we get. And I agree that RC-ism has much to answer for. But I don't think there has ever been any Holocaust-denial in official Vatican policy; and I repeat that I don't think there is a Catholic country where it is a judicial capital offence to apostasise, or a Catholic tradition whereby young women are routinely killed by their supposed nearest & dearest for having different tastes and expectations with regard to marriage partners. And I feel we have here that sort of "Hegelian leap" whereby a quantative difference becomes a qualitative one. Islamism has just take their concept of their faith beyond all humanitarian reason, and I don't think replies of "Well what about ··· then?" are going to ameliorate this fact.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:33 PM

Muslims are the new Communists. It's the same old scape-goating for political purposes.

What we have to fear is the extremist fear-mongering of many Americans who are ill-informed and receive their information through Fox News.

The Tory party is well-known for their prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:36 PM

Yup!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 12:55 PM

Waaal, now, I dunno, String & Steve - whose worse? them Fundal Muslimentalistsisis, or them Ill Eagle Aliensesses??

Whose gonna distroy Amerika fust?

I sure wish them Commies wuz stll around- things wuz a lot easier back then.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 01:20 PM

Again, Steve is showing that he is more consumed with OPINIONS BASED ON A NEED FOR ATTENTION, than FACTS(remember those old things?)
The far left are using the Islamic 'cause' to further their agendas, and the same is true in the reverse...the only problem with that, is of course, when its all said and done, one of the two will have to turn on the other, because, to the 'left', when they finally decide to think it through(not one of their stellar attributes), they will finally figure out that the Islamic extremists, who seek totalitarian control of the rest of their religion, won't be going along with the 'social tolerances' that the 'left' has stored away for their political 'Utopian Dream'.....and besides that, then they will be the targets, for the sheer reasoning that the 'left' will still be considered 'infidels', and subjected to extermination!...its like two enemy horses trying to ride each other!!...but this is way above people like Steve figuring that out, on his own.....he'll just bitch, and blame a scapegoat, for trying to 'mislead' him!?!?

Just think, death penalty..for being raped, for dating the 'wrong' guy, because of his non-adherence to a particular sect, honor killings for what is THOUGHT to be bringing 'shame' on your family, (of loonies?), hands being cut off, for stealing, death for homosexuals, death because you exist, but are not Muslim....this is what you want?????????

The 'right' has their ills with all this too, but the truth is, BOTH sides are using ALL this to further an agenda, which is NOT pro-liberty, or pro-freedom!!!!

So stop all the stupid arguing about shit you don't even think through, (Not that that ever stopped you!)

Get a Life!!

GfS

P.S. Why don't you try doing some musical homework..so your 'music' doesn't end up sounding as irrelevant, banal and stupid, as you come off?!?!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 03:12 PM

Incoherent and, sadly, barking. Absolutely barking. Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 03:20 PM

Yep.... thats just about nailed it GfS.....They use the same M.O. on every thread!

Frank....I think you are just a little off course on this one.
I was a Communist for most of my life, probably still am, they say you never get it out of your blood, but don't bracket us with these lunatics.....for that is what they are.
Lunatics who believe in self survival.....they know that "western values" will put an end to their power, that is why they are so bloodthirsty...they terrorise their people after brainwashing them.

I happen to think that much of what happens in Western Society is evil and I would like to change it completely but not in the manner of these hate mongers

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 03:41 PM

Gosh, if you think Guessed from Insanitorium has nailed anything at all you're as barking as he is. It's such incoherent guff that one can't even begin to address it at all. Amusing, though, I'll give him that (unless it's a her, or even an it). And if you're a communist I'm a sabre-toothed tiger.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 04:02 PM

Well to be fair, there are similarities Steve, your thought processes do appear to be on the Prehistoric side.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 04:02 PM

I guess when immature idiot-morons can't address the issues, with a rebuttal, based on some sort of facts, or at least data, they tend to resort to what they last learned, in their developing stages of life, when dealing with conflict.......pre-pubescent name calling!

Do your homework, and stop calling ridicule on yourself!!!

Here, Steve, I'll reply for you......

"ewwww, I don't WANT to do homework.....that's not as fun as watching cartoons, and resenting my family for 'bothering' me!"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 04:14 PM

If you could possibly see your way clear to stringing a few sentences of English together in some kind of logical sequence I'd be more than happy to demolish your arguments for you. As you seem to not really have any, I shan't be holding my breath. How's the blood pressure these days? Have you got enough of the right substances to keep you going? Never mind, at least with friends like Achy...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: ollaimh
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 08:01 PM

lox getting into a debate with keith is pointless. he's as uneducated as heis ignorant.

i supose that when any western person commits a crime then thats a christian crime, is about as reasonable as stating that the "muslimcrimes" against young women are religoiusly based.

the real irony is a barron quoted in the beginning. a memmber of the british house of lords weighing in on racism and religious discrimination. that august body was onece the wold centre of religious discrimination and racism, as they scoured the world foe other peoples goods and cash under the old "laissez faire" empire(read military capitalism).

and that regime did organize widespread religious murder sexual abuse and genocide. of many examples is the ssystem of residential schools in north america run with government authority and by tyhe anglican, catholic and united churches. there over a century they had a death rate of fifty percent of the children in their care, mostly by neglicting the most basic healt precautions such as separating the infected with small pox, tuberculosis and other diseases from the healthy, but some openly beaten to death in front of the school to show an example. there was systematic sexual abuse--and sorry akenaton it was mostly hteresexual.

this is just one example. the children of abraham have no right to call names. they have participated directly and indirectly in the worst of the worlds abuses and genocides.

yes muslim countries have few protections against human rights abuse , but that is cultural and much like the situation with medieval christianity. that will likely change as they develop. especially in the west. in toronto the young ,muslims i knew were rarely much different in values that everyone else, in fact the major terrorist group arrested a few years ago was penerated by a young radically conservative muslim who acted as a mole and exposed them. he, though committed to salifist ideas, thought terrorism was wrong and evil and helped the police stamp it out when he was approached by the terrorst group to join.

now maybe people ought to occasionally consider that all these abrahamic faiths are medieval and sadly out of place in modern society. the old testiment is a litany of blood and genocie, the koran actually hasn't as much blood and gore but it has plenty. in the ten commandments god says he is a jealous god who will punish sinners unto the seventh generation--thatss an insane deity. and if you consider other cultures most have two classes of gods, devas and ashuras, of gods and titans etc. the jealous gods are the ashras and not generally viewed as worthy of worship.

i am certainly gatefull that i was untouched by the curse of christianity in myn upbringing. christianity pleads a lot of fime words when raping native or aborigional children, but the fine words don't mean a thing except that the christians who speak them are hypocrytes

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 08:07 PM

Yep, that's how it was, and is all right.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 08:13 PM

""If he does, he fears that being taken as an admission that he is racist."

Only by a moron!""

A perfect example of what GonefromSanity refers to as pre-pubescent name calling. Hold on a minute though Keith, aren't you supposed to be one of the righteous debaters who doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks?


""I am supporting a view put forward by others, many of Asian origin, that is based on culture and NOT RACE.

And, as that jibe is unsustainable, Lox leaves.
Again.""

Culture, not race eh?

So that'll be why you insist on the dehumanising term "BPs" ("BRITISH PAKISTANIS") whenever you speak about this "CULTURE!!""

Last time I looked "Pakistani" WAS A RACE , and I don't think that has changed in the last two weeks.....DO YOU?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 11 - 10:34 PM

Don T: "A perfect example of what GonefromSanity refers to as pre-pubescent name calling. Hold on a minute though Keith, aren't you supposed to be one of the righteous debaters who doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks?"


Gosh, and being somewhat amused...was that a compliment?..because I was ACCURATE in describing a reality??.....or an opportunity to use my words to illustrate clearer, some 'name calling' by innuendo, that You're attempting?..or both??...nonetheless, you're use of "GonefromSanity" demonstrates you're own participation in such activities, (as per fore accurately describe by me), and puts you in a rather awkward circumstance!...not only that, if I'm "GonefromSanity", but accurate, and you call accuracy, "GONE", well, (and with a big grin on my face), May I suggest you, that if you are so disconnected from separating and equating accuracy (in the calling of a situation),....and then proceed to do the same thing, without the awareness of what you are doing........well, need I say more????

Gee, I wonder if that kind of error occurs in the assimilation of other thoughts, too...maybe 'religion' or 'political stances'.....seems to me, that you might double check your logic and reasoning mechanisms!!!

BUT, It was good for a chuckle!

GfS('f' as in 'from'...maybe a couple of other things, too...(wink)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 01:50 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 02:07 AM

Ollaimh, you know nothing about us, yet you hate us with a vengeance.
Had you used my links, or Googled Ahmed yourself, you would know that he is no blue blood aristo!

He is a BP and the son of an immigrant.
He is a lifelong socialist who has worked tirelessly for the poorest of that community.
The Labour party put him in the Lords to continue his work there.
No better witness. Why do you dismiss and discredit such a man?

Don, I made no ad hominem attack, just a generalised insult to people unable to distinguish culture and race.

Unlike other "istans" Pakistan is not named for any single tribal group.
It has been a separate country only since the partition.
Pakistanis in Britain form a well defined and distinct cultural group.
First cousin marriage for instance is part of their culture but not based in Islam or any racial characteristic.

Don, when you flounced out you threw a groundless slur on many contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 04:04 AM

BTW Don, I think that the culture of first cousin marriage is wrong, because it has led to the suffering and deaths of thousands of BP children.
Your opinion?
Be warned, Lox has decreed that "A theory that wilfully and exclusively discriminates on Racial/cultural grounds is a racist one."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 04:49 AM

The issue of first-cousin marriages is very complex in both social and genetic terms and is certainly not just an issue for British Pakistanis. You need to do a lot more research to support your opinion, Keith. I have a feeling you'll struggle with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:09 AM

So you want to have the last racist word and then have the thread closed. Tell me, are all Christians like you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:28 AM

Poster is "Jon"
EDL

Britain is a Christian country

You reckon?

This will never be allowed to happen.

I suspect you are right that it will not become a Muslim state. But it won't be because of or for Christianity.

----
Tell me, are all Christians like you?

Are all athiests like you or all they all like MtheGM?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:30 AM

EDL

Britain is a Christian country

You reckon?

This will never be allowed to happen.

I suspect you are right that it will not become a Muslim state. But it won't be because of or for Christianity.

----
Tell me, are all Christians like you?

Are all athiests like you or all they all like MtheGM?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:59 AM

These last 3 posts seem to be in response to an odd one from one EDL which seems to have been deleted; so they are rather flapping about in a vacuum, as happens when a post gets deleted but the replies to it don't.

You mention me, GUESTJon; but I don't quite get your point in doing so. Would you care to elucidate?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 06:13 AM

Sure MtheGM, I was responding to the Steve Shaw posting "Tell me, are all Christians like you?" The he was commenting on was made by someone else and has been deleted so I guess that adds to the confusion.

The reasons I picked on your name was I thought you had stated "religion is rubbish" (so atheist assumed) earlier and that you and Steve disagree quite hotly over most things in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 06:20 AM

Ah, thank you, Jon.

Not sure why EDL's post was deleted. IIRC it appeared somewhat racist & chauvinistic, but not all that unduly so in comparison with some. Did someone complain to the elves, maybe; or what?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 06:32 AM

Could even have been an accidental deletion, MtheGM, eg. intending to combine out my nameless post and apology for no name and clicking the wrong delete link...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 06:38 AM

It is estimated that at least 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and the tradition is also common among some other South Asian communities and in some Middle Eastern countries.

British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

Their culture predisposes BP children to genetic disease.
Is it racist to say that?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 06:43 AM

Also, there is a theory that some racial groups have prowess in certain sports.
E.g. NW Africans seem to excel in marathons.
Racist?
But Lox says, "A theory that wilfully and exclusively discriminates on Racial/cultural grounds is a racist one."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 07:03 AM

my uncle married his first cousin, neither of them were Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM

What's your point, Dick? Nobody has claimed it as an exclusively Muslim or Pakistani custom; simply that it is far more prevalent in such communities than in many others. Your having pointed out an exception does not invalidate this.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 08:01 AM

I have an uncle who did not marry a cousin GSS, so I'm afraid that demolishes your otherwise excellent point GSS.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 09:17 AM

The genetic risk from first-cousin unions depends on repetition of the practice down generations. There is a similar level of genetic risk resulting from the practice of western women having their babies older and older. If you have a baby at 40 you're taking approximately the same risk as you would be in a one-off first-cousin union. You're taking risks for your baby if you drink, smoke or abuse substances, or if you're obese or otherwise malnourished. I'm interested to know why this particular issue has been homed in on here. No, let me guess....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:01 PM

I have not "homed in" on that issue Steve.
It was just one of the examples I used to show that it is legitimate to discuss how predispositions may arise from cultural and racial differences.

You are wrong to state ". There is a similar level of genetic risk resulting from the practice of western women having their babies older and older."
There is not, but anyway your theory falls foul of Lox's edict.
He would have to call it a racist theory.
Are you happy with that?

People like you, Lox and Don use that accusation as a means of censorship, to close down any debate that challenges your ideological dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:06 PM

Ist cousins are very weird. I never knew my first cousins: they were sisters and they lived on the other side of the country.

Any waY i used to follow this band around called Brownsville Banned. When you think of all the bands in EnglaND - THEY HAD A PRETTY SMALL FOLLOWING.

Years later I found out that both sisters had married two of the guys in the band. We had been in the same room and not known.

Sorry thread drift. But iys not as though you're going to reach a denoument in the next five centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: ollaimh
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:35 PM

we live in an upside down world that would have shocked george orwell. criticizing an empire thst pushed drugs in china, muddered innoncent native children profited from the slave trade for three centuries before they got religion, and murders its own citizens on bloody sunday is now hate.

well keith you are so delusional ans ignorant that hate is probably the only real idea you can master.

the american continue on with military cap[iitalism, frrely killing civilians in iraq. see the wikkileaks video of good ole american boys gunning down a cameraman and a van full of children try to help the wounded, while laughing at them.

to get people to commit atrocities you have to get them to self dehumanize. that's done with the ideology of empres and the perversions of re;igion called the anglicam church(among others). people don't easily kill. in the first world war they found the recruits would only fire their gins about seven per cent of the time, so you have to motivate them with perverted religion and ideology, and they still do it.

for the purveyors of this perverted religion to be criticizing muslums is the height of hypocracy but we live in a wicked age when the liars cheats and killers are aok if they can find some spin.

the fact remain that muslims have no worse record that the british empire. many times they have no better a record but islam isn't to blame for the abuses in the world today. military capitalism shoulders most of the blame.

and its the height of shameless hypocracy for the house of lords or any british institution to be pointing fingers untill they clean their own house. the way thats done is by confessing the pasr rather than pertending it didn't happen or to pretend that evil done was somehow justified. thats what truth and reconcilliation commissions are about--i\d love to see one for the british and american empires but that willhave to wait untill the chinese rule the world.

as to the two types of deities. many religions recognize the jealous gods as a lesser form of deity. they have devas and ashuras, also called ahuras, titans and jealous gods. the ideology of the old testiment is that of self confessed jealous gods. gods of war and power. well thats what most of the followers have been up to and maybe christians should consider that. muslums as well.

finally the reason the bhopal disaster victums got so little and the bp got so much (or will get so much)is that the bp abuses were subjrect to american litigation which has a high value on compensation to even the werakest and pooreest .while the indian system puts very low compensation on the harm done to the lower classes. so does any body know where the indian government got their legal system? the one that puts almost no value on lower calss suffering and death. guess???

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: ollaimh
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:43 PM

and individual muslims who commit crimes are no more committing muslim crimes that individual christians who commit crimes are commiting christian crimes, to say other wise is in fact spreading hate, real hate not just imaginary hate as back sass from the colonies. oh the brits on these lists do hate the back sass from the colonies--n reminders of how they pillaged raped and plundered the world.

now the difference is when it is the stated aim of governmet policy and established church. which the british imperial abuse is. that is general responsibility of the people in question and that does requre some fessin up before forgiveness can be given. instead keith and others are pointing fingers again at others in hopes their own evils will be missed.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 01:19 PM

Ollaimh.
"its the height of shameless hypocracy for the house of lords or any british institution to be pointing fingers untill they clean their own house."

Er, they are not.

"and individual muslims who commit crimes are no more committing muslim crimes that individual christians who commit crimes are commiting christian crimes"

Er, obviousdly not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 02:38 PM

You are wrong to state ". There is a similar level of genetic risk resulting from the practice of western women having their babies older and older."

I notice you left out half of what I said. The risk of birth defects from having a baby at 40 is comparable to that of having a baby resulting from a one-off first-cousin union. I went to the trouble of wording it carefully and you come along and misrepresent it. Tsk.


There is not, but anyway your theory falls foul of Lox's edict.
He would have to call it a racist theory.
Are you happy with that?

I have no idea what you're talking about. My statement is a neutral stating of the position. I didn't even mention race. Wassup, Keith?

People like you, Lox and Don use that accusation as a means of censorship, to close down any debate that challenges your ideological dogma.

But Keith, we've been debating with you 'til the cows have long gone home and there's not a whiff of censorship in sight. Now why don't you go and have a nice pint of McMullen's at the Old Barge.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 04:22 PM

Censorship.
I said that the accusation of racism is used to close down debate.
As you say, it did not work here.

The risk of chromosome disorders increases to a maximum of about 1 in 21 at age 45.
The risk of genetic disease given in the BBC report was 1 in 10 for first cousins.
More than double.

I agree that the statement was neutral, but it was based on culture.
That makes it a racist theory by Lox's edict.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:29 PM

"I agree that the statement was neutral, but it was based on culture.
That makes it a racist theory by Lox's edict. "

I see that Keith is still making shit up in my absence.

Keith, pay attention.

The reason that we know that procreation between cousins creates a higher risk of birth defects is that volume upon volume of medical research has been done on the subject.

There is no research anywhere that deals with any alleged link between British Pakistani or Moslem culture and the crimes of British Pakistani pimps.

Keiths generalized cultural behavioural profile of British Pakistani men is not based on any research, but purely on his amateur anthropological musings.


Same strategy - make shit up and continue to refuse to answer your opponents arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:43 PM

Keith....They are starting to babble ....how long can they attempt to refute the excellents points you make, with incoherent gibberish

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 07:37 PM

Achy old bean, Keith's "excellent points", especially with regard to his birth defect statistics, are totally inaccurate. A little googling will reveal all. And note that my statement was based on neither race nor culture. He wants it to be, but, sadly for him, it wasn't, and it never actually occurred to me to make it so.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:27 AM

Steve, it was not a good point, and clearly not well put.
I was referring to your remark about western women having babies later.
That references Western culture so comes under Lox's edict, is all I was saying.
If my stats are wrong I am sorry, but they came from an authoritative site. I will be surprised if you find different.

Lox, I do not need to make shit up.
You gave us your clear definition of what constitutes a racist theory.
I just applied it to a few situations.

And Lox, we need no experts to tell us that a sexually deprived male may be predisposed to this kind of offence, albeit just the weak and wicked.
Extrapolate that to a whole tightly knit community of overlapping extended families, and you have a reasonable explanation for the known fact that they are massively over represented in this crime.

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:59 AM

Site used for stats.
http://www.acog.org/publications/patient_education/bp094.cfm

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,alan Whittle
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 03:30 AM

same old, same old then......

Lets get one thing straight....the other bloke is wrong. A bit of a bounder!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lara Logan
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 06:00 AM

All this is a lot more complex than most of think. I agree totally with Keith, I simply don't understand the case of defence put up by Steve.

In Saudi Arabia and other countries where the genders are rigorously separated, many men have their first sexual experiences with other men, which affects their attitudes toward sex in marriage. Many men who had anal sex with men before marriage want the same thing with their wives, because they don't know anything else. This is one reason they need sex education in their schools.


Pashtun men commonly have sex with other men, admire other men physically, have sexual relationships with boys and shun women both socially and sexually — yet they completely reject the label of "homosexual."

Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot "love" another man — but that doesn't mean they can't use men for "sexual gratification."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 06:27 AM

Let's leave it here before more "Laras" join us.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 07:26 AM

Lara Logan is prominent in a report in this morning's papers. This from The Times ~~

TV REPORTER [Lara Logan] WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED AND BEATEN BY MOB OF 200 IN TAHRIR SQUARE

An 'analysis' insert by James Hider reads:~

The frenzy of the sexual assault on CBS correspondent Lara Logan shocked many people, but a woman being sexually harassed was not surprising. Egypt has a terrible reputation for men molesting women, especially foreigners, who are seen by many of the poorer-educated men as having looser morals. Few women visit Egypt without encountering some abuse. While many brush it off, there is a sinister aspect.

The results of a 2008 survey by the Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights found that 83% of Egyptian women have suffered some form of sexual abuse ~ and that rises to a staggering 98% among foreign women.

Part of the problem is a culture of impunity, with inadequate laws and a corrupt and incompetent police force. Women are often led to believe they are to blame for any sex abuse and discouraged from reporting abuse.

60% of men in the 2008 survey admitted harassment, and they are often shocked when Western women they have groped turn on them, shouting or kicking them.


Further comment would be superfluous.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 08:06 AM

OK, so western women was a somewhat loose expression (the expression, not the women) which was intended to mean women in the US, UK, Europe... I could have said it better, but had I been arguing against me I doubt that I would have been arsed to up the ante over it. Women in the west are not a race, neither do they all share the same culture, so it's hard to know what else I could refer to them as. The point is that the trend for, er, these groups to have children later in life has increased, slightly, the risk of birth defects. For all I know that could be sperm, eggs or both contributing to that. I have no axe to grind. The statistic I quoted was that the slightly-increased risk of a birth defect arising from a birth to a 40-year-old is approximately the same as that from a one-off first-cousin union. Now that's the third time I've typed "one-off," and I did indicate that the risk increases in cases where serial first-cousin marriages occur. I did also point out the other, equally-important, elective risk factors. Saying all this is not in any way meant to be tendentious. I'm just saying it. Though, I repeat, I do wonder why it's come up in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 08:12 AM

Sorry I raised that issue Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:44 PM

""Don, I made no ad hominem attack, just a generalised insult to people unable to distinguish culture and race.""

Of whom you are obviously one. So are you calling yourself a moron?

The fact that there are a number of targets, rather than a single one, does not change the ad hominem nature of the slur.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:47 PM

""Gosh, and being somewhat amused...was that a compliment?..because I was ACCURATE in describing a reality??.....or an opportunity to use my words to illustrate clearer, some 'name calling' by innuendo, that You're attempting?..or both??...nonetheless, you're use of "GonefromSanity" demonstrates you're own participation in such activities, (as per fore accurately describe by me), and puts you in a rather awkward circumstance!...not only that, if I'm "GonefromSanity", but accurate, and you call accuracy, "GONE", well, (and with a big grin on my face), May I suggest you, that if you are so disconnected from separating and equating accuracy (in the calling of a situation),....and then proceed to do the same thing, without the awareness of what you are doing........well, need I say more????""

And for those of us whose first language is English........??

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:57 PM

""Also, there is a theory that some racial groups have prowess in certain sports.
E.g. NW Africans seem to excel in marathons.
Racist?""

No, not racist. Just inaccurate and meaningless.

If you ever took the trouble to do your homework you would be aware that it is not being a North West African which gives them this extra ability, but being born and living at high altitude.

Virtually all of this group of marathon runners hail from territory in excess of 7000 feet above sea level.

But then, you admit to lacking the stamina to read posts on this forum, if they are more than a few sentences long, which possibly explains why you get your opinions pre-digested from self styled experts.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 03:14 PM

""Censorship.
I said that the accusation of racism is used to close down debate.
As you say, it did not work here.""

Of course it didn't, because the only one determined to close down debate is your good (though prejudiced) self.

Lox, Steve, and I have been asking throughout for you to discuss i.e. read our posts, respond to our posts, and admit and discuss the possibility of another reason for the problem than that Muslim British Pakistanis are culturally predisposed to paedophile rape and trafficking.

You are the one who cannot (by your own admission) be bothered to examine what others have to say on the subject.

So how do you expect to find out what our position is?......OSMOSIS?

Now, I am supposed to be recovering from a heart attack, and you are just beginning to piss me off with your hidebound, self righteous capacity for seeing in everybody else the faults you possess in abundance.

Enjoy!

Don T

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 04:52 PM

Awaw tae yer knittin'!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 05:37 PM

Don T: "And for those of us whose first language is English........??"


Huh?...Somehow that connection got by me....but, as pointed out by my previous post, of which you're commenting on, your response makes sense to me, in the fact that it makes no sense, (or disconnected sense from disconnected thought patterns) from you!....

We've gotten to expect these sort of things from you!


...Unless it was a joke?..quip?....ummm..I give up....


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:47 AM

Don, you obviously do not read MY posts!
I have said repeatedly that it is not the race, or the religion, but the culture of BPs that I believe has led so many of them into this crime.
It is utterly groundless to say I do not distinguish race and culture, which would be moronic, wouldn't it? (and not ad hominem!!)
I have not made mistakes like that about anyone's posts.

If YOU read posts how could you say this about contributors here??
"There are NO alternatives for them. Muslims are all evil, oppressive, chauvinist, paedophile rapists, made so by their cultural upbringing."
Totally and utterly groundless Don, and offensive to decent people.

You might be right that adaptation to altitude is a factor in NW Africans' predisposition to marathon running (though you might expect more Swiss marathon runners.)

My point was that it is OK for you or anyone to theorise about it.

The theory I have described is that the over representation may be caused by a culture that denies men any intimate relationships before a late marriage.

Not unreasonable.
Of all the alternative explanations that you and Lox have put forward, which would you say is the most reasonable Don??

Having said all that, I am very glad that you saw off that heart attack, and wish you a full recovery.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:03 AM

Er, I meant NE Africans, ie Ethiopia and Kenya.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:26 AM

""Of all the alternative explanations that you and Lox have put forward, which would you say is the most reasonable Don??""

You've tried that route too often. You said yourself that you don't bother reading our posts.

Read the bloody posts, then you might know the answer to the above question.

1. At least half a dozen others have pointed out that Paedophilia, Rape and Trafficking are not intrinsically religious crimes, but committed by criminals of every class and culture.

2. The circumstance you describe regarding Muslim restrictions on sex might lead to promiscuous sex outside their own community, but, with the number of willing and promiscuous young women available in almost every town in Britain, why would that lead to the crimes under discussion? The easiest and safest course would be to avail themselves of those girls and avoid the risk of jail.

3. The obvious conclusion is that they are first predisposed to these crimes, and only incidentally British Muslim Pakistanis. It happens that a number of cases have appeared in an area where there is an anomalously high population of Pakistanis, and it is no surprise that the gangs are composed primarily of such, given that most of the surrounding white population share your view of immigrant minorities.

Don T.

P.S. Keith will only read the first four lines or so, bless him. It's all his attention span can manage.

P.P.S. Akenaton, you have added nothing of value in the last three hundred posts. Why not just STFU and leave it to those who have.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:31 AM

""I have said repeatedly that it is not the race, or the religion, but the culture of BPs that I believe has led so many of them into this crime.""

Their Culture is an integral part of their Religion and of their Race. Explain to me how you remove the precepts of Islam and the Pakistani Heritage, and are left with a separate entity identifiable as "Culture".

And I do wish you would show them the respect of dropping that dehumanising BPs tag.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:39 AM

Don, I would just like to know which of the alternative suggestions YOU find most convincing.
No amount of my reading will answer that.

Your point 1.
No one could possibly disagree with that.
What is the point of that point?

Your point 2.
"The easiest and safest course would be to avail themselves of those girls and avoid the risk of jail."

The expert witnesses did address that.
It appears, despite your low opinion, that most girls are hoping for some kind of relationship, and only the young and naive do not realise that these men are all promised in marriage.

Your point 3.
Even in these areas, BPs are not the majority.
But these areas are the hot spots and BPs are overwhelmingly responsible.

Your best explanation?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 11:28 AM

The BP culture is quite different to other British Moslem cultural groups, e.g. Somali, Turkish, Arab, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 11:31 AM

Keith,


Its time you defined British Pakistani culture.


Your hypothesis is based on yor implied claim that you have a comprehensive understanding of it.


If you don't claim to understand it then it is more logical bullshit to claim that you can hold it responsible for anything.


Then once you have accurately defined it in a way that stands scrutiny, you can clarify exactly which common feature of British Pakistani culture makes them more likely to enslave and rape underage girls than other cultures.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 11:43 AM

I read in the Metro this morning that the ringleader of another group who groom underage teenagers for sexual abuse and rape was arrested in Devon.

Was he British Pakistani? ...

... guess ...

(the answer doesn't rhyme with guess)


So the most recent reports on this subject so far have been about a romanian gang - and now a white british paedophile ring.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 12:00 PM

700...and still as stupid as ever!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:03 PM

"If you don't claim to understand it (I do not Lox) then it is more logical bullshit to claim that you can hold it responsible for anything."
I do not claim that Lox.
I left it to the experts.

Whereas, you know enough about it to be sure that it is not responsible?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:06 PM

Is the Devon gang accused of street grooming Lox?
I have always acknowledged that BPs are under represented in other crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 02:02 PM

Are Muslims prejudiced?

Probably would be, if they saw the length of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 03:40 PM

""Your best explanation?""

You have seventeen cases over thirteen years involving Pakistani gangs of perverts.

In those gangs almost all members are Pakistani.

Oh! Bugger me. What a surprise.

You were expecting little green men from Mars??

They are Paedophile Rapist Traffickers first and foremost, which is not occasioned by their Pakistani Culture, but by their perverted sexual proclivities.

Their nationality and religion are incidental to that, and only of interest in the minds of those with an anti Asian axe to grind.

Elsewise you would be making the same amount of noise about the white traffickers from Eastern Europe who are more numerous by far.

I'd like to hear your brilliant expose of the reason why the vast majority of Paedophiles are White British people who are either relatives or close friends of the families of their victims.

What is it, do you think, in the White British Culture that implants a predilection for sex with sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, or the children of friends and neighbours.

With your greater insight, and perhaps some help from self styled experts, you should find that easy to answer.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 04:01 PM

I have some theories if you want to start a thread Don.

Back to this discussion.
This crime is unknown outside cities with a large BP community, and practically all the perps. are BPs.
That is what we are trying to account for.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 05:16 PM

""I have some theories if you want to start a thread Don.""

I'm sure you have, and I'm equally sure that your theories will be the only ones you are willing to consider.

Just as in this case.

We ask that you consider another possibility than your chosen one and you accuse us of being unwilling to accept the only possible explanation........YOURS!!!

You call that debate?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 08:38 PM

DonT: "We ask that you consider another possibility than your chosen one and you accuse us of being unwilling to accept the only possible explanation........YOURS!!!
You call that debate?"

I'm sure you may enjoy this one......

Here Don!!!

Wink,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 08:39 PM

I forgot to sign into the previous post....if thou would assist......

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 09:37 AM

Don,
"We ask that you consider another possibility than your chosen one and you accuse us of being unwilling to accept the only possible explanation........YOURS!!!"

A fair comment Don.
You are right.
I would like to make ammends.

Tell us your most likely explanation and I will debate it with you.

That is what I keep asking you to do anyway!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 12:24 PM

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:16 PM

"Whereas, you know enough about it to be sure that it is not responsible? "


The same lie repeated again and again ans again.


Keith, when are you going to get it into your thick skull that I have never said abnything of the sort.


I repeatedly state that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR RESEARCH TO MAKE "ANY" CLAIMS ABOUT THE PAKISTANI COMMUNITY.


THERE ARE NO EXPERTS ON THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE OF BRITISH PAKISTANIS.


NONE!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 06:22 PM

"Is the Devon gang accused of street grooming Lox?"


What difference does ot make if you groom your victims on facebook or on the street?


How does choosing the street indicate a cultural predisposition to trafficking and abuse of minors?


YOU think its "a reasonable suggestion" that British Pakistanis are predisposed to trafficking and sexual abuse.


Jack Straw, Lord Ahmed, Yasmin Brown etc etc NEVER said that.


So don't try and worm out of this by passing the buck to them.


Its YOUR view.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest grom Sanity
Date: 19 Feb 11 - 10:51 PM

*sigh*....Jeez!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:54 AM

The evidence is the evidence of the experts.
I am sorry if you choose not to accept it.
It is untrue to say I go beyond that.
I have neither the knowledge or experience to.

They were talking about a particular kind of grooming.
Move away from that and yes, the over representation disappears.

You castigate me for saying that you are sure they are wrong.
It follows that you are not sure that they are wrong.
That is to acknowledge that they might be right.

Don wants to debate alternative theories.
Are you up for that?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 07:30 AM

Lox,
"What difference does ot make if you groom your victims on facebook or on the street?
How does choosing the street indicate a cultural predisposition to trafficking and abuse of minors?"

One difference is that of scale Lox.
Many HUNDREDS of girls, often vulnerable or underage girls, ensnared into sexual bondage by accomplished gangs.

Why is it confined to cities with a large BP community?
Why are the perps, almost without exception, BPs?

I will restate the theory I accept.
The one put forward by so many highly reputable and eminent people, speaking from knowledge and experience.

Late marriage and a denial of intimate relationships drives some men to co-operate in the grooming and abuse of these girls.

Now Lox and Don, please restate your pet theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 11:29 AM

"your pet theory"
Mine is that you continue to display your racist bigotry, as in the past.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 12:43 PM

Rolls my eyes, again...Here we go again...calling people who have legitimate concerns about a growing threat to world peace 'bigots'!..even if the threat of a radical, violent, distortion of a 'religion', is bent on eradicating all 'NON-subscribers' to their point of view, off the earth...INCLUDING YOU!!

It has become flagrantly obvious, that the 'FAR Left' are comprised of self destructive mental cases, who cannot distinguish fact from propaganda from reality and delusion, and tend to be 'suicidal and proud of it'! They will use the Freedom and Liberty that this country has provided to bring down the very system that ALLOWED them the freedom to be as silly as they have now become!!!!

Yes, the far right has its ills, as well...but, what this country has witnessed from the far left loonies, rivals the idiocy of a 'Monty Python' sketch!!!!...and it is all too self evident!!!

Your guys BLEW IT! You're BLOWING IT, and instead of correcting the problem, and/or recognizing any errors in your 'logic' that don't exist, you just dig your heels in further, and make bigger asses of yourselves....and with stubborn pride, you'll take us all down with it!

Congratulations for your self destructive fantasy obsessions!
Congratulations for fucking up the family unit, as a basis for ANY society!
Congratulations for calling black white and white black, good for evil, and evil for good!
Congratulations for creating hostile class warfare, where before there was none!
Congratulations for the deterioration of morals and conscience, to where we are as animals with nothing to think about, except obeying our 'trainers'.
Congratulations for fucking up every possible way to achieve the potentials that individuals are capable.
Congratulations for trying to turn the world, into a failed Soviet model!
Congratulations for 'winning' arguments, (read: 'avoiding learning') by shouting each other down with juvenile name calling, and shifting topics from inefficiency to 'bigotry' and 'racist'...as a 'catch all' for avoiding dealing with real problems.
Congratulations for promoting 'entitlements' as a way of life...as if you are entitled to ANYTHING, that you won't earn!
Congratulations for making mental illness and emotional immaturity the hallmark banner of your existence...then whining that you can't FORCE everyone who doesn't agree with your thumb-sucking childishness, to collectively suck with you!!

Piss off! Radical 'left' bullshit has run its course, and is now been seen as what it is, and what it isn't......and because they fucked up SO BADLY, popular opinion is turning away drastically!
YOU have given the 'FAR loony RIGHT' legitimacy...and for that, you have shown no brains at all!!
Stupid people are easily manipulated...Now aren't you glad to be in the 'gang'?

Jerk-Offs!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:23 PM

"The evidence is the evidence of the experts."

No experts on social/sexual psychology have commented at all.

Your "witnesses" are not experts in social/sexual psychology.

They are politicians, a journalist, a field worker (the only one with any legitimacy and who completely disagrees with your hypothesis) and a couple of policemen.

As I have stated before, the only thing that distinguishes these crimes is that the victims were groomed on the street and not on the internet or in clubs, carehomes, vestries or schools.

Beyond that you have NO signifiicant point to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:32 PM

Who are you talking about??..or is this just blather that uncontrollably falls out of your face, between drools??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:41 PM

GfS - I'm talking to keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 02:47 PM

Oh..you were unclear, there....
...though it usually doesn't matter, in your case.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:01 PM

Lox, this is the testimony of the "field worker" that you claim undermines my case.

This from the Guardian.
Hilary Willmer, of the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping, said that since 2002 her group had supported 400 families where girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men. "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg." But she cautioned against treating the matter as a race crime. "It's a criminal thing
Helen B again, quoted by Yorkshire Post.
"At the beginning we worked on the assumption that girls were groomed by individual pimps, but later discovered widespread pimping networks, much like international people trafficking gangs. Shopping malls, games arcades, places around takeaways and parks are common meeting places.

"The girl (who's typically aged between 13 and 16, but can be only 11 or 12) may meet the man alone, or be introduced by a friend who already knows him. He is usually quite a lot older and good looking, well-dressed and may well have a fast car. He'll meet her regularly, shower her with gifts, give her drink and maybe also drugs, take her for rides, tell her how special she is. He may have sex with her, but not at first, and he will discourage her from telling her parents about him because "they wouldn't understand".

"At some point further down the line he will take her to a flat or down an alley and tell her that in return for all the things he has done for her, it's payback time and she has to do something for him. She will then probably be gang raped. She will be confused, weak, think she's in love with the pimp, but also feel ashamed and guilty. She goes home and takes it out on her family and also drops out of education."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:05 PM

And let's drop the charade that either you or Don have a better explanation.
You have have made no positive contribution to this debate at all have you?
Prove me wrong, why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:09 PM

Bullshit keith.

By your own admission you haven't even read my posts.

You certainly haven't responded to my arguments.


You have only made excuses why you shouldn't have to.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:17 PM

Which is why you make up arguments on my behalf and criticize them instead.


On the other hand, you state that my understanding of your position is correct.


i.e - I know whats going on, and you refuse to find out.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:29 PM

"At the beginning we worked on the assumption that girls were groomed by individual pimps, but later discovered widespread pimping networks, much like international people trafficking gangs."


So more like INTERNATIONAL GANGS then.

Not in a way that can be attributed to British Pakistani culture.


PS - you claim that you can't define British Pakistani culture, yet you are sure that it predisposes british pakistanis to commit sex crimes.



Cue the next round of straw men, red herrings, excuses and refusal to acknowledge opposing arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 03:38 PM

Grooming and pimping women is an activity carried out by scum from any background, religion or race. That there might be more Pakistani men involved in areas where there is a larger Pakistani population has nothing whatever to do with either their culture nor their nationality.
Slime arguments like this are what you would have associated with organisations such as the BNP before they cleaned their act up in order to present a 'respectable' image to the British electorate.
The "They're over here to take our jobs and defile our women" line is a leap backwards to the days of the Notting Hill Riots and Powell's 'Rivers of Blood'.
Even Cameron has made an effort to polish up his racism - wake up Superman!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 04:47 PM

Why dont you aim your abuse at Mr Straw, Mrs Cryer and other involved in prosecuting these crimes, Keith is simply illuminating what THEY have said......or do you presume to be better informed than these people?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 06:34 PM

"Keith is simply illuminating what THEY have said"
Keith is coming out with racist garbage 'Pakistanis are here to defile our women and put them on the streets' plain and simple.
Please answer the point I've made. When you get an area where there is a high percentage of immigrants (plenty of those in the North of England) then this is bound to be reflected in the crime figures. This has nothing whatever to do with racial origins or religious beliefs; it is a sign of some of the incomers taking up the values and practices of the host communities. We saw this happen with Traveller youngsters in London.
Of all the immigrant groups, the Asian population in general is noted as being industrious, law abiding and anxious to avoid trouble and attract attention. Nowhere has the police or the local authorities ever claimed otherwise.
Keith has taken a statement out of context and made it a racial slur.
He seems to have come on in leaps and bounds over the last year, from wishing the Irish would go back where they came from, to the 'Full Monty' - Pakistanis want to ruin our women and put them on the streets - doesn't come much plainer than that.
This is sewer-level stuff; and he apparently has your full backing; so surprise there given your trach record, particularly your homophobia.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 11 - 06:36 PM

"Keith is simply illuminating what THEY have said"
Answer the point I've made; PIMPNG HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH NATIONALIY OR RELIGION - go into an area of high immigrant population and the numbers of criminals who come from that area are bound to be largr - not an Asian thing, just the incomers accepting the customs and practices of the host nation. We saw exactly the same patterns with young Travellers in London.
Keith is manipulating those facts to suit his own prejudices and you are, true to form, giving your past record, particularly your homophobia, are backing him up.
Keith seems to come on apace over the last year; from wishing that the Irish would go back where they came from to the full Monty;

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 02:16 AM

"Answer the point I've made; PIMPNG HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH NATIONALIY OR RELIGION"
Totally agree. I keep saying this. Read my posts please.

I was right then.
Lox has no better explanation.

Jim brings his explanation, that there is nothing to explain!
It was just a figment of Jack Straw's racist imagination.
And Ann Cryer's racist imagination.
And Lord Ahmed's racist imagination.
And Jasmin Alibhai-Brown's racist imagination.
And Hilary Wilmer's racist imagination.
And the Guardian's racist imagination.
And the Independent's racist imagination.
And the police's racist imagination.

A really positive contribution Jim.
Why did you keep us all waiting to clear this up?

It is an old lie that I called for Irish to leave Britain.
Show the post Jim, and the previous one it referred to.
I was calling for the North to leave Britain and form a United Ireland, as you know.
A calculated, dishonest smear.
Nasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 02:42 AM

"Totally agree. I keep saying this. Read my posts please."
Read your posts Keith - in spite of their number and the fact they are as 'multiple' as the ones you used as an excuse for not answering questions earlier on.
"Inevitable when dealing with Lox's multiple, long, ranting posts."
"Er, because there are so many, buried in long, multiple posts."
"I am not going to make a habit of multi posting."
I suggest you read your postings, count the number of them and their regularity, and see how many of them come in (at least) pairs.
What I get from you is an attempt to link crimes against women with Muslim culture. No religion has clean hands when it comes to the treatment of women, Christianity included, but your attempts to link one particular culture to pimping by quoting selectively from a right-wing rag like The Yorkshire Post is blatent racism - get a grip.
"A calculated, dishonest smear."
No it isn't, it's what you said - twice, and I have no intention of twisting and turning my way through yet another of your blind alleys. Your attitude to Ireland, violent sectarian marches and massacres of unarmed civiians is on file for anybody who cares to read through them - in context.
JIM Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 04:03 AM

Jim has just arrived, and straight away he attacks me, not my arguments.
I have made multiple posts, so shoot me!
At least that personal attack is true.
You lie about me and the Irish. I just hate paramilitaries.
Make a liar of me by putting up the non existant posts.
You can not. It is a lie.
On the marches I was putting Sinn Fein's viewpoint!
I kept quoting them!
Another untrue smear.

Argue the issue please Jim.
Not your usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 04:22 AM

"Keith is simply illuminating what THEY have said"

Not true - Keith has gone one step further.

Keith says that British Pakistanis are predisposed to Sexual abuse.

None of his "witnesses" say anything of the sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 04:23 AM

"Jim has just arrived, and straight away he attacks me, not my arguments."
Nope, attacked the racist aguments
"I have made multiple posts, so shoot me!"
You alway do, I commented on you whingeing about somebody doing the same - as quoted.
"Argue the issue please Jim."
Have done Keith - try reading what others have to say for a change - and answering what others have to say.
And please try to come out from behing thhe cut-n'-pastes this time and think for yourself.
AS I said, get a grip
Your other comments are all verifyable on file.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 04:24 AM

"I was right then.
Lox has no better explanation."

More made up shit.

Based on wilful ignorance of my posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 04:26 AM

Lord Ahmed did, and it was implicit in the others.
I have no knowledge except what I have learned from those eminent, reputable people with all their knowledge and experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 04:30 AM

"And please try to come out from behing thhe cut-n'-pastes this time and think for yourself."
I have no knowledge or experience of my own to offer.
Sorry.
"Your other comments are all verifyable on file."
No they are not.
You lie.
Put up the post AND the previous one it replied to.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: ollaimh
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 02:13 PM

yeah you noticed that muslims are not exactly like you, so they must all be bad. well any claim that all "muslims" are to somehow be to blame for one or a dozen honour killing is ethnic religious sterotyping and bigotry. and claim that a crime commited my"a muslim: hold all muslims to blame equally ethnic sterotyping and bigotry.

gee i read every day about english speaker out there in the mid east killing people--but thats not christian crime i suppose. but unlike the "muslom crimes" refered to and condemned those killings are the policy of a state you mostly had a chance to vote for--but you are not responsible. or on bloody sunday the murder of dozens of ethnic irish by soldiers following the polisicies of the sate you mostly got to vote for thats not british crime.

well i find the hypocracy disgusting. policies and killoings by the organized arms of the state are not the responsibility of the citizens of that state and the crimes of individuals who are not organized are the fault of all muslims. read a book, go to a lecture try and rise from your ignorance and bigotry and make something usefull with you wasted life!!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 02:38 PM

Jim, is this pause while you think of something to say on issue, instead of just character assassination?
One of the few points on issue you did make was that I quoted Yorkshire Post, but it was only for a direct quote of Hilary Wilmer.
It made no mention of ethnicity because it was published before Straw broke the taboo.
So, what was your point???

Lox, you are also very quiet.
You say it is made up shit that you have no better explanation.
Keeping up the charade!
Go on Lox.
Of all your better explanations, give us the best one to discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 06:26 PM

LoX: "Based on wilful ignorance of my posts."

Couldn't have said it better!
By the way, you also misspelled 'ignorance'.

..and he sits their scratching his head, muttering, "Huh???...HmM I think he is pointing something out to me...I think I'll call him a 'racist'..or maybe 'bigot' works better....now what was I saying???"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 02:28 AM

I had to laugh...... I posted:

LoX: "Based on wilful ignorance of my posts."

Couldn't have said it better!
By the way, you also misspelled 'ignorance'.


and I'm sorry...he misspelled "wilful"!

..but in this case, they go hand in hand!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 02:37 AM

Gang slashed teacher
Four men slashed a teacher's face because they did not approve of him telling Muslim girls in east London about other faiths. Akmol Hussein, 26, Sheikh Rashid, 27, Azad Hussain, 25, and Simon Alam, 19, admitted the attack on Gary Smith ... at Snaresbrook Court.
The Times, 22 Feb 11, page 4

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 06:40 AM

Four men launched a horrific attack on a teacher in which they slashed his face and left him with a fractured skull because they did not approve of him teaching religion to Muslim girls.

Akmol Hussein, 26, Sheikh Rashid, 27, Azad Hussain, 25, and Simon Alam, 19, attacked Gary Smith with a Stanley knife, an iron rod and a block of cement.

Mr Smith, who is head of religious education at Central Foundation Girls' School in Bow, east London, also suffered a fractured skull.

The four now face a jail sentence.

Detectives made secret recordings of the gang's plot to attack Mr Smith prior to the brutal assault.

The covert audio probe captured the gang condemning Mr Smith for 'teaching other religions to our sisters', the court heard.

The RE teacher was targeted as he made his way on foot along Burdett Road in nearby Mile End on July 12 last year, Snaresbrook Crown Court was told.

Prosecutor Sarah Whitehouse told the court: 'The evidence from what was said on the probe points overwhelmingly to a religious motive for this attack.'

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 10:30 AM

"World English Dictionary
wilful or willful (ˈwɪlfʊl) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— adj
1.         intent on having one's own way; headstrong or obstinate
2.         intentional: wilful murder "



hmmm - looks like I spelled them both right ...


Thanks for the help professor ...




Keith, reading my posts would unearth my opinion.

Thats how I was able to deduce your opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 10:38 AM

We all know your opinion Lox, but I was asking for what you consider to be the best of all your alternative explanations.
Just the very best one please.

Only you can provide that Lox.
What is the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 11:14 AM

""We all know your opinion Lox, but I was asking for what you consider to be the best of all your alternative explanations.
Just the very best one please.""

He already did that, and so did I, and I don't know about Lox, but I can't be arsed to do it all again for a lazy ignorant sod who won't bother to read it.

If you want the information READ THE FUCKING POSTS!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 11:30 AM

It seems we have another member here with a race/religious bias amounting to out and out bigotry.

This fellow, however, prefers to lurk in the background and rely on the usual etiquette which prevents PMs being broadcast on the forum.

I received a PM from him today which he obviously lacks the guts to post for himself.

I don't know why he sent it to me, given that everybody here knows exactly what I think of racists and religious bigots, but since he did, here it is.

Charles J Sanders this is your post.

""People were sick of the creeping Islamification of Britain and the failure of mainstream politicians to protect our "democratic freedoms" from the medieval dogma of militant Muslims and their Sharia law.

There are more than 100 Sharia courts practising on a daily basis.
Sharia law is a racist, fascist, paedophilic law a law which condones child marriage, imprisons women behind burkhas, legitimises female circumcision and wants to take over the world.

British Muslim MP Shahid Malik publicly declared his intent for Islam to take over Britain. An example, a Catholic school faces being taken over by a mosque after it was revealed that 95% of its pupils are Muslim. It is believed to be the first case of its kind in Britain.

Church leaders say it is no longer "appropriate" for them to run Sacred Heart RC Primary School which has just six Christian pupils.
Just 10 years ago more than 90% of pupils were Catholic. But now most are of Asian origin, do not speak English as their first language and follow Islam.
The school in Blackburn, Lancs, could be handed to the nearby Masjid-e-Tauheedul mosque.

The dhimmis are trying to obliterate the memory of Sept, 11th and July 7th by renaming the anniversary 'Fluffy Bunny Day' or something similar.

Could all catters please remember to mark these anniversary with maximum publicity at all times.

Also, another anniversary that the dhimmis would like to slip from public consciousness occurs on the first of September when a group of Islamic terrorists, following the example of their prophet 'the perfect man' , began the siege of Beslan school which resulted in the deaths of nearly 200 Christian children,. Many of the children were humiliated by being forced to drink their own urine before being killed.

Please ensure these acts of Islamic infamy are not forgotten.""

Next time do your own dirty work!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 11:45 AM

"He already did that, and so did I, "

No you did not!
Neither of you will tell us which of the theories Lox posted (no sniggering at the back! Of course he posted them.) is your preferred one.
Perhaps you have forgotten, and yourselves cannot be bothered to plough through all that tosh again.

Help us out Jim.
You must have read all Lox's posts.
Can you remember any?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 12:46 PM

Don T: "It seems we have another member here with a race/religious bias amounting to out and out bigotry."

Oh goodie, another space case throwing the word 'bigotry' around, because he has nothing else to accuse others of!

Fuck what you THINK is 'bigotry'! GET REAL!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: ollaimh
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 05:19 PM

yeah i got some charles sanders posts, full of hate and vitriol.

imaginngan islam that hasn't existed for centuries and perhaps never existed as the situation in the uk. do any of you who are so intent on attacking other religions note that the lack of good advanced public education in the uk may be partially to blame for the problems minorites have becomming setled in british society?

you have one of the industrial worlds most estrictive education systems. in canda we have one of the most inclusive--presto within a few generations most immigrants are hard working educated members of society. as i stated earlier a muslim fundamentalist was the key underground mole who stopped the home grown islamic terrorists group. so was he anti islam, were the terrorists pro islam. its not the religion, its individuals/

when you give immigrants equasl opportunities they do well. tarek fatah, a former chair of the canadian islamis association siad in a recent book --and interviews--he never found any religious discrimination in canada, anf lots of opprtunity for education and advancement. he stated that this has allowed most muslims to fit into canadian society. he had also addressed the extremists problem and syas its a minotiry. all immigrant groups have minorities that have problems. its how you deal with those problems that defines your society.

now the uk with its class bigotry has a realk problem with the education option. thatcher briefly began education reform that created howls from the upper classses when their children were not scoring higher on equal examin--across the board. in addition the uk hadsn't realy recovered from the era of empire. empoire brings lots of immigrants from the conquered countries and an empire has to integrate them if it want s to grow into a suddessful world state. the uk rejected the leap to a world state when it rejected th imperial parliament system propoed by joseph chamberlain. that failure left little england with the problems of empire and few resources of empire. the british could not over come thier religious class and ethnic bigotry to integrte all people into the imperial citizenship. based on merit and so they fell but have tyhe many residual problems of empire.

it wae a tragedy that the opportunity to create a real globe spannig commonwealth was thrown away, but that leaves the uk with a very backwatd education record. you have les than a third the univertsity graduates of canada or germany, not to mention japan china and the oriental countries hell bent on education. britain is hoist on its own petard. they wouldn't open the educqation system nor the imperial citizenship which gettoized the immigrants and has crippled the information technology industries of the future. this lack of education levels also has left behind wide spread ignorance and bigotry well displayed on this discussion.   charles sanders is sending me bigoted e mails now with a disturbingly twisted version of islamic history,\\yes they had and have a tradition of discrimination against non muslims. well the uk had an established church as well and persecuted catholics for cenuries. therte is no moral high ground here for anyone. muslmregimes have been sending solfiers to shoot protesting civilians--wellthats what happened on bloody sunday! or the greensborough massacre .

they have torture well the uk wads convicted of torture in northern ireland, and the us would be at abhu grab or guantonamo bay if they paid any attention to international law. there;s corruption in muslim countries and e\onomic stagnation but they haven't pused the wolrd to the brink of enviormental collapse with un bridled un regulated military capitalism. there really is no moral high ground here and the sooner the self righteous get over thier ignorant posturing the sooner problems will be dealt with creatively and effectively

ps

if you wnt to read the real history of the dhimmi idea in islam--it does exist--read "the legacy of jihad" after which show me how western societies haven't acted the same under even the smallest provocations

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 05:22 PM

"Perhaps you have forgotten, and yourselves cannot be bothered to plough through all that tosh again."

Not that you would have a clue as you never read then in the first place.

Which is why you have to make shit up.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 07:02 PM

Unless you never posted any better theory Lox.
It is over a month ago. People forget.
If you REALLY have a better theory, restate it.
You make yourself ridiculous.
It is obvious you have no theory, but you keep pretending that you have.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 07:53 PM

""Unless you never posted any better theory Lox.
It is over a month ago. People forget.
If you REALLY have a better theory, restate it.
You make yourself ridiculous.
It is obvious you have no theory, but you keep pretending that you have.""

Same old nonsensical claptrap.

You don't get to tell us what we must re-post for your convenience.

You haven't a clue what we did, or did not, post, since you have admitted to not having bothered to read any of it.

I for one am not taking orders from you. Read what I have posted, or don't.

I don't give a shit either way, since it is you who make yourself ridiculous by demanding evidence already posted, which you will in any case ignore.

Your agenda is well known and well documented, and your supporters (the mad GfS and the miserable Ake) are the only ones here who are daft enough to give your nonsense any credence.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 02:10 AM

Keiths posts are perfectly sensible,he has provided you with the views of experts on this subject....all pointing in the same direction.

I have seen no alternative views being expressed by you, to counter those posted by Keith. All we get is "its simply a crime" no attempt to explain the massive over representation of Muslim perpetrators, and non muslin victims.

Also no comment on the attack on the teacher by muslim thugs in yesterday's paper?

Now had that attack been by Christians or Atheists on a Muslim teacher or cleric, you would have gone "ballistic".....please at least TRY to be fair.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 03:28 AM

I have restated my case many times and would happily do so again.
I would only refuse if it was non existant, or shite!
Which is it for you two?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 03:34 AM

"I have no knowledge or experience of my own to offer"
That is what you call 'stating the obvious' Keith.
The pause is because I am at present away from home and have only just managed to find a computer (with probably the slowest connection on record). Replying to your inanities comes pretty low on my list of 'things to do' in life.
Perhaps you might clarfy some of your postings - does the list of misdeeds carried out by Asians mean you believe that all Asians/Muslims/Pakinstanis/Foreigners - , are violent thugs, morally corrupt, sadists, or are the crimes/misdeeds you present likely to be committed by all nationalities and beliefs?
I have just opened a pm which I take to be a circular message to those of us who believe that Muslims are better or worse than Christians, Jews, Hindus, Brits, Yanks, Irish - whoever. It is racist garbage and appears to reflect your views perfectly.
You appear to be in good company.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 04:24 AM

Keith,

You don't need to restate your case because I've read it.

In fact, I've synopsized it in one short post, in a way that you described as a "fair precis".

I understand your view and I've shown how it doesn't work.

I've read your "evidence" and shown how it is unreliable.


You on the other hand respond to points of view that you invented, while ignoring points of view that have actually been stated and that you aven't been bothered to read.


This is a written medium not a spoken one, and every view stated remains above in print.

Asking me to restate my views is equivalent to being too lazy to read a book and asking the author to write the same book again just for you.

It is redundant.

I have been asking you to respond to my actual posts now for over a week and you have been unable to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 04:49 AM

Jim,
"Perhaps you might clarfy some of your postings - does the list of misdeeds carried out by Asians mean you believe that all Asians/Muslims/Pakinstanis/Foreigners - , are violent thugs, morally corrupt, sadists,(NO JIM) or are the crimes/misdeeds you present likely to be committed by all nationalities and beliefs?"(YES JIM)

I believe that sexual repression is behind this crime.
It is well known that it drives some men to commit sex crimes.
Apply it to a close knit community and it is a reasonable extrapolation that some will conspire in the crime.
There.
I have restated my case yet again.
Now what are Lox's alternative theories?

Lox, it would be much quicker and shorter to restate your case than to keep posting all the reasons why you won't.
Not credible.
Just post a couple of theories if you have any.

I would not stick my neck out on this without scouring all your posts to make sure you have nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 04:56 AM

"Lox, it would be much quicker and shorter to restate your case than to keep posting all the reasons why you won't.
Not credible."

Bullshit keith,

I posted my opinions clearly.

I also posted my rebuttals of your arguments clearly MORE THAN ONCE.

Then you posted reasons why you couldn't be bothered to read them.


Since then all you have done, inbcluding the lines quoted above, has been to find ways of weaseling out of facing up to them.


This is because you have no answers to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 05:54 AM

Not talking about arguments and opinions Lox.
Just asking for your alternative theories.

Just complete, "I think the over representation might be caused by ...., or ......., or ......"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 08:10 AM

I have offered possible reasons, though not gone into depth, nor claimed that they were "the reason".

I have also been asking you to read my posts since quite early on in this thread.

I offered alternatives AFTER this fact.

So you ignoring my posts was an issue BEFORE I suggested alternatives.

Which is why you have no idea of any aspect of my position.


On the other hand, the reason it has beeen so easy for me to rebutt your position is that I have read your arguments to the point that I am able to synopsize them in a way that you find satisfactory.


Consequently, your argument has relied on wearing blinkers and making shit up.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 10:25 AM

"I have offered possible reasons"

No you have not.
They are not in your posts.
I am not making shit up.
You have not given any.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 03:52 PM

We have been debating the massive over representation for weeks now.
You have dismissed a perfectly reasonable theory put forward by entirely reputable people.
And in all that time you have come up with nothing.
A totally negative contribution.

Don, you claimed to remember Lox's non existant theories, and actually castigated me for failing to debate them!

Lox has made a complete ARSE of you.

And if YOU had bothered to read his posts, you would have known that his theories do not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 05:05 PM

Well keith, if its expert testimony you want:

The people who are responsible for the original study ...

... (thats research to you and me) ...

... are concerned that the results of their study are being misrepresented by those with a racial axe to grind.

- snip -

"they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type""

- snip -

and then ...

- snip -

"The authors, Helen Brayley and Ella Cockbain, from UCL's Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, said they were surprised their research, confined to just two police operations in the north and Midlands, which found perpetrators were predominantly but not exclusively from the British Pakistani community, had been cited in support of the claims that such offences were widespread."

- snip -


So keith, that reads to me like such claims "that such offences were widespread" are false.


But what about Ake's fears for white girls?

Well the researchers say "Comparing the percentage of white people in the areas with black and ethnic minorities, their data, they said, showed "black and ethnic minority girls over-represented among the victims"."

Oh really?

"This challenges the view that white girls are sought out by offenders, suggesting instead that convenience and accessibility may be the prime drivers for those looking for new victims."

Gosh!



Well now there's a surprise.



So it wasn't because those dirty slimy "BP's" couldn't wait to get their hands on some underage white flesh ...

The only bit of Verifiable research posted on this thread i.e. NOT JUST OPINION

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 05:10 PM

Now you wanted an alternative theory didn't you?

Well I reckon the most reliable explanation is the one deduced by the experts don't you keith?

Which is "convenience and accessibility may be the prime drivers for those looking for new victims".


Now where were you?


Oh yes - I remember - British Pakistani men have a closet predisposition to traffcking, pimping and raping underage girls ...


Discuss...(ting)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 05:13 PM

Lox: "Well the researchers say "Comparing the percentage of white people in the areas with black and ethnic minorities, their data, they said, showed "black and ethnic minority girls over-represented among the victims"."


...and I'm surprised YOU aren't raising an issue of discrimination, because the rapists are only targeting girls!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 05:21 PM

GfS

You should award yourself a prize for deducing that rapists discriminate against their victims.

Well done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 06:02 PM

Lox, as I said on 8th Feb, they believed their report had been overstated, not that it should be rejected.
You quoted from the Guardian but missed some bits.

"The authors, Helen Brayley and Ella Cockbain, from UCL's Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, said they were surprised their research, confined to just two police operations in the north and Midlands, which found perpetrators were predominantly but not exclusively from the British Pakistani community, had been cited in support of the claims that such offences were widespread."

OK the report was limited but we know from Hilary Wilmer, the police and the others that it was widespread.
Wilmer had worked with 400 families of victims and said the perps were BPs.

"The view points to the convictions of 56 men, all but three of whom were Asian and most from the British Pakistani community, found guilty of sexual offences involving on-street grooming. There have been 17 court cases in 13 urban areas in the north and Midlands since 1997.

The most recent case involved the conviction of nine men in November on sexual offence charges, relating to 27 victims in Derby, 22 of whom where white."

I said at the start that not all victims were white, just not Muslim
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jan/06/child-sex-trafficking-racial-stereotyping

I agree that "convenience and accessibility may be the prime drivers for those looking for new victims".
The question is why are those looking for victims all BPs almost without exception.
I have put forward a theory, you still have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 06:27 PM

"The question is why are those looking for victims all BPs almost without exception."

Not true.

Only Those in a very select area.

i.e. only those in areas affected by Pakistani gangs.

"they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type""

i.e exactly what you are saying.

I have checked back through my posts and found my suggestions, both stated and implied.

You on the other hand continue to Misrepresent Helen Wilmer, Me and British Pakistanis.

Helen Wilmer states that these crimes have the character of INTERNATIONAL gangs.

You are arguing that these crimes are somehow Peculiar to British Pakistanis.

Her 'Testimony' as you call it CONTRADICTS your opinion.



Why are you so determined to hang on to your opinion that British Pakistani men are closet perverts?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 07:28 PM

Now then, here's an interesting thing. Armchair Keith has gone all the way through this thread doing what he does best. In short, he has consistentlt proven himself to be a Wiki Warrior of the highest order. His use of Google Search could well feature on any Internet 101 course. Unfortunately for Monsieur Le Fauteuil (Google it, Keef!) all he has achieved is a first class outlining of the weakness of use of t'internet for purposes of cut-and-paste.

Up until yesterday Keith had not actually offered an opinion of his own. His (only) debating ploy has been to seek to shift the argument when he has been challenged, moving the goalposts has been his response to any direct challenge to his increasingly outlandish statements.

I have extended you the courtesy of reading through your posts in this thread - I would suggest that you extend a similar courtesy to Lox -and it strikes me that you have consistently cited newspaper quotes from your chosen sources but not once have you actually stated your own position. I would be very happy to be proven wrong on this point.

So, sir, here is a direct challenge to you. Without deviation, sophistry, manipulation or downright distortion can you please do the following, using your own logic and argument and not depending on filleting (for your own purposes) other more learned sources such as Straw, Yasmin etc, etc:-

1. Set out your precise issues with regard to crime within predominantly Muslim communities.

2. Confirm that you do not have an agenda driven by intolerance based on race or religion.

3. Share your perspective on how - if there is, indeed, a major sociological issue to be addressed/ dealt with - any problems might be dealt with and resolutions achieved. As an aside on this point, I do not know whether you are old enough to remember the riots in Brixton, St Pauls, Leicester, Handsworth and Toxteth in the seventies and eighties. If you are, do you think there may be some lessons to be learnt about inclusivity? Were you concerned about the way in which young white women were associated with the West Indian community during that period? Are you old enough to remember how thge NINA culture was applied to the Irish in the 1950s? And, of course, going a bit further back, you will be only too well aware of the demonisation of Jews in Whitechapel in the thirties cf. Cable Street?

Keith, as a personal favour, I would implore you to please set out your concerns on the subject of Muslim "issues" . I know that Mr May started the thread but, for whatever reason, you have picked up the baton. And with some abandon, I have to say. Or, at least, that is how it appears, give the number of your posts.... You have used a numnber of Googled quotes and articles to articulate a position. For the sake of clarity, will you please set out YOUR OWN stall and stop dissembling and cliaming that you have "no view" of your own. That is disingenuous and disrespectful to the people you seek to engage.

Oh, and finally, I note that on 14 February in this very thread you suggested that Lox was siding with someone you described as "bitter, twisted and agenda ridden ...(as Cobra)..." (see post dated 14 February). I would be grateful for an understanding as to how you reached that view. As far as I am aware we have no personal history. I believe your statement reflects an ad hominem attack of the worst kind. I am also intrigued to hear from you how you have deduced that I am "agenda ridden" . Pray tell, what is my agenda and what proof do you have for your assertion? In specific terms, how, when and where have I articulated a "twisted agenda"?

However, whilst I look forward to getting an insight into your proof regarding my "world view£, I am much more interested in seeing you set out your views regarding Mr May's position at the head of this thread. And I will be eternally grateful if you can please set out your own position rather than C&P various Guardian and Goofle articles.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 01:42 AM

Lox, we know from several reliable sources that this crime is rife in cities with a large BP minority.
The study looked at a limited area, and found the crime was indeed rife there, and those convicted almost all BPs.
The study unfortunately was limited. That is all the authors said.

I do not understand Wilmer's enigmatic statement about the "character" of the gangs.
I do understand her unequivocal statement, quoted in Guardian and elsewhere, that the abusers are BPs.

I have provided an explanation.
You have provided nothing.
You say "I have checked back through my posts and found my suggestions, both stated and implied."

I ask you what they are because I have searched and found no such thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 01:57 AM

Cobra, I can not answer all your points in a readably short post.
Those I skip feel free to restate, one or two at a time, if you want me to respond.
I joined the debate about grooming days after Lox.
My interest is Mudcat, and there was an interesting contrast between the outrage expressed here about clerical abuse, and the silence on this abuse. (e.g. Lox and Jim).
That is how I was drawn in.
I have little knowledge so I researched it and shared my findings.
OK?

We have previous, on NI threads.
I speak against paramiltaries, blaming them for immense suffering and setting back the cause of a United Ireland.
You speak for Republican paramilitaries, and against Britain and me.
That is the agenda I referred to.
You have previously called me "STAB Keith."
My understanding is that the S is for stupid, and the B for bastard.
Your agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 03:07 AM

On the subject of the teacher who's face was slashed by Muslims for teaching yound students about other faiths, I see there is still no comment.

Another example of double standards?

The threads on race and homosexual marriage are full of references to brutality towards minorities, yet in this case not a word on what is without doubt a "cultural" crime.

Although I speak against "multiculturalism" and see the promotion of a behaviour which carries with it horrific health figures as folly, I am completely opposed to physical abuse of minorities.

It is my opinion that there is little "tolerance" in the form of Islam being promoted in large parts of this country.

Thr abuse of these young girls by predominantly British Pakistani Muslim families is another symptom of this "intolerance".
"After grooming, the victims are usually passed on to other family members to be used as sex objects"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 03:17 AM

If these crimes are culturally motivated, it stands to reason that they will only occur in areas wherer there is a large population of one predominant culture....in this case BPM's.

One would not expect to see this pattern duplicated nationwide, and the fact that it is not, does not prove in any way that these crimes are not culturally motivated.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 04:19 AM

Keith, please feel free to take as many posts and as long as you need to respond to my points.

I would prefer that you take your time and deal with each of the points rather than - as has been your wont so far, in this thread and in others - ignoring questions asked, moving goalposts and generally being disingenuous in selecting what you will or will not address. Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt, the specific points I would like you to address are set out. Like Lox and others, I do not and will not accept that they should be reiterated simply because you want to subvert the argument and claim that others will not respond to your requests, Requests which are unreasonable and tactically transparent.

Real life is not like that. If you adopt a position, you need to respond to the specific concerns which are raised. It is inappropriate and disrespectful to constantly ask for a recasting of questions. That is not a legitimate debating ploy and, whilst it may be reasonable to request a re. statement once, to do so continually actually undermines your position.

On the subject of NI, the simple act of taking an opposing view to you means that I have a "twisted agenda"???? Ainsi soit-il, but it is disappointing that you look to play the man rather than play the ball. However, I suppose you are consistent in that respect. FWIW, my position on both NI and Muslims in Britain is informed not solely by Google and/ or selective use of newspaper sources. In both cases I have spent a long time in situ. As a consequence I can tell you that not everything comes nicely packaged in black and white, that there are a myriad of factors which influence real life, that not everything you read in newspapers is either accurate or appropriately reported.

The infuriating thing about your position is that you freely acknowledge, on one level, that you have no real knowledge of the subject under discussion, yet you build a wall around a construct derived from newspaper cuttings and Google. You then repel all boarders by simply refusing to engage in any intellectual way.

I would much rather that you share your own views - forget Straw et al .

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 05:16 AM

"there was an interesting contrast between the outrage expressed here about clerical abuse, and the silence on this abuse. (e.g. Lox and Jim)."

More made up shit.

I have hardly posted anything at all on the subject of clerical abuse.

The idea that I hhave a fascination with one and not the other is an outright lie.


Then this from your reply to Cobra:

"Those I skip feel free to restate, one or two at a time, if you want me to respond."

... indemnifyng yourself from having to read the whole of a posters argument.

Keith, this is not kindergarten.

Meanngful discussion of COMPLEX issues requires COMPLEX argument.

Your approach is FUNDAMENTALIST.

ie, you completely ignore what the argument actually is, and you focus on a small part of it - hence you have NO IDEA what the view is that you are disagreeing with.


By refusing to deal with any except short facile opinions, you define your own position and arguments as facile and simplistic.


Here are the facts.


You have spent nearly a month fighting tooth and nail to defend a hypothesis based EXCLUSIVELY on racial generalizations and judgements thereof.

You base it on the OPINION of POLITICIANS, who don't actually express your view anyway, and on the opinions of experts whose views CONTRADICT yours.

When you discovered this issue, your concern was not to study it and find out the causes, but to support the conclusion that British Pakistani men are closet rapists.

YOUR CONCLUSION CAME BEFORE YOUR STUDY.

Keith, you are without any shadow of a doubt loyal to a racist view of British Pakistanis to the deliberate exclusion of all other possibilities which you refuse to consider.

I have given you the benefit of the doubt so many times that I have lost count.

But you still hang on to it like a good british bulldog.

You lie about my views again and again, you lie about your "witnesses" views and you lie about British Pakistanis.

So just in case there is any doubt, you are a racist Liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 05:55 AM

Lox, Jim posted copiously on clerical abuse, and I am sorry if I overstated your interest.
But, you say,"I have hardly posted anything at all on the subject of clerical abuse." whereas you posted nothing at all on BP abuse of children, except to understate it.

You say I "defend a hypothesis based EXCLUSIVELY on racial generalizations and judgements thereof."
Not true.
The hypothesis is based EXCLUSIVELY on sexual repression.

Nothing racist.
No lies.

Here again is the Guardian piece on the Dando report.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jan/06/child-sex-trafficking-racial-stereotyping
The authors do not refute that BPs are the abusers, only that all the victims are white, which I always acknowledged.Then it says, "Hilary Willmer, of the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping, said that since 2002 her group had supported 400 families where girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men. "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg."

That requires an explanation.
You claimed to have provided some.
You have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 06:01 AM

Cobra, these complex issues are not best dealt with by tackling numerous points simultaneously.
I will respond to any points you care to raise, but only one or two at a time.
Take it or leave it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 06:59 AM

So "..... these complex issues are not best dealt with by tackling numerous points simultaneously..."??? Tell me Keith, do you have to turn the shower off to sing? Do you pull over to the side of the road so you can toot your horn?

You already have the points I raised. So, rather than prevaricate, just answer them. In any way you choose. Singly or in combination is fine. But please do try to be coherent and please do not insult me with Googled C&Ps. Please let me have the benefit of your own wisdom and input. By all means cite sources if you must but do try and avoid massive slabs of texts from your research (sic), presented as incontrovertible evidence to support your theses. That is, purely and simply, lazy and intellectually incompetent. You see, as others have pointed out, the sources you quote from are invariably selective (that's ok) and often misrepresentative of the wider perspective which these people hold (that's not ok). Much better that you actually apply yourself and set out your position logically, lucidly and coherently.

Also, I would be grateful for further elaboration of my "twisted agenda". Please explain how you deduce that I have an agenda in the first place.Also, what you perceive that "agenda" to be. And,finally, please tell me how and why you label it "twisted". And, no, simply stating that I have had the temerity to disagree with you previously will not cut it.

Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 07:33 AM

I have nothing more to add about your agenda.
Perhaps twisted was a bit strong.
I withdraw it.
I have answered some of your points, and I will not keep referring back to your post because this could take days.
How badly do you want answers?
One or two at a time please.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 07:43 AM

Thank you for that bit of clarification.

Interesting that you feel you can choose what you will or will not answer, yet you hector and bully others to respond to often specious issues which you raise. Unfortunately, these are frequently non sequiturs or, worse, downright distortions and untruths.

Given your refusal to respond, I will now take my own advice and vote with my feet. As a rule of thumb, I believe one can always learn something new in any discussion with those of a different mindset. On this thread, you have disappointed.

Over and out.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 11:47 AM

Cobra, we are all free to choose what we will or will not answer, but I undertake to answer EVERYTHING that is put to me in a reasonable way.
You only have to ask.
Out to you.

Lox,
You call me liar, but it was you you pretended to have given alternative theories.
That was not true.
Poor Don believed you and made an arse of himself over it.

You call me racist because of the theory I have adopted.
But Lord Ahmed, a BP, believes it too.
Only an arse would call him racist!
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth organisation believes it too.
Only a total arse would call him racist!
Jasmin Alibhai-Brown believes it too.
Only a total and complete ARSE would call her racist!!

So Lox, either I am not racist, or YOU ARE A TOTAL AND COMPLETE ARSE!!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 12:19 PM

Just got home - haven's had time to catch up byt a clarification on Keith's psychobabble;
"I believe that sexual repression is behind this crime."
So if - say, a Catholic or a jew or a hindu or an atheist becomes a pimp, this is the result of sexual oppresssion - yes?

While I was away I recieved this peice of hate filled billiousness from Charles J Sanders - I presume othes have received the same
Jim Carroll

People were sick of the creeping Islamification of Britain and the failure of mainstream politicians to protect our "democratic freedoms" from the medieval dogma of militant Muslims and their Sharia law.
There are more than 100 Sharia courts practising on a daily basis.
Sharia law is a racist, fascist, paedophilic law a law which condones child marriage, imprisons women behind burkhas, legitimises female circumcision and wants to take over the world.
British Muslim MP Shahid Malik publicly declared his intent for Islam to take over Britain. An example, a Catholic school faces being taken over by a mosque after it was revealed that 95% of its pupils are Muslim. It is believed to be the first case of its kind in Britain.
Church leaders say it is no longer "appropriate" for them to run Sacred Heart RC Primary School which has just six Christian pupils.
Just 10 years ago more than 90% of pupils were Catholic. But now most are of Asian origin, do not speak English as their first language and follow Islam.
The school in Blackburn, Lancs, could be handed to the nearby Masjid-e-Tauheedul mosque.
The dhimmis are trying to obliterate the memory of Sept, 11th and July 7th by renaming the anniversary 'Fluffy Bunny Day' or something similar.
Could all catters please remember to mark these anniversary with maximum publicity at all times.
Also, another anniversary that the dhimmis would like to slip from public consciousness occurs on the first of September when a group of Islamic terrorists, following the example of their prophet 'the perfect man' , began the siege of Beslan school which resulted in the deaths of nearly 200 Christian children,. Many of the children were humiliated by being forced to drink their own urine before being killed.
Please ensure these acts of Islamic infamy are not forgotten.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 01:06 PM

Sorry Keith, didn't finish.
Are you claiming that criminals from other religions/cultures/nationalities commit crimes because they are weak, poor, have fallen into bad company, are morally bereft..... but Moslems commit crimes because they are culturally damaged?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 01:09 PM

Jim,
"So if - say, a Catholic or a jew or a hindu or an atheist becomes a pimp, this is the result of sexual oppresssion - yes?"

No.
Repression of sexuality could predispose someone of any race or faith to offend.
How can that be racist.
It is not, and I am not.

Lox resorts to that personal attack when he has no other answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 01:10 PM

Er, no.
Finished now?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 02:01 PM

"No. Repression of sexuality could predispose someone of any race or faith to offend."
Sorry, you have me confused - are you saying that Muslims are committing these crimes because they are sexually repressed, are you saying that these crimes are committed only by people who are sexually repressed, or are you saying that everbody who commits them is sexually oppressed.
Where does being a Musilm fit into all this?
What you appear to be saying is that no Muslim can be trusted with women because his/her culture makes him/her a potential pimp (not to mantion a violent thug - also connected by to Muslims in Britain)
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 02:49 PM

That BPs are massively over represented is a fact.
An explanation is required.

You are asking me to repeat what has been explained several times now.
Lox or Don would just say "Read the f*****g posts!"
(Except that they had never posted any explanations!)

BP men marry late and are not allowed intimate relationships before marriage.
Ahmed says that even after marriage sex is a problem for many BPs.

Repressed sexuality can be expected to predispose some, a minority, to deviant behaviour.
That would be true of any ethnic group.
This theory is not mine.
People on my list provided it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 02:53 PM

Keith,

Maybe we can agree and put this to an end.


You appear to have changed your opinion.


It used to be, that British Pakistani Men are culturally predisposed to pimping and raping underage girls.


Now it is that Sexual repression can lead to pimping and raping underage girls.


They are two extremely different statements.



I agree with the second statement.


But pay attention.


Sexual repression "CAN" be "A" factor leading to sexual deviation, and sometimes that can be the cause of sex crimes.

Pakistani culture "CAN" be sexually repressive.

It does not follow that "British" Pakistani men ALL have a predisposition to sex crimes.

Which was what your hypothesis.



The other essential part of your argument was to do with the specific new crime type of street grooming.

The experts on this subject, i.e. the ones who have done research andd arenb't just shooting their mouths off for political purposes, state that there is no "new crime type" and that this misrepresents the data.



But I am happy to rest on a conclusion that sexual repression "CAN" be "A" cause of sexual abuse (that is, in a tiny minority of cases as we have seen in the priesthood).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 03:09 PM

"That would be true of any ethnic group."
Then why have you singled out Muslims?
This is all very rminiscent of the good old Enoch Powell days when all 'blacks were here to steal our jobs and defile our women' - do 'they' all have big willies like the West Indians were said to have?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 03:53 PM

Lox,
"It does not follow that "British" Pakistani men ALL have a predisposition to sex crimes.
Which was what your hypothesis."

No I have never said "all."
I have always been clear it is only a small minority, the weak and wicked, who succumb.

Jim I have not singled out Muslims.
We are talking about BPs.
The culture is quite sexually repressive, such as might drive anyone to misbehave.
You would expect a small minority to succumb.
That fits the observed pattern.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 04:19 PM

"I have always been clear it is only a small minority, the weak and wicked, who succumb."

Not quite.

Succumb to what?

The answer is, to a slight predisposition.

ie, a predisposition not shared by other racial groups.

Your view was that only a small minority succumb to this predisposition, whilst the others overcome it.


This view is unsupportable.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 04:57 PM

Lox, In response to Keith...

Lox: "So just in case there is any doubt, you are a racist Liar."

Then:

Lox: "You should award yourself a prize for deducing that rapists discriminate against their victims."

..as a response to: GfS:"...and I'm surprised YOU aren't raising an issue of discrimination, because the rapists are only targeting girls!"

Twice, you have shown, that you have the depthy comprehension of a mayfly!

You must think its just hunky dory, to throw around 'race' and 'bigotry' accusations to anyone who posts a logical disagreement to your banal crap. That, in itself, tells me you have nothing of value to say, regarding the topic, other than you standard 'one size fits all' childish, worn-out from the '60's cliches. Not everything revolves around 'bigotry' and 'racism'...unless you are one of those mental midgets, who get lost, and don't understand anything, then proceed to project that everyone else is as small minded as you! Some things require a discussion, or debate, instead of taking refuge into your isolation blanket of, "Gosh what did he say??..he must be a 'racist'..now that I told him off, I can go back to sucking my thumb".
Get real!!!
See if you can comprehend the basic idea here

Later,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 04:58 PM

ooops, the prior post was mine..if you could fix the 'Guest' to 'Guest from Sanity'

Thank you,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 05:06 PM

A small minority succumb to this predisposition, others overcome it, and some are not predisposed at all.
That would be my guess.
We know there is something.
Your explanation now Lox?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 05:08 PM

"if you could fix the 'Guest'"

I fear this guest is beyond repair ...


P.S. how's my spelling?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 05:12 PM

Better. Its nice to see that something is sinking in!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 06:41 PM

Or rather - a small minority MAY have this predisposition, but the vast majority don't, and in fact Pakistani British culture is definable, just like the rest of British culture, as being predisposed to a revulsion of such activities.

I refer you to my explanations above.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 10:51 PM

800! Blimey ~~~ just noticed this thread still, incredibly, going & have logged back on to it for 1st time in days.

Thanks GfS for x-refce to a thread of mine in order to try & make the egregious grottiLox see some sort of sense or logic. A vain endeavour, I fear ~~ for saying which I wonder what unfortunate and unavoidable, but in my case inaccurate, disability he will accuse me of this time.

I wonder you all go on & on feeding the foolish fellow.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 03:02 AM

"a small minority MAY have this predisposition, but the vast majority don't"
How do you know this Lox?
Do voices tell you secrets?

We do know that the majority live within a sexually repressive culture.

And what is your explanation for the fact that in cities with a large BP minority many hundreds of children have been sexually abused and trafficked by gangs of BPs?

What do the voices say?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 04:21 AM

"Jim I have not singled out Muslims."
This is exactly what you have done.
You have not only chosen examples which depict Muslims as being perpetrators of sordid crimes, but you have then gone on to claim that this is not because of human failings but is the fault of their culture - sexual oppression (incidentally, the recognised main cause of prostitution is poverty and the willingnes of greedy individuals to prey on that poverty - not sexual oppression). Otherwise, why single out Muslims for crimes committed by all social and racial groups.
It seems to me that the only contribution you have made to a thread on Muslim prejudice is to provide us with a perfect example of it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,WyoWoman
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 04:23 AM

This has to be one of the most boring/obnoxious threads on Mudcat this year. Joe why are you allowing it to go on ?

Name calling, personal insults, threats and every other form of verbal combat has been employed.

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that it is always the Brits on Mudcat who create these hostile controversial political threads ?

Last year Joe and his appointed moderators closed down around seven threads concerning British politics.

Maybe someone over there would care to start a thread called "British intolerance to the political/cultural views of others".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 05:01 AM

Oh dear! I had promised myself I wouldn't bother any more. That the best thing was to ignore the blatant lies and distortions which Keith is using to provide a smokescreen for his bigoted and racist (and sectarian) views. But, then this:-

Keith to Lox: "And what is your explanation for the fact that in cities with a large BP minority many hundreds of children have been sexually abused and trafficked by gangs of BPs?"

Now, Keith, where is the evidence for this latest assertion of yours - that "many hundreds" of children have been "trafficked by gangs of BPs" ? I know - since you have told me , and previously used it as an excuse NOT to answer my direct questions - that you do not like confusion in your mind and so prefer to deal with one simple facet at a time. So, please tell me where is the empirical evidence to support your claim that "many hundreds" have been trafficked by those you seek to demonise?

As far as I can tell, Operation Pentameter 2, a co-ordinated campaign by police forces across the country and reporting in 2008, estimated that:

Up to 18,000 females, including girls as young as 14, are working in brothels across Britain after being smuggled into the country to meet the booming demand for prostitutes. Police revealed that nearly five times more women than previously thought are working under duress in massage parlours and suburban homes.
Operation Pentameter 2, a six-month campaign by police forces across the country, resulted in the release of 154 women and 13 girls put to work as part of a lucrative trade dominated by organised crime gangs, which increasingly co-operate via the internet to maximise earnings from their victims.
The Operation Pentameter 2 campaign, which saw the arrest of 528 suspected traffickers and the closure of 822 brothels and premises being used to sell sexual services, also revealed an increasing use of young British women, who are trafficked within the UK after being groomed by older men who lure them to towns away from their homes. The Home Office highlighted one recent case in Sheffield where 33 victims had been recruited by men in public places and taken away for sexual exploitation.
However, most victims are foreign, with at least 85 per cent of the women working as prostitutes coming from countries including Brazil, China, Lithuania and Thailand. Many victims are lured to Britain with false promises of work in bars or nightclubs only to be sold for up to £5,000, often at airports or service stations, to pimps and brothel-keepers. The women are then set quotas of the number of men they must have sex with each week, working for little or nothing under threat of violence against their families.
Tim Brain, the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire, whose force co-ordinated Pentameter 2, said that police forces were becoming more effective in tracing prostitution networks and seizing their assets, but admitted that they remained a significant problem. The first phase of Pentameter in 2006 rescued 88 victims and made 232 arrests.
The Government insisted that the success of the campaign, which has resulted in 24 convictions, was evidence of its determination to hinder the work of the gangs behind sex trafficking. Of the 167 women and teenagers released, all but five were being used as prostitutes. The rest, of whom three were children, had been sold as domestic slaves.
Mr Brain also revealed that a large number of residential properties were being used to sell sex (of the 822 premises raided, nearly 600 were private homes). "In some of the cases, neighbours have not suspected any kind of unusual activity," he said.
Prostitution and people-trafficking is now the third most lucrative black-market trade in the world after gun-running and drugs-smuggling. It is being driven by growing demand for prostitutes in the UK, with websites promoting sex flourishing and local newspapers carrying advertisements for prostitutes. Gangs often share the income from internet "bookings".
Ministers also said children were being trafficked into Britain to grow cannabis or to join street crime gangs. There are plans for a further crackdown on fraudsters who smuggle children to make bogus welfare claims.
Sex trafficking in numbers
6,000-18,000 Trafficked women are thought to work as prostitutes in Britain
167 Victims identified in a police operation to free them
13 Victims aged between 14 and 17
£500,000 Amount seized in brothel raids
500,000 Number of women trafficked into the EU each year "

Source: The Independent - "It Is, Are You?"

The rationale for including the above report is quite simple really. I need to understand how you have reached your conclusion, and the inference that British Pakistanis are disproportionately represented in this crime.

I very much doubt - and I have checked ALL the posts - that anyone on this thread is claiming there is no problem re grooming within the communities you have referred to. However, your preference has consistently been to home in on one section of society and ignore the fact that this crime is not exclusive to that group. That is why, IMO, you have attracted the flak you have on this thread and on others. You see, Keith, your arguments are selective, they are weak, they are inconsistent and they are intellectually lazy. By reusing to broaden the scope of your "research" (for which read Google, Wikipedia etc ) you have laid yourself open to accusations of racism and bigotry. Can you not see that?

The reality is that grooming and trafficking is a heinous crime wherever and whenever it takes place. It is not, however, the exclusive preserve of one section of society. The police and court reports show that most paedophile gangs are white, that the "host community" has a higher incidence per capita of population of sex crimes than ANY racial or ethnic group.

So Keith, to reiterate, please advise how you have arrived at the strident claim you made re the "many hundreds", let me have some empirical data to support your claim and explain why police forces across the country are saying that this is NOT an issue/ crime exclusive to or disproportionately represented in ethnic communities.

At the risk of unecessary repetition, but to save you having to refer back (I know you find that stressful since you have told us so), here are those police figures once again:-

"Sex trafficking in numbers:
6,000-18,000 Trafficked women are thought to work as prostitutes in Britain
167 Victims identified in a police operation to free them
13 Victims aged between 14 and 17
£500,000 Amount seized in brothel raids
500,000 Number of women trafficked into the EU each year "

So, Keith, : "What DO the voices say?"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 05:12 AM

Good morning WyoWoman. Trust me, the overwhelming majority of people on this thread would wish it away but, there ya go, that's freedom of speech for ya! That and last-wordism ;-)

You say:- "Maybe someone over there would care to start a thread called "British intolerance to the political/cultural views of others".

Would it help if someone started a thread on "USA intolerance to the political/ cultural views of others"? In the spirit of inclusivity, would we start with Sarah Palin? The Montana militia people? Etc, etc but I am sure you get my drift. As you can see from this thread and others, people this side of the pond don't just shrug their shoulders, sweep it under the carpet and say: "Oh, you kids, honestly!"

And, honestly I am not trying to start another Tea Party!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 05:50 AM

Cobra,
"Now, Keith, where is the evidence for this latest assertion of yours - that "many hundreds" of children have been "trafficked by gangs of BPs" ?"

"Hilary Willmer, of the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping, said that since 2002 her group had supported 400 families where girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men. "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg."

That corroborates the statement by former Home Secretary Jack Straw, and of Ann Cryer, Lord Ahmed, Jasmin Ailbhai_Brown, Mohammed shafiq, and several senior police officers.

It is the truth.
Jim and Lox, if your ideology forces you to deny truth, there is something wrong with the ideology.
Or with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 05:58 AM

Cobra, that Pentameter stuff is shocking, but irrelevant to this debate.
I never claimed any group, certainly not BPs, are trafficking in foreign girls and women.
This is about street grooming of local girls.
I always acknowledged that bps are under represented in other crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 06:27 AM

"Jim and Lox, if your ideology forces you to deny truth, there is something wrong with the ideology."
Please address the implications of your own postings and stop making vaccuous statements such as this one.
Why have you presented crimes that are not typical and certainly not exclusive to Muslim culture and then suggested that these are an inevitable consequence of that culture? You have said this over and over again.
You have not addressed the fact that, by and large Asian communties are regarded by the authorities as peaceable, industrious, law-abiding and the least likely to seek public attention, despite having to go in fear of intimidation persecution by people who share your views. Instead you have painted them here as sordid criminals, whose crimes are buil into their culture.
Less of the empty rhetoric Keith, you are the one hiding behind your own bigoted agenda.
ARE YOU NOT CLAIMING THAT THE MUSLIM RELIGION INEVITABLY LEADS TO GROOMING, PIMPING?
IF YOU ARE NOT SAYING THIS, WHAT IS YOUR POINT IN MAKING THE STATEMENTS YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY REPEATED.
You have admitted that "I have no knowledge or experience of my own to offer", some of us have lived and/or worked with these people - you appear to be making it up as you go along.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 06:49 AM

"Why have you presented crimes that ....."
I have not.
It was a major news story picked up here, and not by me.
I joined after a few days.

"You have not addressed the fact that, by and large Asian communties are regarded by the authorities as peaceable...."
Yes I have. I have acknowledged from the start they are under represented in other crime.

"Instead you have painted them here as sordid criminals,.."
Some of them are.
Sorry but do not blame the messenger.
I have always acknowledged that it is a small minority.

"ARE YOU NOT CLAIMING THAT THE MUSLIM RELIGION INEVITABLY LEADS TO GROOMING, PIMPING?"
No.

"IF YOU ARE NOT SAYING THIS, WHAT IS YOUR POINT IN MAKING THE STATEMENTS YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY REPEATED."
I am repeating the views of people with impeccable credentials.
I have no cause to doubt their veracity.
Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 07:26 AM

Yes you have - you have introduced grooming and pimping as Muslim activities
quote "This is about street grooming of local girls." unquote
Are you claiming that these are representitive of Muslim cultural life?
If not WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH THIS SUBJECT?
"Some of them are."
As are 'some' in the Irish, Scots, Welsh, West Indian, and (mainly) indigenous communities.
WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH THIS SUBJECT?
"I am repeating the views of people with impeccable credentials."
Where has anybody (apart from shite like the BNP), ever claimed that the activities you have introduced are part, typical, or even common to Muslim life in Britain - or elsewhere?
WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH THIS SUBJECT?
Just to remind you again - the subject is Muslim prejudice.
By the way, thank you for once again presenting your racist credentials by claiming that these crimes are builtin to the Muslim culture.
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 08:16 AM

Thread drift jim.
It moved on to this from the original subject.
I kept to the original 3 days longer than Lox.

"Are you claiming that these are representative of Muslim cultural life?"
No.
All the people listed said it is a problem specific to BPs.
Any evidence against?

"Where has anybody (apart from shite like the BNP), ever claimed that the activities you have introduced are part, typical, or even common to Muslim life in Britain - or elsewhere?"
See last answer.

"Just to remind you again - the subject is Muslim prejudice."
Thread drift, and not by me.

"By the way, thank you for once again presenting your racist credentials by claiming that these crimes are builtin to the Muslim culture."
The claims are not mine, but made by those people listed, and relate to BP culture not other Muslim cultures.

Do you label those people as racists?
That makes a fool of you as they are above suspicion of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 08:16 AM

Keith Writes:

"""a small minority MAY have this predisposition, but the vast majority don't"
How do you know this Lox?
Do voices tell you secrets"


Because according to the 2001 census, there are 747,285 British Pakistanis living in the UK.

Of those, 58 have been convicted of trafficking underage girls.

That means that 99.99% of British Pakistanis have never been shown to have any interest in the trafficking and abuse of underage girls.

(I used a calculator)



Shall we analyse those statistics Keith?


Hypothesis - British Pakistanis have a predisposition to trafficking underage girls.

Evidence - 99.99% have never been connected with this crime in any way.

Conclusion - The evidence CONTRADICTS the hypothesis.

Just as Helen Wilmers Testimony CONTRADICTS the hypothesis.

and just as the authors of the ONLY academic study on the subject CONTRADICT the hypothesis.


... are those the voices you meant keith?


In light of the first statistic alone it is clear that your determination to prove that Pakistanis are perverts, which is what you have been doing for a month, is the very definition of racist slander.


Why do you want to slander Pakistanis so much keith?


Why are you such a liar?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 08:22 AM

Predisposed does not mean they will succumb.
How are you able to make statements about the proportions?

Use you calculator to find the bp convictions for this as a proportion of their population, and then repeat it for other ethnic groups.
I predict a massive over representation.

Do you not think that Straw et al were not capable of thinking of that?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 08:23 AM

"I kept to the original 3 days longer than Lox."

Another lie.

When I have confronted you about the context of this thread you used the "thread drift" excuse on me too.

I took great lengths to put my positon in context.


You'e whole position is a lie.

You are lying about British Pakistanis,

You lie about me,

You lie about Helen Wilmer,

You Lie abouyt Anne Cryer.


Lies lies and a gritty determination to smear Pakistanis with your disgust of them.


It is you who are disgusting Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 08:28 AM

"Use you calculator to find the bp convictions for this as a proportion of their population, and then repeat it for other ethnic groups.
I predict a massive over representation."

A false argument and an unnecessary task.


99.99% is enough keith to prove beyond doubt that those criminals were the exception and not the rule.


Your position that British Pakistanis struggle daily to supress a desire that they, and no other people have, to rape underage white girls is the most foul disgusting bit of racial slander I have ever read.


I would accuse you of being a troll, but you have been diligently fighting for this view for a month on a public chat forum.

You make me sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 08:55 AM

BUT

Just to humour you,


There are 7631 Romanians living in the UK.

Of those, in the LAST 3 WEEKS, 2 have been convicted of Trafficking teenage girls and raping them.

I don't know how many before that ...

... but I don't need to check - because already, that number constitutes 99.97% which is a HIGHER proportion that the nuber of British Pakistanis who have committed similar crimes over the last 14 YEARS.


SO YOU ARE WRONG.

British Pakistanis are not disproportionately more likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 09:02 AM

Excuse me ...

99.97% of Romanians DON'T commit sex crimes.

(Which serves as evidence that Romaniians don't have a predisposition to rape either)

But according to those stats theres a higher risk of them doing it than British Pakistanis.

So this claim:

"Use you calculator to find the bp convictions for this as a proportion of their population, and then repeat it for other ethnic groups.
I predict a massive over representation."

is WRONG.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 09:47 AM

"All the people listed said it is a problem specific to BPs."
Are you for real? Grooming and pimping specific to Pakistanis??
Prostitution, of which grooming and pimping is a specific part, is as old as history (The oldest Profesion) and cannot be identified exclusively to one racial or cultural group, and any attempt to do so is blatent racism.
Irish writer Patrick MacGill was writing about it in connection with Irish girls at the time of WW1, Colin McInnes likewise about the West Indian communities in Britain in the 1950s. Christopher Isherwood's novels dealt specifically with pimping in pre-war Berlin..... and so ad infinitum.
The upturn in prostitution in Britain has been linked directly to the fall of communism and the springing up of Mafia-like organisations in Eastern Europe.
Nobody here has claimed that the practice does not take place in Muslim communities, but this, contrary to your claim, is an indication of the breakdown of the values of those communities rather than part of the culture.
Designating the procuring and marketing of underage girls as 'Muslim' or 'British Pakistani' or any secific racial or cultural group, predominantly or otherwise, is as racist as it was when it was used against the Irish and the West Indian communities in the past.
You really have leapt out of your racist closet with a vengeance.
You make me sick too.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 09:52 AM

Sorry, didn't finish - this certainly is NOT a thread-drift; it has everything to do with Muslim prejudice - Yours!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 10:28 AM

Thread drift.
on 21st jan you posted about "muslim abuse of young white girls"
I continued posting on the original topic until 23rd jan.
I do not lie.

The census does not show predispositions, yet you can make statements about proportions having it.
the 53 are just those convicted.
We know there are many more.

"Your position that British Pakistanis struggle daily to suppress a desire that they, and no other people have,"
I am sure other people do have it, especially if living a sexually repressed lifestyle.

Romanians.
Are any convicted for abusing and trafficking local children?
That is what we are discussing.
Keep to the subject please.

Lies about my witnesses.
Not true .
I quote them.
I do not lie.

""All the people listed said it is a problem specific to BPs."
Are you for real? Grooming and pimping specific to Pakistanis??"
No.
We are debating the grooming of children in the street and public places.
According to those listed, it is rife in cities with a large BP minority and the gangs are overwhelmingly BPs.

I am just the messenger.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 12:24 PM

"especially if living a sexually repressed lifestyle."
There you go again making assumptions based on culture - racism pure and simple - though not applied to any others racial or social group where prostitution has been a part of the culture for centuries (Britain, for instance).
The sources you quote are unsubstantiated opinions; there are no facts and figures, and many are based on what was described as a half-arsed unscientific 'survey' by Rupert Murdoch's Times.
Many of the comments on the subject refer to specific locations and are in no way an attempt to analyse the national scene.
One comment points out that Jack Straw's comments came at election time; the Labour Party seems to have gone further down the Conservative road of playing to the British electorate's darker side than I would have thought possible prior to 'New Labour'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 12:43 PM

"There you go again making assumptions based on culture "

I do believe that repressed sexuality can lead to deviant behaviour.
How is that racist, or even controversial?


Do you think Cryer is lying?
Hilary Wilmer a racist liar?
Lord Ahmed? He should know.
You can not just dismiss a statement by a figure like Straw.
What election was there anyway?

Like Lox, you tell the world to listen to you and discard the informed wisdom of these eminent people.
Why should we?
What are your credentials?

Who the ** are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 12:55 PM

Racist liar Jasmin Alibhai Brown in Independent.

"Being avowedly a leftie liberal, anti-racist, feminist, Muslim, part-Pakistani, and yes, a very responsible person, I should be in the circle with these objectors – particularly as I can't stand the Rt Hon MP for Blackburn, his devious, shady politicking and moral expediency. However, just as when he criticised the full veil, I cannot condemn his views. How can I? Just before Christmas, I too wrote about these rapists and the anti-white cultural prejudices in some of their communities and families."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhai-brown-jack-straw-is-right-to-ask-hard-ques

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 01:04 PM

Link not working.
Google text for this Independent piece.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 01:22 PM

Same piece.
Shouting down Jack Straw, busying ourselves with warnings about feeding the BNP, are displacement activities that will do nothing to stop Asian groomers, who, from childhood have developed distorted ideas about themselves, society, females, vice and virtue. Like Samura said, it is up to insiders to examine and reveal what lies beneath these crimes. We owe that to ourselves, to our future generations, and to the country we have made ours.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 01:52 PM

"I do believe that repressed sexuality can lead to deviant behaviour.
How is that racist, or even controversial?"

More Mendacious crap.


Your assertion that Pakistanis are predisposed to rape and enslavement of underage girls is a racist assertion.

It is unsupported by the facts.


"Lies about my witnesses.
Not true .
I quote them.
I do not lie."

You quote them and then pretend they support your opinion even though they contradict you.



"I am just the messenger"


Bollocks. We are debating YOUR hypothesis that Pakistanis are predisposed to rape.


You are free to drop it any time.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 02:29 PM

I would not call someone a liar without providing the evidence.
You can not do that can you.
I did not lie about the thread drift.
You were wrong.

I have not lied about the witnesses.
"You quote them and then pretend they support your opinion even though they contradict you."

No.
I quote them and say "that is my case. I agree with them."

"Your assertion that Pakistanis are predisposed to rape and enslavement of underage girls is a racist assertion."

Jasmin blames their misogeny and contempt for non Muslims.
Is she a racist?

We know that something is predisposing them, because of the scale of their crimes.
When will you tell us what you think?
And why did you say that you had, when you had not?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 02:42 PM

2007
Ann Cryer, a Labour member of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, has been at the forefront of attempting to tackle the problem after receiving complaints from mothers in her constituency about young Asian men targeting their under-age daughters.

Although campaigners claim that hundreds of young girls are already being passed around men within the Asian community for sex, she said that attempts to raise the problem with community leaders had met with little success, with most of them being in a state of denial about it.

She said: "The family and cultural norms of their community means they are expected to marry a first cousin or other relative back in a village in Mirapur or wherever the family comes from. Therefore, until that marriage is arranged they look out for sex.

"At the point in their lives when they are ready for this sort of activity, Asians cannot go to Asian girls because it would be a terrible breach of the honour of the community and their family to have sex with an Asian girl before marriage." She said that the reason Asian men targeted very young white girls was because older white girls knew that a relationship with an Asian youth was unlikely to last as the community would seek an arranged marriage with someone from the Asian sub- continent. Police and groups campaigning to protect women insisted that the grooming of youngsters is not segregated along race lines, though there is concern at the attitudes of some young Asian men towards white girls.

Parents claim that criminal networks are able to prey on young girls because the authorities are reluctant to tackle the issue for fear of upsetting race relations in areas of the North West with large ethnic minority communities.

However, Ms Cryer added: "I think there is a problem with the view Asian men generally have about white women. Their view about white women is generally fairly low
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2237940.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 03:02 PM

"I do believe that repressed sexuality can lead to deviant behaviour."
But you select to apply it only to Pakistanis and make no reference to it in connection with other races.
Perhaps you might explain your mantra of "repressed sexuality can lead to deviant behaviour".
Muslim society is extremely male dominated; even to the point of women being stoned to death for immorality. I can fully understand why this can lead to women breaking free, often into extreme poverty, but how does this turn young Muslim men into pimps and procurers?
You have ignored the point made earlier that the main cause of prostitution is universally recognised to be poverty and those who prey on poverty; the extent to which sexual repression plays a part in the practice is unknown and undocumented - pimping is a business, and always has been throughout history - the oldest one in the world. You, as with other racists, are using the culture bit selectively.
Prostitution is thought to be among the highest in the US - are you claiming that they are sexually repressed; on what grounds do you excuse them?
Where it does exist, prostitution among Muslims in Britain is a relatively new phenomenon - have they not always been sexually supperessed - according to you that is part of their culture.
I have not claimed anybody to be racist liars (other than your good self); I have said there are no figures to back up the claims and that some of the statements refer to local situations - already discussed, but ignored by you.
Why a middle-class Asian baron, a member of an extremely elite club; should be an expert on prostitution in depressed areas such as Bradford is a little beyond me - he probably knows about as much about those communities as any peer knows about the one I grew up in. I will admit he might know a little about criminality as he was tried and convicted for causing a fatal accident by using his mobile phone five times while driving (he was, of course freed on appeal 12 days into his sentence). Ahmed is a politician - lying seems to come with the job. Would you trust the word of a criminal and politician such as he? Of course you would if suited your argument.
I know nothing about the others you mentioned except that it is unclear if they are referring to Britain as a whole, their own specific and localised area of experience - or even Rupert Murdoch's survey on the subject.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 03:07 PM

PS I see you are multiple-posting again, in spite of having complained of others doing the same, and declaring you will not do it - I think you owe Lox an apology - oh, I forgot, you don't do sorry.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 03:14 PM

"I know nothing about the others you mentioned "

Please google them Jim.
I did provide brief bios.
I wish you would read my short and to the point posts.
You have got Ahmed totally wrong.
A lifelong socialist from Rotherham who spent his life working for the poorest of the community.
Google him too.

Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer, said he was talking about Asian men in general and warned they can target young Asian girls as well as white girls.

He said: "They are forced into marriages and they are not happy.

"They are married to girls from overseas who they don't have anything in common with, and they have children and a family.

"But they are looking for fun in their sexual activities and seek out vulnerable girls.

"I get a lot of criticism from Asian people who ask, 'How can you say this about Asian men?' But they must wake up and realise there is a problem."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8291361/Asian-men-who-groom-young-girls-frustrated-by-arranged-marriages-pe

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 03:24 PM

Sorry about these multiple posts Lox and Jim.
No, really sorry.

former detective superintendent Mick Gradwell, who retired from Lancashire Constabulary last year, supported Mr Straw's comments.

He said: "From the first time I was posted to East Lancashire it has been a problem.

"What Jack Straw has said so carefully is true: There is a problem with some members of the Pakistani community targeting young women in this way. In recent years we have seen it specifically with victims aged just 14, 15 or 16-years-old who are out on the streets at night and groomed by predatory gangs.

"For people to just come out and call Mr Straw racist is wrong. There must be a debate, not on his right to make the comments but on the issue itself because if we can't do that then we can't be honest about the issues that currently affect our communities."

Mr Gradwell, who has 30 years of experience in major police investigations, said no one was saying the Pakistani community was responsible for the majority of sex crimes.

But this element of sex crimes was a "specific problem within a group of people in a minority community" that needed addressing, he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 03:55 PM

You're just repeating the same stuff Keith.

I dealt with this earlier.

You ignored it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 04:05 PM

Jim missed it all Lox.
And, you dealing with it does not diminish it one iota.
There is an issue.
How do you account for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 06:10 PM

There are two issues in this thread.

The first is the thread topic: racism.

The second is sex crimes.


You have your own issue which is your racist attitude to pakistanis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 06:25 PM

My views are just those of the people I put up.
None are racist.
Some are Pakistanis.
That proves you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 06:47 PM

Keith A From Hertfoed: "I do believe that repressed sexuality can lead to deviant behaviour.
How is that racist, or even controversial?"

For what its worth, your post above IS absolutely true, and is a well known accepted truth, regardless of 'race' or anything of the sort. Several religions, and/or cultures are more repressed than others. On the reverse side, overly promiscuous 'cultures' and/or sects, or cults, ALSO have a tendency for 'deviant behavior'.

Now before some clown, jumps up and blathers, 'bigot' or 'racism', do your homework, and you shall find that what I just said is true.

I am NOT singling out any individual group, but 'repression', history has shown us, has NEVER worked, and the backlash, tends to be of either a violent, or deviant nature,...or both.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 07:36 PM

Barking.

Absolutely barking. How fecking sad this man is....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 07:37 PM

Who?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 08:23 PM

"Please google them Jim"
Anne Cryer = crooked politician involved in corrupt expenses claims
Hilary Wilmer = christian church activist
Lord Ahmed = Labour peer, jailed for causing a fatal road accident by sending five text messages while driving on a motorway - released on appeal after serving only twelve days of sentence.
Jack Straw = Labour minister desperate to put things right with the public after serving in several disasterous Governments - including one which entered into an illegal war against a Muslim country,
and an ex-Lancashire policeman.
None have presented documentary evidence that British Pakistanis have played any part whatever in prostitution, so what they had to say is based on hearsay evidence, and none have even suggested (as you have consitently) that there is a nationwide prostitution problem involving Pakistanis, Muslims, Asians..... so we can safely assume that they are referring to North of England localites with large Asian populations - dealt with above and ignored by you.
Nor have any of them suggested (as you have) that any involvement with prostitution has anything to do with the culture of hose involved.
So what have we got - a mish-mash of hearsay evidence that some Pakistanis may be involved in prostitution in some parts of the North of England - no cultural connection and no documentary proof whatever to back these statements up.
Once again, can you please explain how sexual repression causes men to become pimps?
"My views are just those of the people I put up."
Yes, indeed they are!!!
"None are racist."
They may or may not be; but most are politicians quite capable of lying for their parties or their own political interests - or a church activist, quite possibly with a religious agenda of her own - oh, and one is an ex-policeman, and therefore above suspicion, especially on matters of race!!!!
"That proves you are wrong."
Yes, 'course it does Keith!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Feb 11 - 10:36 PM

And then there is this:


When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works

Percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States --1.0%; Australia --1.5%; Canada --1.9%; China --1%-2%; Italy --1.5%; Norway --1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark --2%; Germany --3.7%; United Kingdom --2.7%; Spain --4%; Thailand - -4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves --along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).
France --8%; Philippines --5%; Sweden --5%; Switzerland --4.3%; The Netherlands --5.5%; Trinidad &Tobago --5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam-Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana --10%; India --13.4%; Israel --16%; Kenya --10%; Russia --10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia --Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia --40%; Chad --53.1%; Lebanon --59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania --70%; Malaysia --60.4%; Qatar --77.5%; Sudan --70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh --83%; Egypt --90%; Gaza --98.7%; Indonesia --86.1%; Iran --98%; Iraq --97%; Jordan --92%; Morocco --98.7%; Pakistan -97%; Palestine --99%; Syria --90%; Tajikistan --90%; Turkey --99.8% United Arab Emirates --96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' --the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan --100%; Saudi Arabia --100%; Somalia --100%; Yemen --99.9%
Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 12:12 AM

I am sorry, Jim; but I think you are uncharacteristically confused, both here and on the 'Gypsy Wedding' thread; misled by your hatred, which I am sure we all share, of racism in any form. Prostitution is not at issue here; its organisation has long been largely and observably the prerogative of gangs from E Europe or certain Mediterranean islands, esp Malta; in which assertion issues of 'racism' will not apply because those concerned are all white Europeans.

In which connection, see my thread ref'd above, on 'racism' as a catch-all term to evade argument, inspired by the footballer Gattusa's attempt to justify his notorious assaults on Joe Jordan by accusation of Jordan's having been 'racist' in calling him an 'Italian bastard' ~~ neither element of which accusation, offensive as one of them may have been, can conceivably be interpreted as 'racist', even if Jordan did say them which he denies.

What this thread is about is some worrying statistics regarding grooming and exploitation of underage girls, only in a few places, but which have significant implications in appearing to indicate a statistical preponderance of a certain demographic in their commission. The organisation of prostitution, I repeat, is not at issue; and accusations of 'racism' in attempting to explain the, admittedly few, instances where these statistics appear to apply, merely confuses the matter, rather than offering any solution to what appears to some to be a genuine problem which requires addressing.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 12:54 AM

I have refreshed the "'Racism' as catch-all" thread mentioned above.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 09:39 AM

IT CAN'T BE TRUE.
IT JUST CAN'T!
LIAR. RACIST.BIGOT!
All Jim and Lox's posts, however long and tedious, could be replaced with just that.
Not one positive contribution in all these weeks.

The hard evidence of the convictions, an aberration.
You prefer to believe that than accept the obvious truth.

I put up more than one senior police officer, serving and retired, whom no other officer has contradicted.
But, police = racist so it must be dismissed.
You prefer to believe that than accept the obvious truth.

Ahmed may have caused a serious road accident. He was using his phone.
It follows that you can dismiss his whole life's work serving his community, and believe he would suddenly lie and smear his own people.
You prefer to believe that than accept the obvious truth.

Hillary Wilmer set up a victim support group and has helped hundreds of families over the years.
She was given a prestigious National Award for her work.
But, she is a christian so it must all be made up lies.
You prefer to believe that than accept the obvious truth.

Jasmin Alibhai-Brown.
Even you could find nothing on her, so you can just ignore her.
You prefer to believe that than accept the obvious truth.

There is nothing anyone could put up that would open your eyes.
IT CAN'T BE TRUE.
IT JUST CAN'T!
LIAR. RACIST.BIGOT!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 10:19 AM

Keith
You have reverted to empty invective once more - probably in order to avoid the questions you are unable to answer.
There is no proof whatever that what any of your cut-n-pastes describe are anything other than local hearsay reports of a few Asians being involved in prostitution in areas with large Asian populations, rather than the picture you paint of them being main movers-n-shakers of the trade in Britain.
Back up your statements with properly conducted surveys and provide documentary proof of the numbers involved and you may have a point, otherwise, your comments can only be viewed as wishful thinking to back up your own prejudices.
It's hard not to notice that apart from the usual suspects, you have had no support whatever - a sample of one of your soulmates:
"To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons."
Mike;
I hold no brief for any religion; Muslim or Christian, but I think I recognise racism when I encounter it.
Will look into your re-opened thread - thanks.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 10:38 AM

Or,
IT CAN'T BE TRUE.
IT JUST CAN'T!
LIAR. RACIST.BIGOT!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 11:19 AM

Keith, I have always been inclined to take people at face value. In your case this has meant that I have observed you as nothing more than an obsessive Googler and WikiWarrior with a predilection for C&P-ing articles from newspapers, in a highly selective fashion, and presenting the filleted quotes as "research" to substantiate your increasingly hysterical hypotheses.

Having reviewed your Mudcat posts since you joined, I notice two things. First, you are consistent in your outpourings and have not once deviated from or moderated your position in response to input from others. What this means is that, in my case, I have no interest in engaging with you as it wastes my time reading and re-reading fatuous and selective "research", and your refusals to acknowledge any legitimacy whatsoever with regard to the points of view put forward by others.

The second thing I have observed from your past posts is that you are also a devious individual with a history of manufacturing aliases and responding to your own posts in a corroborative and misleading fashion. The evidence of my "research" into your previous misdemeanours is below. It is on file and available to anyone who chooses to look for it. It is not an edited version of the post which you made nor is it selectively quoted. I would be very interested to know which of the supporting responses in this thread actually originate with you and why you have felt it necessary to engage in subterfuge of this sort. Here is the post in question and I would welcome your comments - also, please note, you were "yellow-carded" more than once by the Mods on this most "unparliamentary" behaviour:-


Subject: RE: BS: Britain and Germany rule the waves !
From: GUEST,Oakville - PM
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:18 PM

Keith, I have found no bigotry or slurs in your posts.
I take it back.
I am ashamed.


"This message appears to have been posted by Keith A of Hertford. That's not allowed, Keith - and you damn well know it."
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 11:31 AM

"LIAR. RACIST.BIGOT!"
No proof then - ah well - stet.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 11:43 AM

Keith, Bill Woodcock - is he a friend of yours?

How well do you know him? o o
                           !
                         (O)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 11:49 AM

Jim:
Thank you in return for your moderate response; but I would point out that you refer once again to 'prostitution' in your reply to Keith in the same post. I would refer you back again to my argument in my previous post addressed to you, that grooming for sexual abuse, which is the alleged offence at issue, is not the same offence as organising prostitution, & that the introduction & reiteration of this element in your argument is a distraction from the main point.

Cobra:
I note the previous accusation against Keith which you have pertinently revived; and take it into account in considering his arguments. & I do appreciate its force. It does not, however, seem to me to be absolutely fatal to the points he has been making, in the main cogently in my view, on this thread.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 11:53 AM

Cobra, I have never pretended to be anyone else.
It was obvious to all that the troll would never have admitted his lie and said sorry.
It was obviously me playing games with him.
No deception.

In all my researches on this, I have found no evidence at all of this kind of child abuse in Ireland.
I hope that is a comfort to you, Lox and Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 12:02 PM

Jim: I note your reply on that other thread I have refreshed, to which I have replied there. On your last address to me on this one, I can't see where I mentioned your having any brief for any religion, so don't see why you went out of your way to deny any such. As to nevertheless, recognising racism when you see it; in view of your remarks on the other thread, are you absolutely convinced that you find and recognise it here on this one?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 12:17 PM

Keith writes:-

"Cobra, I have never pretended to be anyone else.
It was obvious to all that the troll would never have admitted his lie and said sorry.
It was obviously me playing games with him.
No deception."

Sorry matey, that just does not cut it. You were yellow-carded. And not just once. Too easy to claim the "playing games" with a troll defence.But I suppose when all else fails, dissembling and making things up will always be in your toolkit.

And then there is this:-

"In all my researches on this, I have found no evidence at all of this kind of child abuse in Ireland.
I hope that is a comfort to you, Lox and Jim."

What, exactly, has this got to do with the price of eggs? Not relevant and an unecessary diversion on your part. Presumably you see it as some class of a tactical manouevre?

So, who IS Bill Woodcock? Let me put it another way.... does he share your house with you? Or is he merely an imaginary friend?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 12:42 PM

I give up Cobra.
Who is he?
You say you have reviewed my posts since joining.
Nearly 5000.
You sad man to be so obsessed.
If you can find any actual deception by me, I will make no more posts for you to scrutinise.
That is an easy promise for me to make.
I am always happy when the opposition switches to character assasination.
It means they have lost the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 01:16 PM

"If you can find any actual deception by me,"
Posting as you did under an alias (and providing yourself with the support you were not getting elsewhere, as you also did) is deception Keith - as is trying to pass it off as a joke when you're caught out.
"It means they have lost the argument."
Sorry to be the bearer of (yet more) bad news, but superior argument 'wins' arguments, not (yet more) empty rhetoric.
I'd quite like to know what the 'child abuse' bit was all about as well.
Mike;
My 'religious' stance reference was made generally and should not have been addressed directly to you - I'm pretty sure you know where I stand spiritually.
Was under the impression that prostitution was one of the issues here - I apologise if I have misunderstood - will read through this somewhat tortuous thread again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 01:23 PM

Keith, with respect, if anyone is an obsessive it is surely you. Reading your previous posts was not a pleasant chore, let me assure you. However, I felt it only fair to look at your ouevre in its entirety so as not to fall into the tendency for demonisation which we have all seen on messageboards.

Far from being an ad hominem attack on you, looking over your back catalogue has been a salutary experience. You manufacture theories on the flimsiest of fact and you come across as much more driven by opinion - usually at the expense of fact. You are opinionated in the extreme. That is no crime in itself, however the overwhelming majority of highly opinionated people have taken the time to look meaningfully at existing data and information and then present their own coherent and logical synthesis. You do not do that. You merely Google newspaper reports and regurgitate them verbatim, or selectively filleted to endorse your own view.

This is also interesting in that you have actually owned up, on this thread, to having no opinion of your own and that you are merely restating what other, more qualified people are claimed by you to have said. It is clear from your input that the context in which others have spoken or contributed newspaper etc articles means nothing to you. And yet, you have the temerity to accuse me of having a "twisted agenda". You have yet to explain precisely what is my agenda and how you have deduced it.

You have also persistently fought shy of answering direct questions, most recently two days ago when I invited you on a number of occasions to address the points I had raised. You refused to do so because it "would take days" and then you asked me to resubmit my issues one at a time as it would be easier for you that way. Reading your back catalogue has made it very clear that this is your stock in trade. It is easy to dissemble, to prevaricate and to indulge in sophistry. You have done it with abaandon on virtually every thread with which you have been involved. In fact, I would go as far as to say yours is the classical behaviour of a messageboard troll.

I will not allow you to claim an ad hominem attack. The archive speaks for itself and your claim that you were playing a game in responding to your own posts is patently ridiculous. Your latest diversionary tactic has been to ascribe WORDS IN BLOCK CAPITALS which you would have us believe are all Lox and others have said to you. But, yet again, this is merely a smokescreen to cover up the fact that your arguments are intellectually bereft and you have once again resorted to the victimhood role you have so often adopted in the past when you run out of logical argument.

No sir, reading your previous posts was neither obsessive nor done in anger. It was, nevertheless, a salutary experience showing as it did that you are an incredibly one-dimensional individual, your posts demonstrating that you are consistently lacking in intellectual vigour or, indeed, honesty. The good news is that, having done it once, I can now consign the memory to the dustbin.

I would suggest to you that the mark of a real obsessive is the creation of aliases and imaginary friends. If messageboards have that effect on you, I would suggest that you get out before you slide further into lunacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 02:00 PM

Mike
"I would point out that you refer once again to 'prostitution' in your reply to Keith in the same post."
Just checked - throughout this thread posters, Keith included, have referred to "pimps' and "pimping".
A pimp, according to my dictionary, is someone who lives off the earnings of prostitutes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 02:27 PM

Yes, that is so indeed, Jim; and I did not intend to convey there is no ref to 'pimping'. But I think the word misused in context: the main trend of the thread has been to address those statistics which are the ones on which Straw, Ahmed, Warsi, Alibhai Brown, Hilary ?? et al were commenting, which appeared to show an astounding %age preponderance of British Pakistani men involved in grooming underage girls for sexual exploitation; and to which the application of the word 'pimping' was something of a shorthand catachresis. Did you not find it so in going back over it? It is this which, I believe, inspired Brian May to OP the thread; & certainly which drew the greatest reaction of 'racism' accusations from Lox, Steve, Don T. et al; &, latterly it appeared to me, yourself. Even if that was not your principal point, that nevertheless seems to me to fit in with the flow of the thread.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 02:34 PM

Jim,
"and providing yourself with the support you were not getting elsewhere, as you also did)"

Never happened JIm.
That is untrue.
Put up or shut up.

The other one could never have been taken to really be the Troll.
It was obvious to anyone and everyone it was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 02:36 PM

Jim I never referred to pimping, unless it was in a quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 02:43 PM

If anyone wants to see my supposed deception in context, read from here, and make up your mind.
thread.cfm?threadid=113936&messages=92#2427855

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 03:36 PM

"Put up or shut up"
It's already been put up Keith - read the posts - but here goes again:
"Keith, I have found no bigotry or slurs in your posts.
I take it back.
I am ashamed."
The reference you put up leading to your posting as 'Oakville' confirms this exactly - a fake post - what's your point?
"Jim I never referred to pimping, unless it was in a quote."
There were numerous quotes - really can't be bothered counting them - which included the term 'pimp' - you chose the quotes, it's a little late to disassociate from it when it becomes 'inconvenient'.
Also, when I and others asked you to clarify your stance on Pakistani "pimping" you made it perfectly clear that you had no problem with the term.
Please Keith - when you're in a hole, stop digging! Once again I'm beginning to feeling a little embarrased on your behalf.
Mike;
You may well be right that 'pimping' has been used as a shorthand; it's a long thread and I came to it quite late.
My concern is, and remains, that accusations of a crime were being made, without proof, against a single national/religious (bit of an ambiguity there as well) community, and it is this which persuaded me to join in, especially given Keith's track record (on sectarianism particularly). I would probably have reacted similarly if the accusation had been driving without license and insurance!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 03:54 PM

They were not being made "without proof", Jim. The point is, they were based on comparatively small numbers but greatly preponderant %age-wise as to the demographic under consideration, of judicial convictions for this specific offence of grooming-exploitation of under-age girls. As they were based on actual convictions, they can scarcely be claimed to be unproved. And my point throughout has been that to denounce these facts, which are not ∴ unproved, or even in dispute, as instances of racism is liable to be counter-productive and inimical to genuine objections to genuine instances of racism, for the reasons adduced on my "catch-all" thread, with which you have expressed yourself as in agreement. The idiomatic phrase, based on Æsop, for such counter-productive activities is 'crying wolf'; which it seems to me is what Lox, Steve, Don & the rest have been doing right thru this thread.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 04:02 PM

Some of you people are idiots.

Keith post that message pretending to be someone else ONCE and got caught.

It was over two years ago.

Our identity swiping troll, the one who keeps posting Keith's old, OLD message has posted as other people uncountable numbers of times, but you're all out to get Keith.

Trolls are just fine with you as long as they're persecuting someone you don't like, right?

You don't look terribly strong or righteous when you get the identity grabbers to speak for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 04:21 PM

Jim, that post where I made him say sorry for lying about me, I already explained.
It was not believable and never intended to be.
Use my link.

You also said ""and providing yourself with the support you were not getting elsewhere, as you also did)"

Not true.
I never have.
Nor have I used the word pimp.

Lox, in that years old thread, you asked for the source for my statement about IRA, Nazis and cleansing Europe of Jews.
The Ireland History site was down then.
If you are still interested, here it is.
http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume13/issue3/features/?id=113841

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 04:37 PM

Jeri, them's the breaks.

Fella from the village I grew up was caught shagging a sheep.... one lousy sheep. He was known as Sheepshagger for the rest of his life.

One lousy sheep, one lousy time. That's all it took.

That's all it takes, Jeri. A bit like pregnant, if you think about it. There is no such thing as "a little bit pregnant".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 04:42 PM

Oh, by the way, Jeri I assume it is me you are referring to as the "identity swiping troll"?

If so, who else have I been posting as???

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 05:28 PM

Jim,
"Keith's track record (on sectarianism particularly)."

A wicked groundless smear jim.
I have never made a post that could remotely be described as sectarian.
When we discussed the marches, I just put Sinn Fein's view.
Again, put up or shut up Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 08:04 PM

"They were not being made "without proof", Jim."
Yes they were Mike - nobody ever disputed the fact that some Asians were involved in grooming girls - they/we disputed that the grooming and pimping of girls was a major Asian(BP) acivity.
You seem to forget that some of us have been here before with Keith and his support for beligerant sectarian marches/use of chemical weapons on civilians/blaming children on three days of rioting/massacre of unarmed civilians/posting of fake messages......
I suggest you take a leaf out of Cobra's book and read through some of his disturbing (and disturbed IMO) postings. No matter how much the lady protesteth, it's all on record.
I'm awa' tae ma bed - g'night all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:19 AM

Whatever might be Keith's record on other threads, Jim, I prefer to judge each case on its merits (a casuist, perhaps, in the non-pejorative sense), and it has seemed to me that he was being attacked here because of what he might have said elsewhere, regardless of whether or not what he said here made sense: which does not seem fair dealing to me.

Once again, the only allegations to which I, at any event, was referring thruout were those, few but statistically significant in their undisputed demographic disproportion, where convictions for the offence at issue [grooming, NOT immoral earnings &c] had occurred; and these are not 'without proof'. These are the ones commented on by Straw, Warsi & all those others, and to which Keith's comments were addressed as I perceived it. It is no argument to go on, which seems to have been the basis many on here were working on, about how many other demographics have been involved in how many other sex-related offences: might just as well say that a proven rapist should be acquitted because he wasn't the only one, and anyhow murder is worse and there are lots of murderers.

Which is why I engaged with your involvement here, Jim, & challenged your conclusions, which I will frankly say do not appear to me to be worthy of what I know to be your usual clear-thinking intellectual level. And indeed you have now pretty well admitted that, misled by loose use of the word 'pimp', you were under impression we were writing of a different offence from the one actually at issue. As you once said to me when I tried to defend Margaret T from some of her less rational detractors, you are better than that.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:41 AM

The recent posts by Jim and Michael are a perfect example of how two people with diametrically opposed viewpoints, a firm grasp of the English language and decent writing skills can carry on an intelligent, civilised discussion which, whilst probably never leading to agreement between them, at least stands a chance of coming to a successful accomodation. A pleasure to read.

Certain other contributors should also read them.........and learn.

IMHO, YMMV etc., etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 02:46 AM

"Certain other contributors should also read them.........and learn."

Contributors to other 'British' threads too, where insults abound, personal feuds and vendettas are pursued, and very private dirty washing is aired.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 03:25 AM

Mike,
My concerns throughout this argument have been that the undisputed fact that some Pakistani men have been involved in sexually preying on women, underage or otherwise has been taken out of proportion and used against British immigrants.
Not only do I believe that Keith has done this, but he has taking it a step further by suggesting that this is not just individuals behaving abominably and illegally but is the result of their culture.
That, for me, is racism at its most dangerous - 'These immigrants are not just evil, but are culturally damaged.
Below is the full text of an article posted by Keith, and used, IMO out of context.
Jim Carroll

CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING STUDY SPARKS EXAGGERATED RACIAL STEREOTYPING
Authors of study on 'on-street grooming' in the north and Midlands, where young girls have been targeted on the streets and at school gates, are concerned their findings about Pakistani gangs have been generalised. Photograph: Gari Wyn Williams/Alamy
Researchers into child sex trafficking within the UK have warned of the dangers of racial stereotyping amid claims of a widespread problem of British Pakistani men exploiting under-age white girls.
Authors of the first independent academic analysis looking at "on-street grooming", where young girls, spotted outside, including at the school gates, have become targets, said they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type".Authors of study on 'on-street grooming' in the north and Midlands, where young girls have been targeted on the streets and at school gates, are concerned their findings about Pakistani gangs have been generalised.
Researchers into child sex trafficking within the UK have warned of the dangers of racial stereotyping amid claims of a widespread problem of British Pakistani men exploiting under-age white girls.
Authors of the first independent academic analysis looking at "on-street grooming", where young girls, spotted outside, including at the school gates, have become targets, said they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type".
The authors, Helen Brayley and Ella Cockbain, from UCL's Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, said they were surprised their research, confined to just two police operations in the north and Midlands, which found perpetrators were predominantly but not exclusively from the British Pakistani community, had been cited in support of the claims that such offences were widespread.
Their comments follow claims that a culture of silence has impeded investigations into a hidden pattern of offending by British Pakistani gangs sexually abusing hundreds of young white girls.
The view points to the convictions of 56 men, all but three of whom were Asian and most from the British Pakistani community, found guilty of sexual offences involving on-street grooming. There have been 17 court cases in 13 urban areas in the north and Midlands since 1997.
The most recent case involved the conviction of nine men in November on sexual offence charges, relating to 27 victims in Derby, 22 of whom where white.
Nick Clegg has called such criminal pimping gangs "grotesque", and Keith Vaz, chair of the Commons home affairs committee, has called for a police inquiry.
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth organisation, has condemned the perpetrators, claiming they believed that "white girls have fewer morals" and are "less valuable" than Muslim girls.
But Brayley and Cockbaine, whose six-month study was cited as evidence, said they were worried that limited data had been extended "to characterise an entire crime type, in particular of race and gender". They challenged claims that white girls were deliberately sought out by offenders. "Though the majority … were white so too were the majority of local inhabitants." Comparing the percentage of white people in the areas with black and ethnic minorities, their data, they said, showed "black and ethnic minority girls over-represented among the victims".
They added: "This challenges the view that white girls are sought out by offenders, suggesting instead that convenience and accessibility may be the prime drivers for those looking for new victims."
Conclusions from their study were cited in an investigation by the Times into the subject, which sparked calls for Home Office research.
Hilary Willmer, of the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping, said that since 2002 her group had supported 400 families where girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men. "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg." But she cautioned against treating the matter as a race crime. "It's a criminal thing."
According to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, in 2009, the victims were mainly "white British in their mid and late teens" but also Bangladeshi and Afro-Caribbean. Networks of "white British, British Asians and Kurds had been "identified" as internal traffickers, with ethnic and national background varied "between groups" and geography.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 03:54 AM

I take your point, Jim, about ill-motivated racists over-extrapolating from these small but unfortunate occurrences and statistics, and deplore such a misuse of the facts and statistics as much as anyone; but I maintain my point that your use of the phrase "without proof", with ref to occasions when convictions had been recorded after all due process, was unjustified and inaccurate. That, and the confusion occasioned by the word 'pimp' having been used in an inappropriate context, were really the only points at which I took issue with you. But I think they were genuine and justified points of disagreement which needed airing.

I hate racism as much as anyone; but I also deplore the use of the term as wolf-crying, smokescreen-spreading evasion of certain facts which some over-enthusiatic anti-racists will so often resort to ~~ the subject, indeed, of that other thread of mine to which you have expressed general agreement.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 03:59 AM

Jim,
"the undisputed fact that some Pakistani men have been involved in sexually preying on women, underage or otherwise"

Grooming is only a crime if against children.
As their id evedence that a disproportionate number of BPs are involved, it is quite reasonable to ask why.
People who know the culture, and some members of it blame the culture.
They convinced me.
That does not make me racist.

Now I have to defend myself from Jim's personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 04:13 AM

"Keith and his support for beligerant sectarian marches/use of chemical weapons on civilians/blaming children on three days of rioting/massacre of unarmed civilians/posting of fake messages......"

Fake messages.
I did it once under extreme provocation from trolling Guests lying about me and the mods ignoring it.
There was no intention to deceive. It was obvious what I was doing.
The troll would hardly not notice!
I still feel betrayed that Joe sided with the trolls.

Sectarian marches.
Sinn Fein said that hardly any of the parades ever cause trouble and they should be allowed to enjoy them.
I agreed.
Only one march caused troube, days before the parade, and the troublemakers were school kids and bussed in dissidents.
Even the Derry parades were trouble free.
Your problem can only be that you hate to see the prods enjoying their one cultural tradition.
That is sectarian.

Chemical weapons.
Jim insisted on calling white phosphorus smoke a chemical weapon.
No one else in the world defines it as such.
All armed forces use it, including the Irish.

Massacre of Civillians.
Well what's wrong with that?
That is disgusting Jim.

I am happy to be defending myself from personal attack.
They would not need to do it if their case was strong enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 04:55 AM

Now trolling guests, like this turd, get deleted (eventually)
Not so back then.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 05:03 AM

"I did it once under extreme provocation from trolling Guests lying about me and the mods ignoring it."
Make up your mind Keith - you claimed you did it is a joke because nobody would take it seriously - stick to the story we agreed on!!
"I still feel betrayed that Joe sided with the trolls."
Joe took the line that everybody else did - your behaviour was unacceptable, yet you continue to attempt to excuse it.
"Now I have to defend myself from Jim's personal attacks."
Not personal attacks Keith, just opposition to your abhorrent ideas
Mike
"without proof"
The emphasis throughout this thread has been on 'documented' evidence - which is non-existant on the crimes Keith would lay at the door of Pakistani/Muslim culture as a whole.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 05:11 AM

Now those trolling lying guests would be deleted .
Then I was left at their mercy.
I did complain about it.
Use the link I supplied.
So I used their guest identity to tease them and make them look silly.
Did you see how cross it made them?
No decpetion intended or achieved.
I was the good guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 05:14 AM

Here is that link again.
Read from here.
thread.cfm?threadid=113936&messages=92#2427855

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 05:41 AM

You mean the one that includes this

"From: GUEST,Oakville - PM
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:18 PM
Keith, I have found no bigotry or slurs in your posts.
I take it back.
I am ashamed.
      This message appears to have been posted by Keith A of Hertford. That's not allowed, Keith - and you damn well know it.
      -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 05:51 AM

I'm not really interested in trolls or slander.


In fact, slander is my big bugbear.


Racial Slander for example.


I have posted the ONLY academic study on this subject.

It CONTRADICTS Keiths hypothesis.


Helen Wilmer, (Keiths star witness) CONTRADICTS Keiths hypothesis.


In addition, I have pointeds out the flaws in Keiths arguments and pointed out the weaknesses in the OPINIONS of his little gang of "expert" politicians.


You have no case - just a desire to slander British Pakistanis.


You are not interested in discovering the truth, but only in proving that British Pakistanis are closet perverts.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 06:02 AM

Keith, seeing Lox's post, I thought I might help you out here as I know you will wish to respond. So, the following is posted on your behalf. I know it is what you would want to post and now I have saved you the bother. :-)

IT CAN'T BE TRUE.
IT JUST CAN'T!
LIAR. RACIST.BIGOT!

No, don't thank me. Always happy to help.

Now about my unanswered questions......

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 06:56 AM

Can we be clear what Keith actually did.
Against the rules of the forum, Guest Oakville opened the thread.
Joe Offer, reasonably to my mind, pointed out the rule, but, as the poster was known to other members, allowed it to go ahead.
Despite this ruling Keith, attempted to have Oakville ejected - he always has had a 'wannabe adjudicator' complex.
The thread went ahead, with Keith and the OP (and others of course) clashing thoughout - particularly on Ireland.
Keith then faked his posting in the OP's name, giving the impression that the latter had had a 'Road to Damascus' and had seen the light.
The OP was not trolling as claimed, but simply disagreeing with Keith - for which, no doubt, he will suffer hell-fire and eternal damnation!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 06:56 AM

Jim [and others]:
Mike - "without proof" - The emphasis throughout this thread has been on 'documented' evidence - which is non-existant on the crimes Keith would lay at the door of Pakistani/Muslim culture as a whole. Jim Carroll
===
Despite the flak aimed at him, and the misdemeanours re Guest-posts defending himself brought up from his past record, I do not see Keith on this thread as trying to 'lay crimes at the door of Pakistani/Muslim culture as a whole'; or indeed 'at the door' of anyone. Rather, it seems to me, he has been explicitly speculating [and no more than that], on possible reasons for this demographic's acknowledged preponderance in the proved & documented offences whose existence you do not gainsay.

Some of his speculations may be true, others false; but speculations is all that I perceive them as being. It is surely a recognised fact, undisputed by their own community, that many Pakistani males do marry late, often in arranged marriages with relatives. It is surely worth at least a guess that such a situation might just have on a small minority of the men concerned a frustrating effect leading to their seeking some sort of relief elsewhere. Likewise it is surely the case that the 'infidel' is held in disrespect in certain sections of their community. And that some young binge-drinking females outside the Islamic community do behave publicly in an unworthy fashion which might lead some to consider their moral principles deficient. And all these facts taken as a whole might lead to the sort of speculations [which I say, yet again, is all I perceive them to be] in which Keith has been indulging.

Fair's fair ~~ to Keith as much as to everybody else, whatever may be considered his past record ~~

Isn't it?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 07:01 AM

And then we examined those speculations to see if they had merit.

It turned out that the only reliable research contradicted them, and they didn't stande the test of scrutiny.

But Keith isists on sticking up for them.

At which point they cease to be speculation and become blinkered dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 07:05 AM

Ha! you guys have surely lost the argument wupportinghen you start supporting " Oakville".....anyone reading Keiths link can work out he was taking the piss!

Later in the thread he was twice warned by Joe for trouble making.

Get a grip!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 07:19 AM

IT CAN'T BE TRUE.
IT JUST CAN'T!
LIAR. RACIST.BIGOT!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 07:36 AM

Jim,
"Keith has done this, but he has taking it a step further by suggesting that this is not just individuals behaving abominably and illegally but is the result of their culture.
That, for me, is racism at its most dangerous "

Is it impossible for a culture to predispose to aberrant behaviour.
If it were true, would it be racist to say so.

An argument you may have missed.
A sect in India called Thuggee were predisposed to murder.
It is true.
Is it racist?

BPs are predisposed to marry cousins, resulting in very high child and infant mortality.
It is true.
Is it racist?
(Don says it is racist to call them BPs.
You are guilty Jim.
Oh dear, oh dear)

Lox,
"Helen Wilmer, (Keiths star witness) CONTRADICTS Keiths hypothesis."
No she does not.
She says that of the hundreds of victims she worked with the perpetrators are BPs

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 07:46 AM

Jim,
"Joe Offer, reasonably to my mind, pointed out the rule, but, as the poster was known to other members, allowed it to go ahead."

Joe later admitted that was a mistake, and subjected him to the usual rules for anon. guests.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 08:00 AM

So, Keith, you state: "Joe later admitted that was a mistake, and subjected him to the usual rules for anon. guests"

I think Joe was honest and showed that he is open to being influenced by the weight of others' opinions. That does not mean that he is diminished in any way in the eyes of others. Quite the contrary in fact.

And yourself? You still cannot acknowledge that what YOU did in that thread was wrong and no amount of squirming re your rationale will make that stark fact go away. You posted as someone else in order to subvert a thread. FACT. One sheep, old boy, one sheep....

Returning to this thread, you have continually evaded direct questions, refused to read posts seeking answers from you because they are too long(!) and "it would take days to respond". You have also avoided, ad nauseam, the specific issues raised regarding your WikiWarrior-ing, your Google C&Ps and your selective filleting of others' expert assessments, doing so to suit your own argument (but, then, you say you have no opinions of your own!)and on occasion completely subverting your chosen "experts') overall thesis.

Are you really surprised that you continually bring so much opprobrium on your head? For heavens sake, man, grow up!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 08:06 AM

Lox, I can't believe this!
"I have posted the ONLY academic study on this subject."

You refer to that Guardian piece that I have quoted and linked to, and jim for some reason has just pasted in the whole piece.

All the authors challenge is that all the victims were white.
I acknowledged they were not in my very first post on this subject, 23rd Jan.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 08:23 AM

Cobra, put up any questions (max two per post) and I PROMISE to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 09:04 AM

No contradiction there fake guest.

They are so desperate to smear me, it is comic.
They call me bigot and racist and liar, but because I am none of those things they have nothing on me.

All they have is that one post, to get back at a lying troll who Joe later accepted should never have been allowed to open the thread at all!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 09:15 AM

The fake guest Joy bringer actually stole the identity of an actual bigot!
You could not make that up!

From: GUEST,Joy Bringer - PM
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 03:24 PM

"Those who are the most vociferous in their condemnation of homosexuality often have issues with their own sexuality that they haven't the courage to face"

That old cry is worn out Don.

I used to hear it from the ladies at work if I remarked on some guy in the office who had a charm to care piles. I have always had a healthy interest in adult women. The thought of a man applying tissue damage to an annal passage of another man is repulsive. What is even worse is when you have to listen to them promote their filth on television or net. I don't come on here to tell you I jockeyed my girlfriend last night and this morning and go into detail. I came across a programme on Channel four last week were two fruit flies were detailing their bedroom games. I turned it off. Sickening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been contacted by a number of folks asking me, in my role as Forum Moderator, to do something about the homophobic posts by Joy Bringer. I have looked at these posts carefully, and I don't see anything that would constitute a reason for deletion or blocking. While I do not share this person's views, in fact I find them ugly, s/he is simply expressing an opinion in a thread about a controversial subject. It is not our role to screen posts for content, but rather to screen them for personal attacks, or in some cases, for hijacking of a thread. We might also delete if they are simply going for sensationalism with no content, or just attempting to be vulgar. None of those apply here. And one simply cannot have a thread about a subject of controversy and expect all posts to be what we like to hear. All the best, Big Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 09:18 AM

Keith Hypothesizes that recent trafficking crimes in the North of England are peculiar in nature to British Pakistani culture.

Helen Wilmer says that the crimes have the characer of those committed by International Gangs.


That is a flat contradiction of Keiths position.


Keith describes Street Greooming as being a distinct new crime type.

The authors of the only academic report on the subject say that the notion that these crimes represent a new crime type is wrong/


That is a flat contradiction of Keiths position.


So once again, Keith has to be clear whather he is a liar or merely wilfully ignorant.

Either way, his views misrepresent the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 09:19 AM

Keith - I have described your actions on another thread - whatever Joe decided at a later date, you overruled his decision and faked an identity. I don't follow football, but it amazes me that you weren't asked to leave the field and take an early shower (and debarred from playing in ---- future matches). The fact that you are still unable to see this says all that needs to be said.
"If it were true, would it be racist to say so."
Your quote
"I believe that sexual repression is behind this crime.
It is well known that it drives some men to commit sex crimes.
Apply it to a close knit community and it is a reasonable extrapolation that some will conspire in the crime."
"A sect in India called Thuggee were predisposed to murder."
Members of a 'sect' in Ireland were found to have raped children - probably for generations.
It is not racist or sectarian to point this out.
It would be sectarian to claim that all Catholics are potential rapists.
It would also be racist to claim that all Irish Catholics or Irish Catholics living in England, or Scotland, or wherever were potential rapists because they had been brought up in that religion.
"BPs are predisposed to marry cousins"
I really wouldn't go there if I were you, considering the history of our Royal family, and some of our own great and good.
I haven't witnessed anybody defending the darker side of Muslim culture (my own two favourite books of all times are 'Kite Runner' and, better still, 'A Thousand Splendid Suns'), but if history should have taught us anything it is (a) That it should be the job of members of any said culture to comes to terms with problems that aspects of that culture raises and put them right, and (b) Something about glass houses and stones!
Disapproving of aspects of any culture only when we are not depending on them for oil can be said to be selective racism, yes.
I understand that 'our friend in Libya' is no longer acceptable, though I did hear a nice Conservative lady minister tell an audience on Thursday night that it was ok to have sold the weapons that are now being used against demonstrators because "It is the right of all nations to defend themselves". It took an audience member to mention oil!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 09:28 AM

Lox, I do not know what she meant by "the character" of the gangs so do not know if it contradicts, but this is unequivocal corroboration of what the other witnesses said,
Hilary Willmer, of the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping, said that since 2002 her group had supported 400 families where girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men. "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg."

And Lox, where is this from?
"The authors of the only academic report on the subject say that the notion that these crimes represent a new crime type is wrong"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 09:30 AM

So, is it racist to say it if it happened to be true?
900

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 10:38 AM

"So, is it racist to say it if it happened to be true?"
Without documentary evidence truth is apparently what you claim to be true.
"We THINK this is the tip of the iceberg." -- my emphasis.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 11:18 AM

Hyperthetically, if it were true, would it be racist?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 11:52 AM

Oops! That last one was me.

"Cookie corrupted" apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 11:54 AM

That last one which was me with the "corrupted cookie" has apparently been eaten by the cookie monster.

Dayum! One of my best posts as well. Can't be arsed to re-type it since Keith likely wouldn't answer the questions anyways.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:01 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:01 PM

"So, is it racist to say it if it happened to be true?"

If in your search for the truth, after examing all the evidence and looking at all the possible explanations, you discover that the ONLY explanation is one based on Race and culture, then you have yourself a case.

In this case,we started with a conclusion based on racial discrimination, and you have been fighting tooth and nail to support it for around a month.

If you were genuine about investigating the causes of crimes like these you would do so by examining all possible influences and doing genuine comparisons with other trafficking gangs.

Until then all you have is racial slander.


"And Lox, where is this from?"

If you can remember where to find the original post you will find it.

It is in the Guardian Article.

As it is already posted to this thread you can go and find it for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:03 PM

I promised, but no more than 2 at a time please.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:16 PM

I can not find it Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:19 PM

In fact, keith has been diligently and loyally defending a hypothesis based exclusively on racial grounds since January 23rd (more than a month).

This is despite the fact that British Pakistani Men are subject to a myriad of multicultural influences, not least many aspects of British culture.

It is also despite the fact that the Racially grounded hypothesis is contradicted by the evidence.

It is also despite the fact that The only academic study and the Keiths star witness Helen Wilmer both contradict his hypothesis.

It is also despite the fact that his hypothesis has been shown not to stand up to logical scrutiny.

Keith has refused to respond to the logical problems raised.

He has refused to consider that there are other cultural influences, much less consider any of those cultural influences as possible candidates.


All he has done is restate a behavioural hypothesis grounded on a racial p[remise and back it up with the opinions of people who agree with him.


That is it - no more no less.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:40 PM

You have said all that before, and none of it stands up.

Was that statement in the Guardian piece or not?

If it was true that a sexually repressive culture caused a predisposition, would it be racist to say it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dessert Dancer
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:50 PM

I think there is something in what Keith says here. For example, here is an example of statistics I compiled for month moth last September 2010. These are complied from police reports.

September 24th,  "ANGRY and rejected" at being spurned by a woman on a night out, Yassin Mohamed reacted by dragging a 19 year old student off an Oxford street and raping her. Mohamed told her not to scream or he would kill he. Mohamed inflicted hours of a humiliating series of sexual acts", on the young woman, that lasted until after 6am.  The young woman's bank card was used to remove £300 from her account — the offender having forced her to tell him her PIN." Aside from the horrific and repeated rapes, the victims - who had never had sex before- suffered 13 injuries to her neck and head and was too distressed to have a full doctor's examination. Mohamed pled guilty.

Eleventh --- September 27th, Police release an e-fit image of a many who sexually assaulted a West Yorkshire woman while she was slept in her own bed in her own home. The man is described as an "Asian man in his 20s or 30s".  "The victim of this attack is currently being cared for by specially trained professionals" 

Twelfth --- September 29th, a 23-year-old woman was seriously sexually assaulted by a man who approached her as she walked along a canal tow path in Lancashire. The woman was walking along the bank off Colne Road in Burnley on Tuesday when a man came up to her and struck up a conversation. The man then forced her to some rough grassland where he attacked her. Police said the man is Asian, 5ft 8in (1.7m) tall with a round face and cleanly shaven.

Thirteenth ---September 30th, A 24-year-old Oldbury man who took part in the brutal gang rape of a teenage girl has been put behind bars for eight years. Ibrar Mohammed was one of five men involved in the terrifying sex attack on their 17-year-old victim after she had been taken to a house in the area. Mohammed of Walford Street together with Harjinder Singh 25 and Haider Kanwal 30, both of Vicarage Street. All found guilty by a jury at Wolverhampton Crown Court. All three men they must register as Sex Offenders for the rest of their life. One man wasn't prosecuted and a fifth man has fled the country.

Fourteenth ---September 30th, Minicab driver, Qamar Zaman, 33, is being tried for grabbing, stroking and molesting a pregnant woman who was a passenger on a taxi journey from Haworth to the Keighley area. The woman was left shocked and shaken after the sexual assault. Mr. Zaman says that he is the victim as the unnamed woman "racially abused & underpaid" him.

** UPDATED ** Fifteenth --- September 30, A serial sex offender is suspected of carrying out a string of attacks on women in south Manchester in the last month. Police have released details of the six attacks they believe were carried out by the latest suspected offender:
Wednesday, 1 September 2010 - 1pm: a nurse aged in her 30s was sexually assaulted on Nelson Street
Wednesday 15 September 2010 - 4pm: a student was assaulted on Curzon Avenue
Saturday 18 September 2010 - 7.30pm/8.30pm: two teenage girls were sexually assaulted in Crowcroft Park
Wednesday 22 September 2010 - 3am: a teenage student was assaulted on Old Hall Lane
Saturday 25 September 2010 - 3am/4am: a woman in her early 20s was sexually assault on Booth Street West Thursday 30 September 2010 - 9pm: a woman in her 40s was assaulted on Hart Road

Police said the offender is described as an Asian man between 5ft 4in and 6ft tall. He is described as having a medium to "chubby" build with a rounded or chubby face.

Thus there has been an actual sexual assault or the prosecution of a sexual assault, committed by Muslim men, approximately every 1-2 days throughout the month of September 2010. There are 23 known victims along with untold numbers of little girl (as young as 4) victims of a paedophile ring and scores of young "virgin" teen girls pimped out to muslim millionaires.  27+ Muslim male rapists (including a serial rapist), sexual assaulters, paedophiles & 1 male and 2 female Muslim pimps committed these crimes.

We know that the Muslim population of Great Britain is mushrooming at a rate 10 times faster than the non-muslim population leaving one to make the educated conjecture that the numbers of rapes, sexual assaults, etc will also continue to explode.

Is it any wonder that half of teenage girls living in the UK's say they don't feel safe going out after dark? Plan UK chief executive Marie Staunton was quoted as saying: "Violence and fear of violence should not be allowed to rule girls' lives." SOURCE
She is right - nor should (sexual assault) violence be allowed to ruin men's, women's and boy's lives - but it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:58 PM

Here are Keith's latest contributions to open and honest discussion:-

1. "I promised, but no more than 2 at a time please"

and

2. "Lox I can't find it"

Both of the above reflect Keith's absolute refusal to acknowledge anything which others put to him in the course of discussion. In the case of #1 above, that is his way of telling me yet again that he will not read my posts where I have asked for clarification of his position on a number of points. He has claimed that it would take "at least a week" to respond so he instead requests that I resubmit my queries in separate posts containing "no more than two at a time".

Item no. 2 is his response to Lox when it was suggested that the information which Keith falsely posits as a defence of his position is already published further up the thread.

In both these instances what Keith is actually saying is that he prefers to obfuscate rather than have to admit that his "position" (he has no opinions of his own, remember)is untenable. It is not in Keith's make-up to meet anyone halfway so he will prevaricate and filibuster if it means he can avoid answering direct questions. It is typical of a playground bully's behaviour when he is fronted up. And that is what has happened to Keith.

That is why I, for one, will not be playing his shabby little game. My points requiring responses are all recorded on the thread. More than once, I might add. If Keith wants to act lazy that is his prerogative. What is undeniably clear now is that Keith's arguments have no moral or intellectual validity. He is not even man enough to put himself up for scrutiny and prefers to drag out the farce and throw in the occasional red herring. He has absolutely no cojones.

What chance is there of an honest and open dialogue with someone who has shown himself to be a pathological liar, someone who has been caught out in a deceit but denies it. Go on, Keith, tell me you were not warned by Joe for your duplicitousness. I dare you.

I think the only reason people do not fade away and allow you to wallow in the slurry of your racist, sectarian mind is that there is a very real need to challenge small and narrow-minded little fools like you in all your septic rantings.

You sad little man.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:02 PM

I could not find it because it was not there.
Lox got it wrong.

Now, If it was true that a sexually repressive culture caused a predisposition, would it be racist to say it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:05 PM

All very interesting Dessert D. Two points however.

First, you cite a number of police reports - six to be precise. What do numbers two through tweelve say?

Second, the subject under consideration on this thread is the grooming of underage girls. I am not sure how the abhorrent crimes you cite are germane.

Please explain. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:09 PM

You say you could not find the piece to which Lox referred "because it was not there".

I dispute that but I will allow Lox to hoist you on your own petard in relation to that.

What I want to know is why you steadfastly refuse to address the questions I have raised with you.

PROMISE you will answer. Just PROMISE...lol.

I.....am..... so..... sleepy...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:11 PM

If you dispute it cobra, you find it!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:13 PM

So you refuse to answer the questions which I have put to you - on numerous occasions now? What a surprise!

And you also do not deny your deceit and admonition by Mods on this forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:14 PM

Desert Dancer
I wonder what the result would be if you compiled statistics on any other racial or cultural group?
Nobody is defending rapist thugs - that would be heartlessly stupid.
Nobody is claiming that there aren't rapist thugs in Asian communities - that would be blinkered and stupid.
Is anybody claiming that the result you have come up with is only to be found in the Asian community? That would be racist and stupid.
Is anybody claiming that it is Asian cultures that are at the root of such behaviour - that would be.... oh sorry, Keith is!!
"So, is it racist to say it if it happened to be true?"
What are you asking, or did you put this in to get your 900?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:45 PM

If it was true that a sexually repressive culture caused a predisposition, would it be racist to say it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:52 PM

So you refuse to answer the questions which I have put to you - on numerous occasions now? What a surprise!

And you also do not deny your deceit and admonition by Mods on this forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:56 PM

I have PROMISED to answer them.
But you wont put them.

You are afraid of my answers cobra.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 02:20 PM

Keith writes:

"I have PROMISED to answer them.
But you wont put them.

You are afraid of my answers cobra."

Oh yes, you have PROMISED to answer them. But, as a currency, your PROMISES are valueless. You will find I HAVE put them. But your game-playing so as to hide the paucity of your argument means you want them re-submitted. Were I to do that I am confident you would find another excuse not to answer.

As for being afraid of your answers, my sole concern would be that any effort you would need to put into answering a question from anyone on this thread would lead to a stroke. The detail of any answer would stand or, more likely, fall on its own...

You are fast becoming a parody of yourself.

So, tell me more about your deceit, Sheepshagger. :-)) You were caught out weren't you!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 02:23 PM

BTW, are you prepared to tell me yet what my alleged "sick, twisted agenda" is, and how you managed to deduce it from yours amd my "previous?

People are curious.

But then it is merely one more question you cannot and therefore will not answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 02:37 PM

No one remembers your questions cobra.
If you REALLY want me to answer, ask them again.

BTW, I did answer what your sick, twisted agenda was.
I do not have problems repeating things if you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 03:25 PM

This has now degenerated into one of those veryveryveryveryveryvery
BORING THREADS!

Goodbye thread....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 03:33 PM

"If it was true that a sexually repressive culture caused a predisposition, would it be racist to say it? "
If you could prove it beyond a doubt, and that it was the sole reason for such behaviour no, but until such time it remains firmly in the "all black men have big willies which they want to use on our white women" league.
You haven't even taken the firt tottering step of proving that (a) All the members of that culture are sexually repressed (nor how it effects the dominant males to the extent of making them potential rapists) and (b) How it appears not to have affected other communities with strong and distinctive sexual morays.
Nor, for that matter, how it appears to have no affect in their native country where sexual laws would be far mor stringently adherred to.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 03:46 PM

Keith says: "If you REALLY want me to answer, ask them again".

Too easy, Keith, and yet more obfuscation. Your unwillingness - no, inability - to answer speaks volumes. You know where my questions are. Deal with your own laziness and sophistry.


"BTW, I did answer what your sick, twisted agenda was.
I do not have problems repeating things if you want."

Please do. And, for good measure, please give me the date of the post so everyone can see you are talking through your hat once again.

Oh, and when you have done that, tell me all about being caught in a deception. Remember it? It was when you used Oakville to try and wriggle off your own hook. And when you are at it, who IS Bill Woodcock? Do you have many imaginary friends in that little head?

Now,in the meantime if it helps you, the following are the posts between us which deal with me being "bitter (and) twisted) and being "... agenda ridden...". The only other point you have made is that you and I fundamentally disagreed on Northern Ireland and that I once referred to you as a STAB (Stupid TA Ba**tard. I withdraw the STAB part now that I have more to do with you via this thread. Lumping you together with the TA is an insult to the men and women of that regiment. Abit harsh to use that as justification for me being those things you have claimed.

HERE YA GO....

"...someone as bitter, twisted and agenda ridden as Cobra..." to Lox, 14 February 0600hrs.

"... I note that on 14 February in this very thread you suggested that Lox was siding with someone you described as "bitter, twisted and agenda ridden ...(as Cobra)..." (see post dated 14 February). I would be grateful for an understanding as to how you reached that view. As far as I am aware we have no personal history. ...I am also intrigued to hear from you how you have deduced that I am "agenda ridden" ....what is my agenda and what proof do you have for your assertion? In specific terms, how, when and where have I articulated a "twisted agenda"? " - Cobra to Keith 23 Feb 7.28pm

"..I have nothing ... to add about your agenda.
Perhaps twisted was a bit strong.
I withdraw it...." Keith to cobra 24 Feb 7.33am

Please elaborate on how you identified my bitter and twisted agenda outside of these posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 03:55 PM

But, hypothetically, if true it would not be racist to say it.
As you say, we do not have absolute proof, but it might be true.
You can not be certain it is untrue, so it might not be racist to say it.
Supposing you truly believe it true.
Is it racist then?

BP Lord Ahmed does believe culture has caused a predisposition.
Is he a racist?
Likewise BP Mohammed Shafiq.
Is he a racist?
Likewise Jasmin Alibhai-Brown, a Muslim and half Pakistani.
Racist?
Would you like to tell her that?!
And, if anyone is convinced by their statements, do they become racists?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 04:09 PM

I am in agreement with MtheGM. This thread is now terminally boring. I will not indulge Keith;s BNP agenda any longer.

Goodbye thread and pi$$ off Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 04:09 PM

Cobra, we are trying to have a debate, but you just want to talk about me.
That is a bit creepy.
And you keep talking about Bill somebody.

My first answer about your agenda.

We have previous, on NI threads.
I speak against paramiltaries, blaming them for immense suffering and setting back the cause of a United Ireland.
You speak for Republican paramilitaries, and against Britain and me.
That is the agenda I referred to.
You have previously called me "STAB Keith."
My understanding is that the S is for stupid, and the B for bastard.
Your agenda.

I would like to add.
You admit to searching through OVER FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED of my posts.
That is more than a bit twisted cobra, but I am grateful.
You found not one post, worth putting up, that contained lies, racism or bigotry.
That is some testimonial.
Thank you.
Also it proves that Oakwood never found any.
So I only put true words in his mouth.
So no harm done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 04:43 PM

"I could not find it because it was not there.
Lox got it wrong."


More made up shit.

And Keith, just this once I will go and do your dirty work for you.

From the Guardian article:

-snip -

"But Brayley and Cockbaine, whose six-month study was cited as evidence, said they were worried that limited data had been extended "to characterise an entire crime type,""

- snip -


So Just to clarify, Brayley and Cockbaine Disagree with your view that this is a new crime type.


Keith - YOU have got it wrong.

You continue to support a racist idea for more than a month, regardless of the evidence and the arguments that have demolished your position.

Your facade of neutrality and respectability is gone.

You are 100% partisan and you are 100% loyal to an unsupported racist view.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 04:51 PM

"But, hypothetically, if true it would not be racist to say it.
As you say, we do not have absolute proof, but it might be true.
You can not be certain it is untrue, so it might not be racist to say it.
Supposing you truly believe it true.
Is it racist then?"

This is the most insane bit of utter nonsense ever committed to text.


If Keith says Pakistanis are closet perverts, and there is no evidence that it isn't true, then it might be true, and therefore if he believes its true then it isn't racist?


Well Keith, By your logic, If I believe you are a closet paedophile, though there is no evidence that you are, as there is no evidence showing you are not, then it could be true, in which case calling you a paedophile is not slander.


Prove that you are not a closet paedophile Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 05:39 PM

I was looking for some statement about new crime type.
There was not anything.
I do not understand your reasoning.
If that was what you meant, why did you not say so???

I am an outsider looking in.
Straw, Cryer, Ahmed , Allibhai-Brown say there is a cultural issue about that crime.
OK.
They know more than any of us.
I have no reason to doubt them, and certainly no reason to believe you and Jim over them.

That is no grounds for calling me racist.
Is Ahmed racist?
Allibhai-Brown racist?
Ridiculous!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 08:26 PM

"Cobra, we are trying to have a debate, but you just want to talk about me."
No he doesn't Keith - he has consistently challenged your obnoxious racist agenda. Once again, as you have been told on other threads many times before, you do not read what others have to say - it is you who wishes to draw attention to yourself.
Are the people you listed racist - who said they were? - I challenged the ones I did only on the basis of your claim that they were "impeccible sources" - such claims always arouse my suspicions.
If you want to present researched evidence (theirs or yours) that the behaviour in question is in any way culturally based, please feel free to do so.
So far, despite your somewhat pompously self-important "In all my researches on this", (not unlike your wonderful foot-in-mouth "my work is done here"); as in the past, your own 'researches' are half-digested cut-n-pastes which you then present, usually out of context, as in the case of the one headed "CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING STUDY SPARKS EXAGGERATED RACIAL STEREOTYPING" which you presented as a support to your argument, but which, in fact does the exact opposite and, even in its title, warns against the stereotyping arguments you are putting up. It doesn't come any more stereotyped than claiming that races as a whole behave the way they do because of flaws in their culture.
If you want to be taken seriously, for christ's sake, read what is being said, by others and by yourself!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 01:19 AM

Neither Cobra, you or anyone has ever identified a racist post of mine because I am no racist and have never made one.
You shout "RACIST" instead of debating arguments.

A typical Guardian headline, but the truth is there for all to see.
The survey proved a link between BPs and this crime, but did not prove it was widespread because of its limited scope.
Wilmer's statement provided unequivocal evidence that it is widespread.

You would make yourself ridiculous if you accused Allibhai Brown of racism.
My views are the same as hers.
You are ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 01:27 AM

Jim: 'It doesn't come any more stereotyped than claiming that races as a whole behave the way they do because of flaws in their culture.'
===
OK, I know I said goodbye; but Jim is usually worth responding to, so I have returned for the moment ~~ not the first time anyone has opted out & back in again: try counting the # of times SickoLox has done just that on this thread alone!

Jim, be fair. That is not what Keith claimed. It was rather that a very small but disproportionately over-represented minority of the race in question acted in a manner which needed explanation. It seemed to Keith, & seems to me too, that the answer might be found in some peculiarity of their culture occurring there more prominently than in that of others: such as e.g. the cultural conditioning to marry a relation late in life and be forbidden to approach one of one's own community before that, which is demonstrably an aspect of the culture concerned. That was surely all that Keith was [I use the word again, whatever that fool PsychoLox thinks] *speculating*.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 01:32 AM

To clarify even further, Jim, it was especially your use of the phrase "as a whole" which I considered particularly unfair to Keith, as he had never made any such claim. ~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 02:08 AM

If it was true, it would not be racist to say there is a link.
But it IS racist to say that, on the evidence, there is probably a link.
Ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 04:29 AM

"A typical Guardian headline,"
Which you quoted in support of your argument, but, as I said, is a warning against the very attitude you are displaying here.
And now has become "A typical Guardian headline".
Mike
"as a whole"
Statements such as this leaves me, and obviously others, with the impression that Keith is referring to the Muslim culture as a whole, or as near as '****' it.
"There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 04:39 AM

"The survey proved a link between BPs and this crime"

No it didn't.

The Authors made very clear that the study was too concentrated to support ANY such assertion.

They also clarified that not only is there no new crime type, but that there is no racial aspect.

Which CONTRADICTS Keiths view.

Keiths dishonesty is not fooling anyone.

An analogy (which I have used before)

It would be like drawing conclusions about Italian culture based on an analysis of the Mafia.

As most Mafiosi are Italian, therefore Italians are predisposed to organized crime.

There is no evidence that this is a Pakistani Problem, or that it is widespread.

There is only conjecture from Keith and those who share his view.

The only proper testimony flatly contradicts Keiths view.


By the way keith, you still haven't proved you aren't a nonce - what evidence do you have to prove you don't abuse kids?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 04:47 AM

Good morning gentlemen.

Is this tread going to make the magical 1000 posts today?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 05:09 AM

=== Mike: "as a whole"
Statements such as this leaves me, and obviously others, with the impression that Keith is referring to the Muslim culture as a whole, or as near as '****' it.
"There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for".
Jim Carroll ===

Jim ~~ not worried about those 'others': couldn't care less what impression SilliLox might have got into his lamebrain; but I engage with you coz I know you to be more perceptive than such.

Surely he is saying that it is certain aspects of the culture that *might* be responsible for the activities of this, he stresses, only a small but disproportionate minority; which is not to say that 'the whole' of the community is affected by it: i.e. He did NOT say, as you misinterpret, that "races as a whole behave thus because of their culture".

You are confusing the culture, as an entity, with the community, as an entity, and applying "whole" to the wrong one. Surely you see this distinction.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 05:22 AM

The study was limited, but within its remit found almost 100% correlation.
That did not prove it was more widespread, but Straw, Cryer, Allibhai Brown, Wilmer and others confirmed it was true for many other cities and had been for many years.

These people are not racist and certainly not intellectually challenged, but you see yourselves as somehow above them.

In reality you are, in comparison, posturing, pontificating pygmies.
You are ridiculous

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 06:15 AM

Mike - quickly; sorry, not the impression he gives me, and as I said, we have been here before with Keith.
By disparaging his own references as 'typical Guardian', he has now moved the thread from, as you rightly say, from 'the boring' to the bizzarre
Later
"Is this tread going to make the magical 1000 posts today?"
Not with my help it ain't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 06:27 AM

No, mine neither. That really is it I think

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 07:49 AM

It was just the headline I disparaged.
The piece itself was pure gold to me.
I linked to it first I think, so Lox, you were not "the only one"

Until the next time then....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 11:20 AM

Wrong again Keith.

I pointed out the flaws in their arguments.

You wouldn't know that as you haven't read my posts.

And you have certainly made no attempt to explain the problems I highlighted.

All you have done is doff your hat to people you see as your superiors and ignore the evidence, which contradicts your view.


Keith - as you appear to be unable to provide evidence to prove that you are not a nonce, it follows, acording to your logic, that it is a reasonable suggestion that you are one, and - according to your logic - as it "could" be true, it therefore isn't slander.


Keith - can ou please provide evidence that you are not a paedophile.


Or maybe you'd like to admit that that line of reasoning is a transparent sham.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 12:00 PM

"Until the next time then.... "
Haven't said I was going yet, you should be so lucky!
"It was just the headline I disparaged. The piece itself was pure gold to me."
The headline you disparaged referred to this, which are the opening passages of the report, which you obviously hadn't read properly and is, as you say, "pure gold".
It is exactly what you have been doing here.
"Authors of study on 'on-street grooming' in the north and Midlands, where young girls have been targeted on the streets and at school gates, are concerned their findings about Pakistani gangs have been generalised.
Researchers into child sex trafficking within the UK have warned of the dangers of racial stereotyping amid claims of a widespread problem of British Pakistani men exploiting under-age white girls.
Authors of the first independent academic analysis looking at "on-street grooming", where young girls, spotted outside, including at the school gates, have become targets, said they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type".Authors of study on 'on-street grooming' in the north and Midlands, where young girls have been targeted on the streets and at school gates, are concerned their findings about Pakistani gangs have been generalised.
Researchers into child sex trafficking within the UK have warned of the dangers of racial stereotyping amid claims of a widespread problem of British Pakistani men exploiting under-age white girls."
"Until the next time then...."
Why - do you thing you might do better next time? I suppose you have to break your duck sometime!
Looking back, all your war of attrition tactics have achieved is to draw you further out of your sectarian/racist closet.
Yi ho Silver - as you once nearly remarked
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 03:37 PM

Lox,
"I pointed out the flaws in their arguments."

Those flaws only visible to the mega intellect of Lox.
They will be so grateful to you.
How foolish they must all be feeling now.

Who do you think you are?
You are ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 03:49 PM

Jim, the authors did not say their report should be burned.
They stood by it.
53 out of 56 convisted were BPs.
Rightly they pointed out that they had no evidence that it was representative of a general problem.
But they did find it wherever they looked.

And now there is evidence that it is a general problem.
Evidence that the result was not an aberration, but typical.
All those people had been dealing with the problem on a huge scale, in many cities for many years.

The ridiculous Lox thinks he found "flaws in their arguments."
They made no arguments.
They reported their direct experience.

Are either of you saying they are all racist liars?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 06:28 PM

"The ridiculous Lox thinks he found "flaws in their arguments."
They made no arguments.
They reported their direct experience."


More bullshit.

They stated what they "thought" the reasons were.

And they have no direct experience of Criminal gangs, trafficking, or being trafficked.

They, like you, provide no evidence.

"But they did find it wherever they looked."


Well then where is it?


Evidence please Keith ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 01:35 AM

There are two separate issues.
Are BPs really over represented in the street grooming and abuse of children, and if so why?

The survey was set up to investigate that specific crime.
It found, within the area and time period of the survey, the perpetrators were overwhelmingly BPs.
As good scientists, they said that it could have been a statistical fluke.
All those good people stated that their own personal experience of it showed the problem is really is widespread.
Many cities over many years.
Not an opinion or an argument.
Unless they all separately made up the same lie, you can not dismiss this fact.

The link with culture was made by those same people (except Wilmer)who had knowledge of the culture or were part of it.
That is their opinion .
Does that make them racist?
I was convinced by them.
Does that make me racist?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 03:05 AM

"Jim, the authors did not say their report should be burned."
Neither has anybody else.
They said that it should not be used as a 'Paki-bashing' exercise - they said it should not be taken out of context, they warned of it being abused, as I believe it has been here.
It was an honourable, honest attempt to tackle a problem.
The findings came to no hard-and-fast conclusions but opened a road to honest and difficuly debate on an extremely dangerous subject.
This is not honest debate; your statement:
"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for"... is incoherent socio-babble of the worst kind - foreigners are culturally inferior and therefore should be treated with suspicion - it is a definitive statement by somebody whose ignorance - and agenda - has been demonstrated, to my satisfaction at least, again and again on this forum.
Your arguments, as far as I'm concerned, not only demean other cultures now settled in Britain, they demean the work of the people you have quoted to back up your disingenuous arguments and whose warnings in the Guardian article you have blatently ignored.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 03:34 AM

"It was an honourable, honest attempt to tackle a problem."

Agreed Jim.
And it found that of 56 convicted perpetrators revealed by the survey, 53 were BPs.
That was their finding, with the caveat that it did not prove the problem was widespread.
Straw, Cryer, Shafiq, Ahmed, Allibhai-Brown, Hillary Wilmer and senior police officers all said, from their own knowledge and experience, that it was widespread (deny that?) and had been for years.

The link with culture was not made by me, but by Straw, Cryer, Shafiq, Ahmed, and Allibhai-Brown who all have knowledge of it or are actually part of it.
I admit to having been convinced by it, whereas your position seems to be that it can't be true.
It just can't!

The ludicrous Lox keeps asking me to prove I am not a paedophile myself.
I am calm enough now to reply that I am a full time teacher and have been for nearly 40 years.
That is not an entry qualification to my profession, obnoxious Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 03:53 AM

"......but by Straw, Cryer, Shafiq, Ahmed, and Allibhai-Brown"
None of whom made it a definitive statement, certainly not on the cultural implications, as you have - but then again, they don't share your agenda.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 04:18 AM

I have provided actual quotes from all of them that state there is a problem with BPs, and that an aspect of the culture is to blame.
Read my posts please.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 04:42 AM

"As good scientists, they said that it could have been a statistical fluke."

Stop it.


Trying to redefine a scientists concluson so that you can make it support your view is the same as making shit up.


They didn't say "it COULD be statistical fluke" theye said there is NO evidence to support the view that this is a new crime type based on Race.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 04:58 AM

But the perpetators revealed by the study were overwhelmingly BPs.
And all those other eminent informed people were able to confirm that the findings were typical, widespread and on a vast scale.

Jim, this from a piece by Alibhai-Brown.

This week, a Muslim peer broke the code of silence that pervades British-Asian communities and spoke out against the criminal practice of forced marriages.

He starkly stated that there was a ­connection between forced marriages and the Pakistani gangs in the north of England convicted last month of entrapping and grooming young, often white, girls for sex.

He said that British-born Pakistani men are too often forced into loveless marriages with cousins from abroad and suggested this encouraged them to seek out these young girls.
It was time, he told the British Muslim ­community, to look more closely at the ­underlying causes of the crimes committed by such grooming gangs.


For giving an honest, informed and ­heartfelt opinion, Lord Ahmed of ­Rotherham has been assailed, abused and ripped apart by the ­religious and cultural guardians of those ­communities in a reaction that has been utterly disgraceful.
So let me say loud and clear that the coerced marriages Lord Ahmed is talking about are inhuman. Those parents who enforce them claim they are legitimate and say they provide the only way to ensure their young remain linked to extended ­family networks and prevent them becoming 'westernised'.


We have all heard the dreadful tales of young girls and women handed over to ­cousins in Pakistan or to men they have never seen in Bangladesh and India.
The problem is most widespread among Muslims, though a considerable number of Sikh families also believe their daughters should accept, without protest, husbands who are chosen for them.

The consequences of this ­tradition of arranged ­marriages are appalling.

Some Asian husbands trapped in loveless, dead ­relationships become ­frustrated, their desires ­emotionally distorted. And yes, as Lord Ahmed says, they prey on young white girls for their perverse sexual satisfaction.
Sex, for them, is not reciprocal or an act of consent. It is taken as a right, regardless of what their wives — or indeed, those young girls they prey on — think.

I recently met a young ­Muslim woman called Munee, who told me she was brought over from Pakistan to marry her cousin when she was 17.

With brutal candour, she said to me: 'It was like rape every time because he didn't want me and I didn't want him.' She ran away. And, she told me, her husband now has a 13-year-old white 'girlfriend'.

The consequences of this ­tradition of arranged ­marriages are appalling.

Some Asian husbands trapped in loveless, dead ­relationships become ­frustrated, their desires ­emotionally distorted. And yes, as Lord Ahmed says, they prey on young white girls for their perverse sexual satisfaction.
Sex, for them, is not reciprocal or an act of consent. It is taken as a right, regardless of what their wives — or indeed, those young girls they prey on — think.

I recently met a young ­Muslim woman called Munee, who told me she was brought over from Pakistan to marry her cousin when she was 17.

With brutal candour, she said to me: 'It was like rape every time because he didn't want me and I didn't want him.' She ran away. And, she told me, her husband now has a 13-year-old white 'girlfriend'.

But her husband is far from acting alone in the Pakistani community. One man I met, called Taher, looks back with ­revulsion at his previous self, for he too used to prey on young white girls. Today he works for a charity and says he feels desperately sorry for the ­victims of arranged marriages. 'I was crazy — a young man with sexual needs married off to a young virgin. She was very sweet, but there was nothing between us,' he says.

'I would not sleep with her, so I started cruising with these guys looking for easy sex with white girls.'

A Number of Asian men run off to get away from forced marriages. I know of stories of savage sexual and physical abuse and ­emotional persecution meted out to rebellious sons.
He continues: 'There was one really sweet teenager — her mother was a drunk — who really got attached to me. She changed my attitude. Everybody had failed her, so I stopped behaving like that.

'I still feel guilty and filthy for what I did in the past. And I now want to help these families.'

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 05:41 AM

Yes Keith,

They found that in a Pakistani Gang, most of the Gangsters were Pakistani.

Which on its own goes to knock your theory down quite some way.

Becayse even in the Pakistani Gang, not all the criminals were Pakistani.


But none of this changes the fact that the only grounds upon which you have to support this theory are other peoples OPINIONS.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 06:07 AM

The study was not about Pakistani gangs Lox.
It was about the crime of street grooming.
It just turned out to be all about Pakistani gangs.
There is a reason for that Lox.
Ask Hillary Wilmer.
Her support group helped 400 families of victims.
The perpetartors were BPs.
And not all victims turn to support groups.
Many of the children were in the care system and not living with families.
The tip of an iceberg she said.
Open your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 07:07 AM

Keith
I have already said how I feel about the way you have deliberately manipulated and distorted what are no more than opinions on small, high immigration area in the North of England.
The rest of your posting could have been deliberately lifted from a BNP publicity leaflet (maybe it was knowing your taste for cut-n-paste) â€" keep it up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 07:40 AM

They're starting to babble again Keith.
Better just stop before they burst into tears, it cant be easy having ones ideology (blind liberalism), shredded in broad daylight.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 07:50 AM

I have not manipulated.
I have not distorted.
I have quoted verbatim.
You just can not accept the obvious truth.
IT CAN'T BE TRUE
IT JUST CAN'T!

Open your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 08:46 AM

"They're starting to babble again Keith.".... said the voice from the safety of the shadows.
Shouldn't you be out persecuting homosexuals, as is your wont?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 08:55 AM

"It was about the crime of street grooming.
It just turned out to be all about Pakistani gangs."

It isn't getting through is it.

There is no new crime type called "street grooming"

And it is not defined on racial grounds - like Pakistani.


The experts were very clear to make that point.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 08:59 AM

Rather than quoting Yasmin Alibhai-Brown out of context, I would highly recommend you and your ilk to read what she has to say on racism, particularly in The Independant, in full, for which she has been branded by the right-wing Daily Telegraph 'The Stupidest woman in Britain'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 09:25 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 03:53 PM

""Lox,
"It does not follow that "British" Pakistani men ALL have a predisposition to sex crimes.
Which was what your hypothesis."

No I have never said "all."
I have always been clear it is only a small minority, the weak and wicked, who succumb.

Jim I have not singled out Muslims.
We are talking about BPs.
The culture is quite sexually repressive, such as might drive anyone to misbehave.
You would expect a small minority to succumb.
That fits the observed pattern.""

Now who is making a COMPLETE ARSE of himself?

It is not being a Pakistani which causes potential sexual repression in these men. It is their Muslim upbringing which sets the rules by which they are expected to live.

Those same rules apply to virtually all Muslims, no matter what their country of origin. The same rules regarding sexual behaviour also apply to Hindus, and to various other faiths.

Yet you steadfastly adhere to the belief that of all the people in the world living under those constraints, the only ones who transgress are British Pakistanis.

Share with us your no doubt brilliant explanation for the fact that Moroccans, Bahrainis, Tunisians and Iranians in this country, for example, and of course Hindus, seem to have no similar problems living with pre marital sexual repression.

Your argument is more full of holes than a slab of Gruyere cheese.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 09:25 AM

"The tip of an iceberg she said."

In her opinion.


She also said that these Gangs were reminiscent of INTERNATIONAL gangs - i.e she didn't say that they operated in a way unique to Pakistanis.


And just in case there is any doubt, she said that these crimes were not a race thing.


But we already know this as it has been pointed out again and again.


But Keith has decided that he just knows.

Knows what?

Knows that Pakistanis are closet perverts who struggle not to abuse children.

Because there is no evidence that they dont.


A bit like the fact that there is no evidence to prove Keith is not a dirty nonce.


Keith - can you please provide evidence that you are not a dirty nonce ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 10:14 AM

Lox,
"There is no new crime type called "street grooming" "
The subject of the survey was "on street grooming"

Whatever the gangs are "reminiscent" of, they all turned out to be Pakistani.
"Not a race thing."
No, it is a criminal thing. The perpetrators just happen to be BPs.

I agree with Allibhai Brown on racism.
Neither of us are racist.
I absolutely refute that I quoted her out of context.
That is a lie.
Put up or shut up.

Obnoxious Lox, I have provide evidence that I am not a "dirty nonce (sexual abuser of children)"
I am a full time teacher of children and have been for 37 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 11:23 AM

Jim ~~ I am not behind any shadows, You know perfectly well who I am. And I have no record of persecuting or denouncing or anything-elsing homosexuals, with many of whom I am on terms of intimate friendship & cordiality. And I haven't any record of posts on this forum, so far as I am aware, which you can take into account, as you are persisting in doing with Keith, as a no-brain smokescreen for discounting what I say ~~

Which is that I am astounded at your obdurate refusal to face evident facts, which have been moderatley rubricated in this thread, because their recognition will not fit in with your predetermined political agenda ~ which is the only explanation I can find for your absolutely atypical and uncharacteristic fatuities here.

For example: Do you not see that, with an anti-racist record like hers which led the Telegraph to denounce her as you quote, Alibhai-Brown's exposition of her views on this specific issue, which Keith has not summarised but QUOTED VERBATIM, become even more forceful?

I am sorry, I have no wish to quarrel with you. I have as you know great respect for you: and Backwoodsman went out of his way to praise the civilised urbanity of our contrary discourse on this thread earlier and said it was 'a pleasure to read'. But I cannot stand by and observe the frivolous, fatuous arguments you are deploying against Keith's careful expositions in silence. I am frankly astonished at & disappointed in you.

Though not in the least at/in that stinking Foulmouth-Lox, with his typically inane shrieks of "nonce". Welcome, Keith, to the club of those irrationally abused by that walking disgrace to this forum

~ off which I will, in all recovered coolness, remark that I think he should have been permanently chucked neck & crop for his disgusting remarks to me a few days ago. If people are not to be banned from here for completely unfounded accusations against other members of being unable to control their [non-existent] colostomies, being bondage-kinky, being helpless dribbling cripples, then what do they have to do to bring any moderator's wrath down on their heads, I should like to know.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 01:01 PM

Mike,
Am not - as far as I can see, nobody is, in any way attempting to defend what we believe to be bad aspects of Muslim culture. What I question is Keith's attempts to suggest that it is that culture that is the cause of the sexual grooming and procuring of girls. If we were to accept that we would be suggesting that anybody of that culture is a potential groomer and procurer.
Keith's attemps to make racial/cultural capital from the Guardian article obviously without reading it fully and digesting its implications, and then rejecting it (except the bits that suit him), indicates, to me at least, that he has an agenda other than the one under discussion her.
I have asked, and received no reply, whether all nationalities brought up under a sexually repressed regime are potential sexual criminals. Many of my friends (and some of my family) were brought up in Catholic Ireland under what might be described a sexually repressed culture. Within living memory, arranged marriages and ones of convenience were a reality in rural Ireland, and in the Travelling community, it is even more recent, and may be still happening. Does this make them potential paedophiles?
I have repeated again and again that these reports of grooming and abuse are largely personal observations of what happens in small communities with a high percentage of immigrants - it is totally wrong to present them as Keith has consistently done:
"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
If that is the case, then every member of that community/culture must be considered a potential sexual predator.
The opinions (that is what they are) of virtually all the people quoted come with a warning of the danger of misuse, which I believe has happened here and feel worthy of challenge.
"I am not behind any shadows....
A remark rising from my contempt for cowards who stand on the sidelines egging the bullies on.
"And I have no record of persecuting or denouncing or anything-elsing homosexuals"
And one referring to Akenaton's self stated homophobia.
"I have as you know great respect for you:"
There really is no need to repeat this; I have no doubt that your remarks are made honestly, and that you have read what I have written and given it unbiased consideration. Despite the fact that I disagree with you on occasion, here and elsewhere - of course I'll marry you and have your babies!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 01:19 PM

"Keith's attempts to suggest that it is that culture that is the cause of the sexual grooming "

Alibhai Brown, Ahmed, Suffiq and others made the suggestion.
Do you suggest some sinister motive?
I think they are probably right.
Why does that make me suspect?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 02:15 PM

"A remark rising from my contempt for cowards who stand on the sidelines egging the bullies on."

The "bullies" on this thread are the same bullies we see on all these threads....the ones who indulge in name calling in lieu of a cogent argument

You are one of them Jim.

All the evidence has been set out for you by Keith, yet you yammer on, attempting to muddy the water, you and your ilk are the ones who are agenda driven...just the same as on the homosexual threads, you dont really give a flying fuck for Pakistanis or homosexuals, only defence of the indefencible liberal agenda.

Tough!   Wake up, the world is beginning to see what sort of society lies behind the rhetoric

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 02:31 PM

The important word, Jim, is 'potential'... & I would reply that, yes, those subject to certain conditioning, as e.g. culturally-based ~~ by in-family, late-in-life, fully arranged without the option, marriage demands, say ~~ frustration of certain natural expectations, will have a greater 'potential' for seeking their satisfactions illicitly than those whose cultures do not inhibit natural expectations in the same way. Which is not to say that any more than a small minority will be likely to succumb to such illicit seekings.

You on the left of the political spectrum are, after all, adept at blaming poverty for crime; but if I said that you are ∴ accusing all poor people of being 'potential' criminals, I think a sharp rejoinder might come back to me, of precisely the sort you deserve for your pertinacious and wilful misunderstandings of the points that Keith, pertinently quoting other authorities, is making with regard to the Islamic culture in its relation to marriage expectations.   

Pray extrapolate...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 02:43 PM

Regarding cowardice Jim, I have stood almost single handed on many threads here and I think, aquitted myself well...I have yet to see a reasoned argument for the promotion of homosexuality....and that remark does not equate to homophobia.
"Its just not fair"....does not constitute a reasoned argument.

For a coward look no further than your obnoxious friend who has neither the guts to apologise for misrepresenting me on these threads,nor for disgusting insults to one of our members and older people in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 03:24 PM

Yes I must admit when I see it degenerate into obnoxious name-calling, I generally switch off from a thread.

As I've said elsewhere, it's amazing how quickly a fair number of so-called do-gooders sink to abusing those with the temerity to disagree with them and their world-view. Their viciousness is a clear indication of the weakness of their debate, as they are challenged, they just get more and more abusive. A spectacular indicator to the kind of people they really are. Bottom line is, they are a poor advertisement for what they purport to care for.

On another tack, I had spoken earlier about what might happen if the silent majority were ever roused enough to act, it would appear we're seeing some of that in the Middle East.

I do feel however, that the new governments of these states emerging from the turmoil will quickly suss out that the major powers (both West AND East) are really only 'in it' for what they can get out of it. Indeed,iIn many cases, the reason these despots have lasted so long, is because they were supported by those very same regimes.

Whether we see a rejection of the radical muslim tenets, we'll see. But as has been said before, those very same tenets are only designed to keep the favoured few in power and to denigrate their women and keep them in their place.

We live in interesting times.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 05:24 PM

The wheels on the bus go round and round

round and round
round and round
round and round
round and round
round and round
round and round
round and round
round and round
round and round
round and round
round and round
round and round...

All day long.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 05:52 PM

Keith

"There is no new crime type called "street grooming" "
The subject of the survey was "on street grooming"


Yes thats right - They investigated it and they found that there was no new crime type.


So the survey was conducted to find the truth, it found the truth, and the truth is the opposite of keiths opinion.



And Keith - Grow up - My comments about "nonces" do not require a response. Its a rhetorical point.


The fact that you are a teacher would prove nothing of the sort anyway - Ian Huntley was a school caretaker for Gods sake.

The point is that there is no evidence to say that you are anything other than a stubborn narrow minded git, so there is no reason to believe you are anything worse than that.

What I hoped you would get is that shit can be thrown at anyone and slander is easy.

The same can be said of Slander against Pakistanis.

99.99% of Pakistanis have never been associated in a sex crime, yet you say they are predisposed to child abuse, and they must overcome this perverse urge on a daily basis while other cultures don't have this problem.

In fact, you not only make this unsupported claim, but in addition, you claim to be able to explain WHY they are all closet perverts, based on your assessment of their collective psychological profile.

You're floating past the outer reaches of the galaxy mate and you will find no answers about pimps and sex traffickers out there.



Ake,

"your obnoxious friend who has neither the guts to apologise for misrepresenting me on these threads"

His obnoxious friend knows exactly where to find the quotes to back up his accusations.

It's already happened on this thread once.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Mar 11 - 06:01 PM

I can't help finding all this talk about "vicious attacks" funny.

Its OK for Ake, Brian, MtheGM and Keith etc to call hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis closet nonces on the basis of some Daily Mail stereotype, and indeed to make all sorts of other personaal statements about other catters, but when someone calls them a name they start whining and slink off to lick their bollocks in the corner.

Why don't you make yourselves more useful and fetch me my slippers and newspaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 01:17 AM

"The subject of the survey was "on street grooming"
Yes thats right - They investigated it and they found that there was no new crime type."

Then why did the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), decide to follow it up with a study of, errr
"On-Street Grooming"?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 03:32 AM

Mike,
This is really getting nowhere, and I very much doubt if it ever shall.
Perhaps if I explain why feel this point worth pursuing
I have come to believe that there is a strong argument for describing English racism as ‘cultural’, to take a leaf from Keith’s book.
I have spent all but 12 years of my life in three of the major cities of England: in order, Liverpool, Manchester and London. Each of them I found progressively racist, London being by far the worst. When I applied for my first job there (on the telephone), I was asked what colour I was. The racism escalated from there.
At school we sang hymns which declared that to be foreign was to be “in error’s chainâ€쳌; we were given half a day’s holiday (and a paper flag) on Empire Day; we were told, on the wireless, in the newspapers, even by our teachers, how the colonies were “not ready for self-ruleâ€쳌. All this would have been within five years of the Holocaust. Pat has just unearthed her old exercise book from Bluecoat School in Westminster in which she had been told to write during a lesson on logic, “All niggers have kinky hair, therefore all kinky haired people must be niggersâ€쳌.
I served my apprenticeship on the docks and, apart from the sneering and demeaning attitude toward the Lascars and Africans, and all the other ‘foreigners’ I met daily, I saw first-hand the segregated public lavatories; I remember distinctly signs carved over the doors saying “ASIATICSâ€쳌 and “MENâ€쳌.
When I moved to London, I quickly learned to keep my mouth shut when the subject of ‘nig-nogs’ or ‘Pakis’ or ‘wogs’ came up, and, to my shame, I never mentioned my Irish ancestry, especially during the 70s ad 80s. One of my customers proudly showed me his mirror-on-a-stick, with which he examined his car each morning because he “had Irish neighboursâ€쳌 who he’d “never met nor spoken to â€" the wife did once, but I soon put a stop to thatâ€쳌.
I think what offended me most was that whenever the subject of race came up people automatically assumed that I was as racist as they were; there was never any question that I might have thought differently on the subject.
Paki-bashing became a national sport at the time of the expulsion of the Asians from Uganda; it almost (but not quite) overtook queer-bashing. I did electrical work for a couple of Ugandan Asians and found them quiet, gentle and somewhat nervous of the welcome they had received.
I still get angry when I think of the Stephen Lawrence killing; an 18 year old youth stabbed to death by racist thugs â€" because he was black. One of the first acts of the police investigating the killing was to arrest Lawrence’s his companion â€" because he was black. The investigation was bungled and the killers went free â€" because the victim was black (the report on the investigation concluded that throughout, it was influenced by “institutional racismâ€쳌.   
The Singers Club and (some, but by no means all of) the folk clubs we visited, many of them frequented by people with Akenaton’s “indefencible liberal agendaâ€쳌, became small oases in a vast desert of racist shite.
Plenty more examples, personal, as well as reported, which could lead me to claim the existence of ‘a culture of English racism’.
I wonder what would happen if I were to suggest that, despite the tendency of the English to dislocate their shoulders patting themselves on the back and telling each other how fair and tolerant they are, they are not to be trusted when it comes to that subject of race. That’s what is happening here in relation to Pakistani immigrants to Britain.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 04:04 AM

If you want to judge 1950s Britain, judge it by 50s mores.
No more racist than any other and better than most.
How were black GIs treated here compared to how their own army treated them?
London is the most multi ethnic city in the world.

You are just bigoted against Brits.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 04:16 AM

The London Multicultural Facts
1. Over 300 languages are spoken amongst its 7.3 million residents,
2. 200 different countries are represented among its 370,000 students, with 73,000 studying in the city.
3. London is the most popular city in the world for international students choosing to study outside there home country.
4. London is definitely the capital for multi cultural events and festivals including, Notting Hill Carnival, The London Mela, St Patricks Day, Chinese New Year and many, many others.
5. Every culture, religion and faith in the world is represented in the city.
6. What makes London special is that all the people from all over the world blend together in perfect harmony! Well most of the time!
7. The building I live in, which has 10 apartments all together and every single flat is occupied by different countries. Just a wee personal observation for you!
8. London is the illegal immigrant capital of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 04:55 AM

Jim: I am not sure what point you are making here; I honestly think you are a bit confused by the experiences you relate, with which I am fully sympathetic and which I can well see will have influenced your attitudes & opinions.

What I can't make out is whether you, yourself are explicitly recognising and admitting that this background & these experiences are responsible for your entrenched attitudes, leading to your inability to judge the truth or otherwise of the SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS with which this thread is concerned, objectively & on their own merits. Or are you leaving it to me to point this syndrome of attitudes and responses out to you because you haven't recognised its effects for yourself?

Whichever, I genuinely believe this to be the case.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 05:08 AM

No Mike,
I'm attempting to elicit a response from Keith and his ilk when I apply his standards to our own (I'm English too incidentally Keith) culture.
And right on cue.....
Jm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 05:44 AM

Oh, and by the way Keith, thank you for misinterpreting my point so predictably and making it so forcefully
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 05:58 AM

Sorry, Jim: you have lost me. I think you & I have taken this topic as far as we can and are never going to accommodate on it; so, as you said a few posts back,

"This is really getting nowhere, and I very much doubt if it ever shall."

I am content to let it lie there.

Best ~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 06:26 AM

Mike I am doing exactly the same as Keith - well, nearly exactly - I am presenting a hypothosis as to why Britain is as racist as it appears to be; Keith is making definitive statements as to why Pakistanis become involved in sexual criminality.
What's not to understand?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 06:41 AM

""All the evidence has been set out for you by Keith, yet you yammer on, attempting to muddy the water, you and your ilk are the ones who are agenda driven...just the same as on the homosexual threads, you dont really give a flying fuck for Pakistanis or homosexuals, only defence of the indefencible liberal agenda.""

No! Keith has set out NO evidence which supports his contention that Pakistanis are culturally predisposed (however slightly) to Paedophile rape and trafficking underage girls.

What he has set out is opinion from Journalists, Politicians, and self styled "experts". Expert on what precisely?.........Sociology? NO!.......Psychology? NO!

The ex Home Secretary who managed to be looking the other way when those illegals Ake complains about were arriving.

Who couldn't keep track of asylum seekers so that those whose claims were denied were sort of mislaid.

My God, he couldn't even manage to deport convicted foreign criminals at the end of their sentences, allowing them on release to melt into the shadows.

How much, would you say, is his opinion worth?

And his other experts? Publicity hounds to the bone, whose opinions over the years have been somewhat flexible, but newsworthy.

I care a great deal more than you about the way in which we treat minorities, the evidence of which on this site is abundant.

You see Ake, I am not (as you would like to portray) the least bit interested in any "Liberal" ideal. The difference between me and you, Laddie, is that I see them as people, while you see them as problems needing a solution.

I would really like to take you and Keith out of your comfortable smug self satisfied little world, and put you in the position of those you so despise.

Three months in a traveller community, or dressed up with a beard and turban in an Asian enclave would do wonders for your education.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 06:48 AM

Like I say, Jim; I just don't get the analogy. I remarked far above [to Steve, I think] about the Hegelian Leap which Islam had made whereby a quantative difference has become a qualitative one, saying there that this particular problem could not be appropriately addressed by cries of, "OK, then, what about so-&-so?"; which, if I understand your last post, is what you now claim to be doing.

You know; like if I say Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper was a bad man, you feel that an answer might be something like "Well, I don't know so much; Christie killed more you know, & Haig more unpleasantly" (or maybe vice·versa, doesn't really matter).

So what if the British are as racist as you say: how does that excuse, or affect, or whatever, the objections to what these British Pakistanis have been, I REPEAT AND AM HAPPY TO DO SO TILL BLUE IN THE FACE IF IT WILL ONLY PENETRATE SOME THICK SKULLS ROUND THESE PARTS, *in small numbers but disproportionately* indulging in, which is what we are on about here?

I honestly, I say it again, cannot make out where you think you are coming from. That is what is not to understand. & I am not a thicko like Lox, & you know that is the case. & neither are you ~~ generally.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 06:56 AM

Don T ~~ & it might do wonders for yours, "Laddie", to go and try to live as a Christian in Saudi. And what point of any value at all does either of us think himself to have made here, I wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 08:42 AM

Keith,

Thanks for the Ceop reminder.

Indeed - A study that HASN'T BEEN DONE YET.

So NO RESULTS YET.

So still no evidence to support your hypothesis.

Just evidence against.

HOWEVER

I will quote the Ceop mission statement which says,

"Child sexual exploitation is not exclusive to any single culture, community, race or religion - it cuts across all communities. Neither can it be simplified along ethnic lines where the victims constitute one ethnicity and offenders another."



But the results will apparently be out in 3 to 6 months.

Unlike Keith, who will still be here slanderig Pakistanis, Ceop will be investigating child abuse.

Ceop


So keith - still no evidence to support your "hypothesis"?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 10:55 AM

Mike,
I am questioning the wisdom, even the right of people to claim that Muslim culture is an any way a cause of sexually predatory behaviour.
I set out my own personal experiences of racism in England (alongside an extremely well documented case), and asked if, as Keith has seen fit to make definitive pronouncements on Muslim culture based on hearsay evidence, I am nor entitled to offer a similar opinion based on my own experiences - apparently not, from his 'Little Englander' response.
Don has just pretty well summed up my feelings on the matter.
".....try to live as a Christian in Saudi"
Remembering how the British Empire bulldozed national cultures and identities into non-existance for centuries.... the terms 'glass houses and 'stones' comes thundering into view - or Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee even!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 11:01 AM

""Don T ~~ & it might do wonders for yours, "Laddie", to go and try to live as a Christian in Saudi. And what point of any value at all does either of us think himself to have made here, I wonder.""

Do you perhaps have any instances to relate of Christians in Saudi having dogshit pushed through their letterboxes, or petrol followed by a burning rag?

Any Christian shopkeepers killed or injured by racist thugs?

Any Christians evicted, or moved on from town to town, refused service in local shops, etc. etc?

We have dozens of instances of Muslims Hindus and Travellers suffering this, or worse.

Is that a point that resonates with you at all?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 11:10 AM

""It is not being a Pakistani which causes potential sexual repression in these men. It is their Muslim upbringing which sets the rules by which they are expected to live.

Those same rules apply to virtually all Muslims, no matter what their country of origin. The same rules regarding sexual behaviour also apply to Hindus, and to various other faiths.

Yet you steadfastly adhere to the belief that of all the people in the world living under those constraints, the only ones who transgress are British Pakistanis.

Share with us your no doubt brilliant explanation for the fact that Moroccans, Bahrainis, Tunisians and Iranians in this country, for example, and of course Hindus, seem to have no similar problems living with pre marital sexual repression.

Your argument is more full of holes than a slab of Gruyere cheese.""

I am repeating this post of mine, which was completely ignored by Keith, Ake and Co, and will continue to do so until one of them grows a pair and attempts to answer it.

I say attempts, since the standard operating procedure is for them to ignore any post which cannot be answered truthfully without admitting the flaws in their argument.

Come on, man up and try.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 01:28 PM

The BP culture has much in common with other Muslim and Asian cultures, but is nevertheless separate and distinct.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 01:55 PM

Well, for all those defending the Muslim religion, yet another assassination of a moderate politician in Pakistan.

A government minister who had the temerity to disagree with the draconian 'blasphemy' laws of the radical Muslims.

I would draw your attention to the title of this thread and then ask'why do you think there is so much prejudice against Muslims', it would have nothing to do with the conduct of its radicals would it?

These are the people that wish to overthrow our life-style and where do you think you'll stand if they manage that?

Will you point to Mudcat and say 'Look I stuck up for you', do you honestly think they'll care as they contemplate removing YOUR head with a bread knife for being any or no religion other than theirs?

Not nice to contemplate? Well look at the evidence and ask yourself, would you feel safe in their company.

So why shouldn't the populace take this into consideration before deciding whether or not they're bothered about offending this group?

I don't see the same thing happening attributed to Sikhs, Buddhists, Janes and so on. So it's hardly racist is it? It's anti a religion that causes such mayhem and grief.

So am I prejudiced? Damned right I am. But who is committing the bigotry in the most offensive fashion? Us or them?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 03:35 PM

Do you perhaps have any instances to relate of Christians in Saudi having dogshit pushed through their letterboxes, or petrol followed by a burning rag?

Any Christian shopkeepers killed or injured by racist thugs?

Any Christians evicted, or moved on from town to town, refused service in local shops, etc. etc?

Maybe not. But if you replace the word 'Christian' with 'Jewish' how do the questions stand then? What if we replace Saudi with Iraqi? And Christian with Kurd? Does the name Chemical Ali mean anything to you? How does he compare to our minister of defence I wonder?

I don't know all the answers but seeing as you are posing the question I assume that you can back up the intimation that the Moslems do not indulge in any ill feeling towards other peoples. Would you care to share the proof of that or is it just one of those unproveable hypothoses that you seem to be so against?

D.

(I had got bored with the same old arguments if you had not gathered by my earlier post. But the argument that Moslems are paragons of virtue intriugues me...)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 05:10 PM

The Pakistani govt minister who was murdered yesterday was apparently a Christian who worked for minority rights.

What sweet irony for our "liberal" friends.
Their thought processes are becoming so convoluted, that they shall soon disappear up their own arseholes in a cloud of smoke!.....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 05:37 PM

"as you are posing the question I assume that you can back up the intimation that the Moslems do not indulge in any ill feeling towards other peoples"

I don't read that insinuation at all - I read that singling Moslems out, or in Keiths caee Pakistanis, and saying that they are naturally predisposed to violence, rape, paedophilia etc, is a racist approach.

I read frustration with the single minded fixation on race and religion, when what is important is the crime.

Eliminating all Paksitanis and Moslems will not eliminate the crimes mentioned on here.

So a different set of common denominators must be responsible.

An unbiased analysis would seek to find those common denominators and not spend more than a month trying to make the shit stick by whatever devious means can be invented.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 05:38 PM

FOR THOSE THAT BELIEVE, NO PROOF IS NECESSARY, FOR THOSE THAT DON'T BELIEVE, NO PROOF IS POSSIBLE.

I looked up the definition of 'bigot' and digested it. Now look at it again and consider what the radical (note RADICAL) moslems are saying/doing.

On a personal basis, I am CONVINCED that the radicals of this religion pose the greatest threat to the Western way of life (which has many warts).

Whilst our Society is far from perfect (SOoo far), we would have far fewer freedoms if these characters accepted the invite for all those who seem to think they're just hard done by angry, disaffected individuals.

This is a co-ordinated campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 05:59 PM

I am CONVINCED that the radicals of this religion pose the greatest threat to the Western way of life...

Not in the U. S. of A. by any means. Radical Christians[sic] pose a much greater threat, and have caused a great deal more damage and suffering .

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Mar 11 - 11:15 PM

Don. In the UK we have racist thugs but I'd imagine other countries have too. The difference between the UK and some other countries that I'm aware of is that rather at least theoretically being protected by law, the nation itself supports persecution.

In Saudi for example, conversion from Islam to carries the death penalty. Read up on their religious freedom Freedom of Religion in Saudi Arabia

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 01:16 AM

GregF: How many of your Radical Christians have killed their daughters rather than let them marry out of the closed circle of Radical Christians? Or ganged up to abuse & traffic the young daughters of non-Radical-Christians (the commission of which offence, I repeat as promised till blue in face, by a small but disproportionately significant minority, is the main topic of this thread).

& we have passed the ton on this thread after all. & with the collusion of some of us who swore we wouldn't contribute to the phenomenon. Oh, well

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 01:18 AM

I meant "passed the K", of course!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 01:29 AM

Two issues.
Is there a problem, and if so why?
Lox says,
" Keiths caee Pakistanis, and saying that they are naturally predisposed to violence, rape, paedophilia etc, is a racist approach."

It does not come from me that there is a problem, but from all those on the list, speaking from their own experience.
Was I wrong to report that?
Are they all lying?

Lox says,
"An unbiased analysis would seek to find those common denominators"

Except for Wilmer and the police, all the people on the list think culture is the common denominator.
You have still not made an alternative suggestion.
You contribution is entirely negative.
A non contribution.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 01:46 AM

I am going to push for answers to the two questions in my post.
Was I wrong (racist)to report what they said?
Are they all lying about the fact of their own experiences.?
(NOTE, not opinions or arguments, but statements of fact.)

There is also the issue of where your alternative explanations are, and why you pretended to have posted some.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 03:07 AM

"It does not come from me "
What does come from you is your attempt to use what others have described as an attack on British Pakistanis as a whole and their culture; you continue with this line. This is the answer to the question you are "going to push for" You are openly indulging in racial stereotyping.
Nobody here is suggesting that these hasn't happened, we suggest that you has deliberately blown them out of proportion as a cultural phenomenon.
While we are 'pushing for answers', why aren't all cultures that are subject to sexual repression suspect? Following the reports of sexual abuse on children in Ireland, every Catholic falls under your suspicion of being a paedophile.
You want sexual repression, go and read up on 'original sin', 'being conceived in sin', 'impure thoughts', 'churching'. Examine the constant suspicion and humiliation the Christian church, Catholic and Protestant, has heaped on its members down the ages, for being 'sinners' and potential sinners, even to the extent of having effected another aspect of their culture, their music.
Go and find out how other religions regard and treat women, backed up in Christianity's case by the bible.
Nobody here is defending the excesses of Muslim culture; I doubt if many here can claim to understand the religion to any great extent, but it is unacceptible to use it as an attach on the practioners of that faith, as you have here - immigrants have enough to contend with without having to put up with racism.
This is aimed at you too Mike - you are beginning to sound like Kweith at his worst.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 03:19 AM

Was I wrong (racist)to report what they said?
Are they all lying about the fact of their own experiences.?

Jim seems to be answering no to the second question.
So, was I wrong (racist bigot) to report here what was being openly reported in all the national media?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 03:42 AM

Keith - you were a racist bigot to distort it and present it out of proportion, and you continue to be.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 03:52 AM

I have not distorted it and have reported exactly as I found.
How is that out of proportion?
Labelling me racist bigot is just a cheap smear, and much easier than actually refuting what I post.
You are a disgrace to this forum to resort to such a low strategy.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 04:51 AM

From a BBC piece from yesterday about the motive for the killing in Pakistan.


All that one sees are some anguished rants from some of Pakistan's best known liberals, many of whom are not even resident in the country.

Even hours after the assassination, we have seen none of the fierce onslaught against free speech that erupted on social media within minutes after Mr Taseer's murder.

Nor have we seen eulogies of his killers mushrooming on Facebook as they did after Mr Taseer's murder. It is a silence smug in the knowledge that their agenda is not at risk.

So why kill a man who considered himself - and was indeed considered by the world around him - to be so ineffective that he had not even bothered to seek proper security for himself, despite being constantly threatened by Pakistan's millions of faceless fanatics?
, it is all about ideology. It didn't matter if Mr Bhatti's battle had proved to be a non-starter or if he was an ineffective and powerless minister.

What mattered was that he had spoken against blasphemy laws in the past and was likely to do so again if a situation arose. That made him a legitimate target, not to be tolerated, not to be ignored.

Mr Taseer had said that he would continue to fight against blasphemy laws even if he was the last man standing. He could not stand for long.

And the ideology that led to his assassination has now sent another determined and deadly message to the state - that it will continue to fight till the last liberal falls.

This is how different the two commitments are. And for the liberals in Pakistan, this is how hopeless the situation seems to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 05:10 AM

"How is that out of proportion?"
If you don't understand how you have read none of the postings here but one more time:
"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for".
You are pointing the finger of suspicion not only at EVERY MEMBER OF THE BRITISH PAKISTANI COMMUNITY, but also at anbody who has been part of a culture which can be said to have been sexually suppressed, which includes those who have suffered the oppression described by Mike in his last posting. According to you ALL MALE PAKISTANIS ARE POTENTIAL SEXUAL PREDATORS.
How is this not the consequence of your definitive statement?
You have now resortted to "do you still beat your wife - yes or no" type questions to rescue some sort of victory out of your shambolic and selective arguments.
I suggest you look for 'disgrace' a little nearer home.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 05:24 AM

"You are pointing the finger of suspicion not only at EVERY MEMBER OF THE BRITISH PAKISTANI COMMUNITY, (not true Jim) but also at anbody who has been part of a culture which can be said to have been sexually suppressed, which includes those who have suffered the oppression described by Mike in his last posting (not true Jim). According to you ALL MALE PAKISTANIS ARE POTENTIAL SEXUAL PREDATORS"

That last has absolutely no justification.
It has been suggested that repression might predispose some.
That is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 05:39 AM

For heaven's sake, Jim, learn what 'potential' means. We are ALL 'potential' rapists, thieves, murderers, whatever ~~ the point is, most of us resist fulfilling these potentials; & so do the vast majority of British Pakistanis too as we have never tired of saying: but a %ge, small but disproportionate to their numbers, don't.

As to your going on about RCs, I repeat that "Oh, so what about ... then!" is a childish, foolish, *desperate* argument, merely intended to divert from the main point. We are not talking about RCs, so leave them out for heaven's sake, and stop trying to muddy the issue in this unworthy & unintelligent fashion. I say again, Jim; I am disappointed in your fatuous, doctrinaire, prejudged approach to this topic altogether. I expect better of a man of your intellect.

So I am starting to sound like Keith, am I? So what? I have not hidden my agreement with Keith on this issue for a second. You, OTOH, are starting to sound like grotty·stinky·offensive· foulmouth·lamebrain Lox. I know which I'd sooner sound like. How about you?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 05:51 AM

"...It has been suggested that repression might predispose some.
That is all...."

At last. Some clarification. The above statement is a significant move away from your hysterical and nonsensical rantings on this thread.

Now, in order to wrap things up, any chance you can illuminate the discussion by telling us - in your OWN words - whether this predisposition is uniquely constrained to members of the Muslim faith/ British Pakistani community?

Before you respond, it would be helpful if you can reflect on those members of the host (read white British) community who have been found guilty of abuse of a sexual nature against minors. And whether the fact that a higher proportion of white British people have been convicted in said area means that there is a higher predisposition towards crimes of sexual abuse in white British society than in other elements of our society?

Answers supported by a statistical analysis please, as opposed to some Googled shit.

Thank you

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 06:04 AM

"We are ALL 'potential' rapists, thieves, murderers, whatever"
Exatly my point - why single out British Pakistanis for special mention and why make it a cultural issue as Keith has?
If cultural pressurse of a certain type is responsible for this behaviour than everybody prone to those pressures must be considered usual suspects - why be selective and rule them out?
Keith, and now apparently you, are choosing to ignore the consequences of his argument - one used frequently by grouls such as BNP - 'immgration is a threat to our way of life'.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 06:08 AM

Well, I did promise to answer reasonably put questions.
I would prefer to ignore you.

"by telling us - in your OWN words - whether this predisposition is uniquely constrained to members of the Muslim faith/ British Pakistani community?"

No I do not believe so.

"And whether the fact that a higher proportion of white British people have been convicted in said area means that there is a higher predisposition towards crimes of sexual abuse in white British society than in other elements of our society"

If you mean sex crimes in general, there may well be.
From what I have read and presented about this particular crime, I believe BPs are over represented.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 06:50 AM

"We are ALL 'potential' rapists, thieves, murderers, whatever"
Exatly my point - why single out British Pakistanis for special mention and why make it a cultural issue as Keith has?===

Oh, Jim, please: because of the observable disproportionality of that one demographic in relation to that one particular offence, which happens to be the one under discussion.. Nothing else. You seem to think this can be explained away by irrelevant refs to other demographics doing all sorts of other things which are undisputed. It can't.

It is necessary to look for an explanation as to why this particular group should be so particularly disposed to this particular behaviour-pattern. So it is reasonable to look for the explanation as to whether there is anything in the conditioning unique to this group, which this group undergoes and which others don't. There are aspects of their ~~ let us say 'customs' rather than 'culture' ~~ which could provide the explanation. It is not racist to point out differences of conditioned expectations among different demographics, surely. You are ready enough to do it with other tendencies to be observed, due to their conditioning, among other groups, like Irish Catholics, aren't you just!

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 06:56 AM

... and do, Jim, stop confusing the attempts to explain the phenomena with the actual phenomena themselves, as material to be exploited by the BNP. I should say the very opposite is the case. In relation to accuracy or otherwise of the explanations, the BNP, like the Flowers that Bloom in the Spring, tra-la, have nothing to do with the case. The fact that someone may misuse a truth does not, ipso facto, stop its being true.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 07:30 AM

"It is necessary to look for an explanation as to why this particular group should be so particularly disposed to this particular behaviour-pattern"
First it is necessary to prove that it is particularly disposed.... and has not been taken out of context and presented as an irrefutable fact.
And please don't 'oh please' me, it's paronising.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 08:08 AM

Sorry, Jim: never mean to patronise.

I am taking the group disposition as a donné and working out from there. It seems to me the statistics are not in dispute, are they? Or do you know different? Those at issue are, after all, based on convictions in particular places over a certain period in specified places. Even if atypical on a national rather than a regional basis, they still need examination & explanation.

And I still think that comparisons with other statistics related to other groups in other places at other times are the opposite of helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 08:13 AM

... as are irrelevant warnings that they might be misapplied by ill-motivated groups for their own ill-intended agendas... You are surely not seriously suggesting that we should suppress unpalatable facts in case the BNP make unworthy capital of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 11:09 AM

"You are surely not seriously suggesting that we should suppress unpalatable facts in case the BNP make unworthy capital of them?"
No I am not - but these are not facts, they are unsubstanitated opinions, used in this case by somebody with a track record.
Presented as facts, they be come nothing more than stones to throw at immigrants, or, at the very least, a spray-can to spray 'Pakis out' on the wall.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 11:24 AM

If that is what you really think, Jim, then I feel I have done. I will simply content myself with saying that I feel you are grossly mistaken about that. They ARE facts; they are not 'unsubstantiated opinions'; you can find them substantiated in impeccably maintained and available court statistics. What you may think they 'become', in ill-chosen metaphors, when adduced by somebody you refuse to listen to because you disapprove of his 'track record' is the only 'unsubstantiated opinion' in the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 11:40 AM

So, why do you think there is prejudice against Muslims??

That is why I started this thread.

All I can see are more and more reasons that support the reasons why people ARE prejudiced - or are they assessing what they see and hear and judging THAT. I DON'T see any reasons to think that I am wrong - there are just more and more 'facts' being reported which underline Muslim intolerance to anything that doesn't fit their paradigm. There is NO tolerance of any description, even to their own (and that includes their family members).

Now I'm sure the media seldom report the facts, they edit them and filter them etc etc.

BUT many of these same things are being reported on Al Jazeera - are they anti-muslim and bigoted and racist and all the other labels I've seen here? Because if you think THEY are then you are delusional.

It's depressing how the same people keep denying what's happening. Are you THAT frightened that you can't even face the possibility it's true? Or are you just going to smear us all with the same old invective, any excuse not to face reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 03:25 PM

"they are not 'unsubstantiated opinions"
Then where did this come from and what research has been carried out and evidence collected to back up such a definitive statement which is a cultural condemnation of a whole community - including victims of the worst aspects of Islam?
As far as I can see it is Keith's opinion, nothing more.
"but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 03:55 PM

"Then where did this come from........?
As far as I can see it is Keith's opinion, nothing more."

Very misleading Jim, to the point of deception.
How I came to form my opinion I have laid out here, and none of it came from me.

The evidence for the over representation is all factual.
The fact of the convictions.
The numerous witnesses speaking from the fact of their own experience.
Even you acknowledged they could not all be lying.
That led me to the opinion that there is an issue.

The theory that cultural practices and customs could be Lox's common denominator, came from people with knowledge of the culture and from within it.
That led me to the opinion that they are probably right.

I could not have formed such opinions in a vacuum.
How does it make me racist to report these things?
The Guardian and BBC also reported them!
Far from "distorting" them I cut and pasted them.

Your argument has not changed.
IT CAN'T BE TRUE.
IT JUST CAN'T
RACIST BIGOT LIAR!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 05:23 PM

I don't read that insinuation at all

Of course not. Because you choose not to. Your interrpretation must be right which makes me a...















Wait for it...

















RACIST BIGOT LIAR!

Say it loud enough and you don't even need to stick your fingers in your ears to miss the other persons point.

:D
(Just how is Tomato pronounced anyway...)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 05:24 PM

"Was I wrong (racist)to report what they said?"

Don't lie - you have stated that you have a hypothesis that Pakistabnis are culturally predisposed to child abuse and the only reason 99.99% of them don't do it is because they succeed in their struggle to overcome it.


"Are they all lying about the fact of their own experiences.?"

They have had no experience of any aspect of organized crime.

They have been lobbied by their constituents, but they are not witnesses.

They did not go to the police and none of their allegations were proved.

The rest is opinion.



"Except for Wilmer and the police, all the people on the list think culture is the common denominator."

Don't forget the experts who did the only study - they don't think do either.


The only people who think so are POLITICIANS. Expressing theeir OPINION.


"You have still not made an alternative suggestion.
You contribution is entirely negative.
A non contribution."

You are a Liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 05:35 PM

PS - I note your deliberate chopping in half of a sentence in order to make it seem nonsensicaal.

This one:

"I read [from an earlier post] that singling Moslems out, or in Keiths caee Pakistanis, and saying that they are naturally predisposed to violence, rape, paedophilia etc, is a racist approach."

You cropped it as follows:

"Keiths caee Pakistanis, and saying that they are naturally predisposed to violence, rape, paedophilia etc, is a racist approach."

And presented it as if that were my sentence.


A definite deliberate misrepresentation.


Keith depends on Lies, deliberate misrepresentation and wilful ignorance as his tools to back up his opinion that pakistanis are closet paedos.

He has been arguing this case for over a month and ignored all evidence or rationale that doesn't fit his view.


Imagine spending a month of your life trying to prove, on the basis of a couple of politicians opinions, that Pakistanis are closet Paedos, who struggle not to abuse chilfren on a daily basis.

How much would you haave to hate Pakistanis to do that?

The evidence is building up day by day now in this thread that it would have to be a lot!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 05:41 PM

"The theory that cultural practices and customs could be Lox's common denominator, came from people with knowledge of the culture and from within it.
That led me to the opinion that they are probably right."




So lets be clear about this.


The common denominator between Russian Sex Trafficking Gangs, Pakistani Sex trafficking gangs, Romanian sex trafficking gangs etc is that they are all British Pakistani?


Keith you are also a fucking idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 05:45 PM

I have never disliked anyone on the grounds of creed, colour or race. Let alone hated them. In fact, in my whole life, I can honestly say there are only 3 people I have ever seriously disliked. All of them white and English. What I do detest is anyone behaving like a twat and dressing it up as serious debate. Robert Mugabe does it all the time. Gadaffi seems to be doing it at the moment. Maybe I am being a racist to point that out though.

D.
(Who's list could go to 5 or 6 if this goes on much loner)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 05:49 PM

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 06:19 PM

"I rest my case"

I asked what the common denominator was that connected International Trafficking Gangs and the trafficking gangs in the north of England.

Keith says "The theory that cultural practices and customs could be Lox's common denominator, came from people with knowledge of the culture and from within it.
That led me to the opinion that they are probably right."


It follows that Keith thinks that British Pakistani culture is the common denominator connecting International Gangs and the Pakistani ones.



Keith has no case.


Just a lot of lies amd an unsuppported hypothesis that Pakistanis are closet paedos.


Pretty Idiotic if you ask me!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 06:26 PM

Dave - I call Kith a racist because he has spent a month arguing that Pakistanis are closet Paedophiles.

I don't see you saying that.

I don't call people racists because they disagree with me.

I call them racists when they deliberately smear a specific race with unsupported accusations.

It is a clear, consistent and verifiable line of argument that iis recorded repeatedly on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 07:54 PM

""The BP culture has much in common with other Muslim and Asian cultures, but is nevertheless separate and distinct.""

Says who Keith?   Who's your preferred expert for this piece of random opinion?

Evidence please, or your opinion is meaningless.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

""I don't know all the answers but seeing as you are posing the question I assume that you can back up the intimation that the Moslems do not indulge in any ill feeling towards other peoples. Would you care to share the proof of that or is it just one of those unproveable hypothoses that you seem to be so against?

D.

(I had got bored with the same old arguments if you had not gathered by my earlier post. But the argument that Moslems are paragons of virtue intriugues me...) ""


DeG, I can understand that you would be intrigued by an assertion on my part that all Muslims are paragons of virtue.

In fact, had I ever said (or even implied) that such was the case, I would consider myself certifiable.

When you put words like that into an opponents mouth, you make yourself ridiculous.

Bringing Muslim/Jewish affairs into the argument is equally specious, as I can cite as many crimes committed by Israel, as you can by Palestine, probably many more.

Your question above is easily answered. You obviously believe strongly that Muslims harbour ill feeling toward the rest of humanity, all Muslims.

Your stance is, I would suggest, as difficult to prove as that which you erroneously ascribe to me.

Obviously some Muslims bear ill will. How else to explain the events of 7/7, but when you tar every Muslim with that same brush you are wrong, and since you must be aware of that fact your motives are called into question.

Keith gets a big kick out of seizing on any opportunity to denigrate immigrants, which is why he will not consider that these highly localised gangs committed these crimes, not because they are Pakistani, not because they are Muslim, but because they are Paedophiles and Rapists.

His agenda demands that he "Prove" that their culture is responsible for their actions, enabling him to feel that they are "lesser" in relation to his "Law abiding White British" self.

Do you now understand why we keep pointing out the very obvious flaws in his biased reasoning?

How does he explain that other Muslims do not react in the same way to his theoretical "sexual repression"?

Using the same dehumanising "BP" he simply says ""The BP culture has much in common with other Muslim and Asian cultures, but is nevertheless separate and distinct..

Sorry, but other Muslim men have the same urges, and the same constraints, but do not act in the same way, men whose cultures are indistinguishable from the Pakistani culture.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Mar 11 - 08:05 PM

""How many of your Radical Christians have killed their daughters rather than let them marry out of the closed circle of Radical Christians?""

You are right.

Radical Christians tend to kick their daughters out into the street instead, where they get picked up by kindly strangers who groom them, infatuate them, get them hokked on drugs then rent them out to all and sundry.

It is a matter of public record that this has been happening, both in the USA and the UK, for many years past.

These few localised Pakistani gangs have only jumped on the band wagon very late in the game.

Check it out. There's plenty of precedent, although it wasn't treated separately from other abuse until their capture.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 01:26 AM

Don, I did promise to answer questions, but I have had enough of this now.
I am thick skinned but anyone would find this level of personal abuse distressing. This is not a job or anything.

Here I posted some German University course material on BP culture, not Asian and Muslim culture. Google it to source and I am sure they have similar pieces on other British cultures.
thread.cfm?threadid=135090&messages=1037#3084586

Here is a BBC report about cousin marriage and its consequences.
They single out BPs as being overwhelmingly the cultural group affected.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 02:58 AM

"Very misleading Jim, to the point of deception."
No Keith - it is your opinion, a conclusions based apparently on a handful of opinions of others, though nobody has gone as far as you have here. We have all examined the evidence, we have all come to our own conclusions - your (very much a minority here) opinion is just that - your opinion, and it is breathtaking arrogance to claim that it has any more validity than anybody else's.
To me it is a racial/cultural slur, no different than any other I have ecountered in the past, aimed at West Indians, Africans, Jews, Irish, Travellers even Christians, and when it is made without proof it becomes inflammatory rabble-rousing. If you have proof that paedophilia and sexual predatory behaviour is part of the British Pakistani culture, please produce it - you have not so far; you haven't even managed to cut-n-paste it.
Who else other than you (and the BNP and their ilk) has made such a definitive claim?
As far as I can see, nobody here is defending the worst excesses of Muslim culture. For me, this problem isn't the problem of one religion, but of all religions that gain secular power and excessive influence. In Ireland we are still living through the consequences of a Christian church gaining such power and influence and abusing it to a horrific extent. Does this make all Irish Catholics suspect sexual predators?
"This is not a job or anything."
Just as well really, you are not making much of a fist of it!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 03:21 AM

"Who else other than you (and the BNP and their ilk) has made such a definitive claim?"

The list would depend on which of the 2 issues you mean, but we have been through all this.
Your last post just repeats what you have been saying for days.
If you have nothing new to say I am not going to respond anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 04:22 AM

"I am not going to respond anymore."
I didn't think for one oment you would.
"Your last post just repeats what you have been saying for days."
Which you and your tiny handful of supporters have provided no answers.
You have no proof and it is, as I said, your opinion and your opinion alone - totally unsubstantiated.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 05:15 AM

""Don, I did promise to answer questions, but I have had enough of this now.""

This is precisely what I expected.

No answers? Claim not to be arsed to read the posts in which those questions appear.

No answers? Ignore questions, and complain about personal attack.

No answers? Claim to be bored with the discussion, and refuse to respond.

These are classic Keith A diversionary tactics, enabling you to continue presenting your opinion as fact.

No matter who your sources are, or how reliable they are (dubious), the conclusions drawn and presented as fact are yours, and yours alone. You go way beyond anything your sources actually said, and then blame them when challenged.

There is an obvious and desperate need for you to have your opinion accepted, which is why you cannot do as we ask, and consider alternatives.

There are no personal attacks in my posts, simply honestly stated assessments of your agenda and attitude.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 05:20 AM

Bloody HTML.

The only bit of those last three sentences that should be bold underlined is "yours, and yours alone".

Perhaps some kind Elf........?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 05:21 AM

No it isn't, Jim. You have resolutely attempted to evade the unavoidable points I have made, and gone on asserting your foolish nonsense that, because Keith has a 'track record', of which Jim, in all his high-and-mighty rightness, disapproves, you can discount anything he may say on any topic for ever after; and denouncing any adducement of undisputed statistics as a desire to throw stones at people and scrawl Pakis Go Home on walls; which I assure you are things I have never felt the remotest desire to do. And then rounding off such foolishnesses with the triumphant tone of one who has incontrovertibly won the argument and has been left in victorious possession of the field.

You haven't; and you're not. I fear you have merely contrived to make yourself look uncomprehending; and doctrinaire; and politically rather than intellectually motivated; and a bit silly...

Regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 05:49 AM

Keith,

This link "thread.cfm?threadid=135090&messages=1037#3084586"

does not lead to any German report.

It just leads to one of your dull passages of creative writing.


Fortunately, I read whjat you post, and i do remember the German study you linked us to.

It said nothing about British Pakistanis, Street Grooming or child abuse.

The only connection was the tenuous unsupportable one that you asserted.

And that was refuted.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 06:25 AM

Don, I did answer your question.
Jim, all you posts are just an Egyptian river.
Denial.

There is no evidence that would ever make you consider the possibility that there might be an issue.
IT CAN'T BE TRUE
IT JUST CAN'T, or you might have to open your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 06:36 AM

Lox, you have it wrong. Again!
That is not my creative writing but a cut and paste from the university piece.
It is just about BP culture and customs, which was just what Don asked me about.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 07:03 AM

"Lox, you have it wrong. Again!
That is not my creative writing but a cut and paste from the university piece."

Well it still contains nothing to support your hypothesis that Pakistanis are closet Paedos.

In future use quotation marks.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 07:12 AM

It was only to answer Don's question Lox.
Its origin is all explained right there, and anyway you said you could remember it.
All wrong again Lox!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 07:14 AM

"All wrong again Lox! "

You'd love that to be true.


But the truth is that you posted it originally to support your "hypothesis".


And it does nothing of the sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 07:33 AM

""There is no evidence that would ever make you consider the possibility that there might be an issue.
IT CAN'T BE TRUE
IT JUST CAN'T, or you might have to open your mind.""

Well Keith, when you've finished with looking in the mirror.........there are still questions ignored, waiting for answers.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 07:51 AM

Lox, that piece makes clear that sexual repression is an issue.
It states that girls a married young so they are not tempted into intimate liasons, but men are left to marry late.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 07:53 AM

One or two at a time Don.
Set them up.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 07:54 AM

"No it isn't, Jim."
Whatevet I might think of Keith, where is the evidence Mike?
Regards
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 08:11 AM

"Lox, that piece makes clear that sexual repression is an issue.
It states that girls a married young so they are not tempted into intimate liasons, but men are left to marry late. "

No, it confirms only what it states which is that inter cousin marriages are common and that Women can be subject to a controlling patriarchal culture.

What the cause of this is, is not commented on, it could be religious or cultural, and how it connects with international or pakistani trafficking gangs is also not covered.

The jump from the comments made in the report to "british Pakistanis are closet Paedos" is a wild and totally unsupportable one as there are so many other variables involved.


Keith - you've become a stuck record.

Your understanding hasn't advance beyond your original hypothesis and you are recycling the first "evidence" you referred to.

Blinkers still on then.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 08:17 AM

I never made that jump Lox.
I first posted it to counter your ridiculous claim that there was no culture associated with BPs, just "wild generalsations"!
I posted it again because Don somehow missed it first time around

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 08:20 AM

Jim: The evidence of the topic of this thread - the small in actual numbers but great %age-wise over-representation of Pakistani males within those numbers in the grooming & group-exploitation of teenage females - is in the convictions for this specific offence found in court records. What better evidence can you have than an undeniable statistic based on court convictions after properly conducted due-process, the occurrence or propriety of which have been disputed or contradicted by nobody.

best ~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 08:32 AM

"I first posted it to counter your ridiculous claim that there was no culture associated with BPs, just "wild generalsations"!"

I don't say that there is no culture.

I do say it is not homogenous.

I also say that your hypothesis is based on wild generalizations.

I say the same about Anne Cryer.


Remember keith, we are discussing YOUR hypothesis.

Your posts have so far been IN SUPPORT of that.


Including the one referred to above.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 08:35 AM

"the small in actual numbers but great %age-wise over-representation of Pakistani males within those numbers in the grooming & group-exploitation of teenage females"

I have shown already that this isn't true.

The percentage in Romanian and other sex trafficking gangs is higher.


You don't have to like me, but the facts that I have posted are verifiable and checkable and stand scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 08:43 AM

The Romanian gangs traffic in women from abroad.
We are discussing the grooming and rape of children from the streets and public places of certain English cities.

Perhaps Lox, Jim and Cobra are at a disadvantage because this issue may not be fully reported in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 09:01 AM

Does the street grooming of girls in UK represent an example of human trafficking, no different to any others? I don't know much about the subject, but my understanding is that street grooming differs in as much as the majority of human trafficking undertaken by organised gangs worldwide, is a financial endevour. Not a lot different in essence to any other form of slave trade, bar the 'services' so to speak provided by the slavers victims. Based on this difference, I would suggest that street grooming does not perhaps naturally fall into the same catagory of criminal activity as the international slave trade? It strikes me that it echoes more closely the covert sexual crimes of paedophile circles. As said, I don't know enough on the subject to offer an well informed opinion on the topic, but personally I'd be disinclined to fully conflate street grooming with human trafficking, as they appear to me to be somewhat different things.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 09:30 AM

"personally I'd be disinclined to fully conflate street grooming with human trafficking"

Well currently that is what those ivolved in the researcg are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 09:34 AM

"Perhaps Lox, Jim and Cobra are at a disadvantage because this issue may not be fully reported in Ireland."

Well Keith, consodering that I have read all your "evidence" and provided more accurate and up to date evidence than you, AND BEEN BOTHERED TO READ IT, it appears that you are forming amother unsupported hypothesis.

But that is besides the point, because your last post is a deliberate attemot to wind up the Irish and merely goes to confirm your attitude.

Finally, and most ironically, I live in London so your last post also serves no further purpose than to prove that you are full of shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 09:36 AM

YOU would like to conflate them Lox to obscure the issue under discussion, which is the street grooming and rape of children from certain cities (that happen to have a large BP minority.)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 09:46 AM

That is indeed so ~~ and the statistics under consideration DID involve grooming, and DID NOT involve trafficking: so those of you disputing the question with irrelevancies about Romanians and trafficking are defending the, few but %age·wise over-represented grooming·but·not·trafficking Pakistani men who are the ones we are talking about, against accusations which nobody has made. Please note & take cognisance of that basic fact; and then, if you wish, return to the thread with some relevant objections to the points that are being made, instead of trying divert and deflect attention with dust-in-the-eyes about ones which are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 09:49 AM

This is a cut and paste Lox, OK?

The BBC is carrying out research into "on-street grooming", which is the term used to describe children in the UK being targeted by men for sexual abuse. This can be anything from being offered gifts from older boys to being asked to attend 'parties' with older men.

The sexual abuse of children is generally preceded by activity designed to ensnare them. For this reason the Sexual Offences Act 2003 actually has an offence of "grooming".

Section 15(1) of the Act carries the relevant offence:-

...

It may be thought that "on street grooming" is a modern phenomenon. However the Sexual Offences Act 2003 does in fact incorporate many of the previous statutes designed to stop certain kinds of predatory behaviour towards children. In fact, the criminal law has long sought to prohibit the procurement of children for abuse.


http://www.mjsol.co.uk/2011/uncategorized/bbc-report-street-grooming/

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 09:57 AM

Why do you assume that I live in Ireland? If you had read my posts you would be aware that I have lived in England for many, many years and that I continue to do so. But then it is a ploy which you have attempted more than once on this thread. It is called moving the goalposts. And that is all your pathetic attempt to create a diversion by dragging Ireland into it is. Pathetic and grubby in the extreme.

As for your ongoing dissembling, refusal to address issues put to you, distortion of the contributions of others and continuing unwillingness to answer the points I have asked you to, I am quite content that you have been exposed for the shallow, racist and basically ignorant lout that you are. Your refusal to address the points raised by me and by others speaks volumes.

You claim to have been a teacher for over thirty years. Given your inability to apply logic or comprehension to the most basic of intellectual matters I very much doubt that. I also very much doubt that your personal style would allow you to escape censure if you were, indeed, a qualified and practising teacher. Please do share the extent and scope of your "teaching" experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:08 AM

Oh dear! Does your pathetic Googling know no bounds???

More pertinent, have you actually READ the piece on that link? Did you read the "further links"? I did. And guess what? The BBC story relates to a policeman who was prosecuted for grooming a young boy. The issue of online grooming involved BBC reporters looking into this vile area and they found that, amongst the wider numbers, three people were online at the same time as them, actively seeking sexual contact with minors. These three people were teachers, according to their online personae. The only reference to anything resembling Race in ANY of the posted links made reference to the fact that it was a BBC Wales investigation and one assumes, therefore, that this crime was Wales-based.

Not one reference is made to Pakistani involvement. Not one, save in your twisted and bigoted little brain.

And, on the subject of teachers and CRB checks, and your indignation that anyone could consider you a nonce because of your claimed teaching background, do me one favour. Google for teachers convicted of sexual abuse and predatory behaviour. If you dare.

You are a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:14 AM

Sorry I was wrong about where you live Cobra.
I have undertaken to answer any, on subject, question you put to me.
Just set them up, one or two at a time.

I am not comfortable answering questions about me personally, such as, "Please do share the extent and scope of your "teaching" experience. "

I regard you as a deranged stalker.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:20 AM

No Cobra, the joke is on you.
Read the posts.
Lox wanted us to believe that researchers did not regard on street grooming as a separate crime.
This research has not even started yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:24 AM

"Not one reference is made to Pakistani involvement."

I doubt anyone is attempting to suggest that the grooming of minors for the purposes of sexual exploitation, is something only Pakistani gangs participate in. I think what some people may be suggesting is that these particular "street grooming" crimes under discussion, closely resemble other examples of child grooming? Arguably, there is an area of overlap here between what typifies crimes involving the grooming of children for the purposes of sexual exploitation and what typifies crimes involving organised gangs engaging in international human trafficking for the purposes of financial gain?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:29 AM

"I regard you as a deranged stalker"

Please explain.

The reality is that you have made so many outlandish claims and been caught out that I personally am disinclined to believe anything you say. You over-estimate your own worth if you think for one minute that I am remotely interested in anything about you and calling me a stalker is reprehensible in the extreme. It would delight you if you could paint me into the same sort of corner that you wish to put British Asians.

That ain't going to happen matey. But I still remain to be convinced about your claims to have been a teacher. And, FWIW, you know only too well that you can illustrate your experience in this area without disclosing any personal information whatsoever.

Is it that you won't do so, or is it that you cannot do so?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:34 AM

Mike; You still have produced no evidence to even suggest that sexual predation has any connetion whatever with Pakistani culture.
What percentages are we talking about? What are the areas covered by the cases - a street, a district, a town, a county, the whole of the North of England - what?
None of this suggests that Pakistanis as a racial group are in any way prone to these crimes, and nobody has ever claimed such apart from Keith, and sadly, you.
"uncomprehending; and doctrinaire"
And you've even resorted to his rhetoric.
Produce your evidence based on actual figures and not random cases - otherwise we might as well just resort to measuring people's skulls to judge whether they are potential criminals - nice try - no cigar.
"I have undertaken to answer any, on subject, question you put to me."
Lucky old Cobra - I'm still waiting.
And by the way - I live in reland Not Ulan Bator - the Pony Express delivers newspapers - English, Irish, American, French, German, - here at least twice a year!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:37 AM

I am not discussing me with you, how ever much you cajole.

You read through nearly 5000 posts of mine.

Even if you only spent an average of 20 seconds on each, including accessing it, that is nearly 30 hours hunched before a screen.

And if you were not deranged at the start, it would have pushed you over the edge when at the end of it you found not one post you could use against me!

Just that one forgivable trick played on a lying troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:46 AM

"Just that one forgivable trick played on a lying troll."

What on earth is that supposed to mean? You sad, incomprehensible little man. Given that your entire output on this and other threads is a litany of lies and distortions, I will happily live the rest of my days secure in the knowledge that you are not a teacher and that you never have been. So, you see, your inability to prove your claims is neither here nor there.

I now confidently expect a Googled C&P of some poor, unsuspecting bona-fide teacher whose CV you will present as your own.

Just try and make sure that you do not include proficiency in Urdu or Gujarati in the "languages spoken" section!

And....now....soooo...sleepy.....sooo, soooo...........sleepy.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 11:26 AM

Oh no!
It so matters to me that believe me Cobra.
Somehow I will just have to live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 11:32 AM

===
Mike; You still have produced no evidence to even suggest that sexual predation has any connetion whatever with Pakistani culture.
What percentages are we talking about? What are the areas covered by the cases - a street, a district, a town, a county, the whole of the North of England - what?
None of this suggests that Pakistanis as a racial group are in any way prone to these crimes, and nobody has ever claimed such apart from Keith, and sadly, you. Jim ....
==============

Jim: The % statistic I refer to has been already quoted above, IIRC by DelG ~~~
,,,,,,,,,
... in 17 court cases since 1997 where groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls on the street, 53 of the 56 people found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, while just three were white.
,,,,,,,,,,
In fact, the 53 were almost all Pakistanis. I repeat: the numbers are small. The proportions are not. I myself have not used the word "culture" with regard to this; preferring, as you will recall, "customs" &/or "conditioning". But these are actual figures, drawn from available statistics of convictions in courts for this specific offence where due process was followed.

The precise localities are beside the point: which is that these are convictions for THIS PARTICULAR OFFENCE. & of course they suggest that, for whatever reason, Pakistani men are, or at least do appear to be, more prone to this particular pattern of behaviour than other demographics. If it were not so, they would not be so overwhelmingly represented in the numbers, would they? It is not Rocket Science, as they say.

I draw your attention to the words I have underlined a couple of lines back; "for whatever reason". THE REASON IS WHAT WE ARE SEEKING ~ DO NOT PLEASE BEG THE QUESTION BY IMPLYING THAT WE HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE ESTABLISHED IT WHEN WE CLAIM NO SUCH THING ~ we merely suggest that there must be A REASON; & that the "Customs/conditioning" of those involved might be a part of its explanation.

And these are the facts & undisputed figures that you are wilfully and doctrinairely closing your mind to, Jim. These figures have not been contradicted or questioned; and when I ask you why you will not accept them, you unworthily accuse me of indulging in 'rhetoric'.

I wonder why.

That's all.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 11:42 AM

Cobra ~~ whatever conviction any of your other contributions might have carried, your unspeakably idotic, fatuous [and probably actionably defamatory] obsessively repeated claims that Keith must be paltering with the truth in claiming to be a teacher when quite patently he is one, seem to me to deprive you of any credibility that you might have possessed in any direction or any particular whatever.

You are clearly almost as stupid a fool as daft old you-know-who that rhymes with "Pox": and that is saying something.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 12:17 PM

There is another figure that you must have forgotten Jim.
We do not know what proportion of victims did not turn to Hillary Wilmer's support group, but we know that 400 families did, and all the perpetrators were BPs.

Why do you keep taking us back over this stuff Jim?
If you have nothing fresh, why post?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 12:43 PM

17 court cases to condemn the whole British Pakistani population - it's a fair cop guv, send 'em back to where they came from!
Before I abandon a lifelong belief that racial steretyping is not only wrong, but is utterly evil and extremely dangerous, I would require a transparently carried out survey by qualified experts on the subject, I would want to know the numbers involved, the areas surveyed and the conditions prevailing in those area...... and a damn sight more. These are such stuff holocausts are made on!                                                            
Had your and Keith's claims the slightest substance they would not only be blazened on every piece of BNP literature, but would feature regularly in the Daily Mail headlines, and those of every other right-wing rag. As it is, they remain what they are, unsubstantiated innuendos, not even claimed by any of Keith's cut-n-pastes to the extent you and he have. You really have gone over to The Dark Side!
"Just that one forgivable trick played on a lying troll."
Think he might be addressing me Cobra. He is referring to a forged posting he once made and the troll was actually a guest, fully accredited by one of the adjudicators, Joe Offer - so his latest prevarications are far from the first.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 12:57 PM

"17 court cases to condemn the whole British Pakistani population "
=====
Nobody is doing anything of the sort Jim.

And you know it whatever you may say, and whatever you may pretend.

And the sad thing is that I suspect you are even pretending it to yourself.

If you just won't listen, & just won't shift from your entrenched, doctrinaire, my·mind·is·made·up·so·please·do·not·confuse·me·with·facts attitude, then you won't ·····

and there is no more to be said ~~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 01:27 PM

Did you forget jim, that it was Cobra who raised the story of how I posted truth in the name of that lying troll?
And did you forget that Joe withdrew his accreditation from that troll and said it had been a mistake?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 02:15 PM

From Don T

When you put words like that into an opponents mouth, you make yourself ridiculous.

Bringing Muslim/Jewish affairs into the argument is equally specious, as I can cite as many crimes committed by Israel, as you can by Palestine, probably many more.

Your question above is easily answered. You obviously believe strongly that Muslims harbour ill feeling toward the rest of humanity, all Muslims.

I C&P'd the full section to pre-emt accusations of misquoting. Now, where do I start on something wrong at so many levels...

1. Let us compare the statements 1 and 3. 'when you put words in an opponents mouth you make yourself ridiculous' and 'you obviously believe strongly that Musims harbour ill feeling etc.' OK, you are not putting words in my mouth, but you are describing my beliefs in detail that you cannot possibly know., How ridiculous is that?

2. I do not believe for one instant that Muslims, Christians, Jews or Bush Baptists harbour ill feeling toward anyone. I do believe some societies values are not the same as ours but as long as someone else's morals are not forced on me I could not care less.

3. 'put words in an opponents mouth' What makes you think of yourself as my opponent? An opponent is someone I know and respect. Someone I can argue with and shake hands with at the end. Someone who's opinions I can disagree with without being subjected to abuse. An anonymous name on an internet forum is simply that, until I get to know them.

4. 'Bringing Muslim/Jewish affairs into the argument is equally specious, as I can cite as many crimes committed by Israel, as you can by Palestine, probably many more.' Well, firstly, I have never mentioned Palestine. Secondly, everyone is citing crimes by peoples not involved in the initial debate. Lox has somehow introduced east European trafficers; Cobra goes on about the Irish while you have mentioned, Hindus, Moroccans, Bahrainis, Tunisians and Iranians. Are all such acts specious or only the ones you disagree with?

Need I go on?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 02:49 PM

"Nobody is doing anything of the sort Jim."
Yes they are Mike - not going to bother posting Keith's statement linking sexual predators with the Pakistani culture puts all Pakistani immigrants in the frame - I never got a reply to my Irish/child abuser question.And the rest of your posting is made up of vacuuous, Keith/Akenaton-like accuasions - pity!
"And did you forget that Joe withdrew his accreditation from that troll and said it had been a mistake?"
No he did not withdraw his accreditation, the "troll"; remained untrollified! The thread remained open, despite Joe's comment that it should not have been started by a nom member - known to members. Even if he had closed the thread that would not have absolved you from your dishonest stunt, no matter how you attempted to wriggle out of it.
You really can't take being found out, can you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 03:24 PM

"Lox wanted us to believe that researchers did not regard on street grooming as a separate crime. This research has not even started yet!"


I've posted this quote twice already, but Keith seems to have a short memory.

"Authors of the first independent academic analysis looking at "on-street grooming", where young girls, spotted outside, including at the school gates, have become targets, said they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type"."


In other words, the research Keith cites hasn't started yet.

Thew research I cite CONTRADICTS keiths racist hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 03:41 PM

Keith writes:

"The sexual abuse of children is generally preceded by activity designed to ensnare them. For this reason the Sexual Offences Act 2003 actually has an offence of "grooming"."

Thank you keith - I said that about 900 posts ago when I said that grooming is merely the means by which abusers ensnare their victims.

You disagreed and argued that street grooming was a different crime type.


In posting the above quote, you support my view again and contradict your own hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 04:31 PM

Well, OK, Jim: when I say "Nobody is doing anything of the sort", I am using, I thought, a recognisable idiom for "I am not doing anything of the sort."

And I really wasn't. I was worried by these disproportionate numbers. I felt an explanation should be sought. I did not seek it in any sense in a way that would have involved the entire Pakistani community, or in their 'culture', however defined; but did think it might be worth looking for it, in the effect that the conditioning of their young males ~~ which the marriage customs, which neither they nor anyone else seems to me to dispute, whereby many are not permitted access to young women outside their immediate family, but are expected to submit unquestioningly to marriage with a cousin arranged by both sets of parents, often without meeting, or meeting more than perfunctorily, until the actual wedding; sometimes with a journey to Pakistan by one or other of the parties being required ~~ might have upon some among that young male section of this demographic.

I have sedulously avoided blaming the whole community, or any considerable part of it (let alone your "all"!), or their culture as such. But I defy anyone to deny that such customs as I have rubricated above are part of the conditioned expectations of some young males of the community; some among whom might jib at such demands and expectations, and express their dissatisfaction by the sort of unfortunate behaviour we are speaking of here. Especially, I might add, in view of the undisguised contempt which some of the demographic express regarding the morals of some of the indigenous community's young female population, much of which in turn is observaby earned by the unhappy binge-drinking and other such unhappy public-behavioural habits of some of the young females concerned.

It seemed to me that some consideration of this combination or syndrome of factors might just go some way towards explaining these disproportionate statistics of convictions regarding this particular form of exploitation.

Now, Jim: rationally and dispassionately please ~~ have you anything to urge against these arguments as a possible, speculative, solution to the quest for a reason for these disagreeable phenomena?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 06:32 PM

Interesting Story here about how there is a deliberate policy of False Islamophobic reporting for the Daily Star.

And lets face it - they aren't the only ones.

Dirty Desmond also owns the express, but I think it is safe to say that the mail has a similar policy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/04/daily-star-reporter-letter-full

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 08:24 PM

.

A story about a culture of repression.

All americans must therefore be rapists!! ... right Keith?

.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 02:43 AM

Jim, "You really can't take being found out, can you?"
It was never hidden.
I wanted and enjoyed having it seen and read as mine.
I put true words in his lying mouth.

Lox, the authors were cautious but stoods by their reults.
It can not be said that 53 bps out of 56 convictions is not significant and requires explanation.
What is yours?

You claimed the report found that there was no such thing as on street grooming.
Wrong.

Of course it is not new!
We have all known cases of a pervert trying to pick up children in a public place.

What is new is finding gangs working together at it to rape children on a vast scale.
Have you EVER heard of such a thing?
And, the evidence is that the perpetrators are disproportionately BPs.
An explanation has been given by people who know or are part of the BP community.
I think it sounds plausible.
HOW DO YOU JUST KNOW IT IS WRONG AND WHAT WOULD YOU REPLACE IT WITH???

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 03:49 AM

"I am not doing anything of the sort."
Fine Mike, That was what I was hoping for, and what I expected - apologies if I have misread you.
Sure, there is nothing wrong with examining and discussing these issues, as long as they are dealt with honestly and responsibly, which I don't believe is happening here - maybe we have all been propelled into over-defending our own particular corners.
I don't believe that making irresponsible and inflammatory statements, then seeking out examples to back up those statements in the course of the discussion (and ignoring or distorting ones that don't) is the way to honest debate; that is an updated form of 'bar-room just before chucking-out time' argument, which is usually dealt with by the publican with a note over the bar, "No politics, no religion".
I know you say you judge each thread on its own merit, but it is how Keith works - several 'discussions' to demonstrate this, which have been equally as mind-numbing and, IMO equally dangerously culturally generalising and derogatory as this one.
"have you anything to urge against these arguments"
No I don't; I don't believe anybody here has anything like enough real information on the British Pakstani situation to come to any conclusion one way or the other, and to claim they have on the basis of a tiny handful of carefully selected statements of personal opinions, unqualified, unquantified and uncorroborated, is irresponsible and agenda-serving. I certainly don't have enough knowledge on the subject to make definitive claims, and I'm not going to seek out random 'examples' from the internet to back up my ignorance (though I do believe I have enough familiarity with racism in general, personal and researched, to recognise it when I see it).
Thank's for taking some of the heat out of our encounter.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 04:37 AM

The evidence I have produced, to explain how I formed an opinion on a subject I have no knowledge of, is not "random."

It is the hard evidence of the convictions and of Wilmer's case files, and the observations of eminent and responsible people in public life.

Lox and Jim refuse to give that evidence any recognition.
They ignore it simply because it challenges their dogma.
It just can't be true, and only a racist would think so.

If you only accept that the evidence is in the very least suggestive that an issue exists, it is perfectly legitimate to ask why.
But not to Lox and Jim.
That also challenges their dogma, so it is racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 04:58 AM

keith: 'we've all heard of a pervert' etc. Actually keith, As well as using techniques of 'grooming' to ensnare victims organised paedophile rings will also 'share' abused children around to be sexually exploited by other members of the ring. The lone pervert exists of course, but is perhaps a limiting stereotype. large organised networks of adults engaged in the systematic grooming and sexual abuse of minors, has been with us for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 05:11 AM

Lively, I do not think that such rings predate the internet.
I believe that in all the cases involving grooming by rings, the grooming was done on line.
There may be a few exceptions, but I have not heard of them.
Have you?

Lox says there is no "new" crime of street grooming.
I have never before heard of men combining in teams to procure children in their hundreds from public places to rape them.

Having said that we now know it has been going on for years hidden from public knowledge, and the perpetrators mostly bps.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 05:54 AM

Keith.

The authors of the report which WAS completed say they are concerned that THE FIGURES ARE BEING MISREPRESENTED.

How are they being misrepresented?

They are being misrepresented by people to support an idea that street grooming is a new crime type and that it has a racial basis.

In other words, exactly what you are saying.


You are misrepresenting the figures to argue that it is a new crime type and that it has a racial basis.


The experts are concerned about people like you who draw conclusions that the stats DO NOT SHOW.


I could show you an ice cream and you would call it a brussels sprout!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:20 AM

""We are discussing the grooming and rape of children from the streets and public places of certain English cities.""

How many more times does this have to be pointed out before it penetrates the hermetically sealed mind Keith?

Grooming of young girls, particularly runaways and those who have been thrown out for various reasons, has been going on regularly at least since the early sixties, and probably well before that.

It has been a major source of sex slaves for big city pimps long before Eastern European crooks were able to travel to Britain.

The fact that it has not been reported separately from other crimes of abuse makes the Pakistani gangs' activities, which have been singled out, seem like a new problem.

Do a little homework for a change, and read up on instances of young men prowling Streets, Railway and Bus Stations, and Local Parks looking for likely prospects.

It might give you some balance in your perspective on this subject.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:26 AM

""That is indeed so ~~ and the statistics under consideration DID involve grooming, and DID NOT involve trafficking:""

Wrong again Mike.

The girls were groomed, sexually used, then passed around between multple abusers.

That is the definition of trafficking, unless you can show that no money changed hands at any point in the process, which I would find extremely difficult to believe.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:58 AM

""But I defy anyone to deny that such customs as I have rubricated above are part of the conditioned expectations of some young males of the community; some among whom might jib at such demands and expectations, and express their dissatisfaction by the sort of unfortunate behaviour we are speaking of here.""

Mike, would you not agree that if the above were true, we should be seeing similar percentages arising in other groups which live with exactly the same constraints on premarital sex?

One might expect that there would be young male Hindu gangs and gangs of non Pakistani Muslims indulging in the same activities.

Doesn't the fact that this is not so give reason to doubt the "Cultural Paedophile Theory" (and it is nothing more than a theory) espoused with such relish by Keith?

Psychologists would take issue with that theory on principle, because they would see Paedophilia as an innate state, not as a lifestyle choice. "Kiddie fiddlers are born, not made", and the vast majority of men do not find children sexually attractive.

Perhaps that will convince you that I am not seeking to pardon these criminals, but to prevent the dissemination of the idea that British Pakistanis are somehow turned into abusive criminals because they are Pakistani and/or Muslim.

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 07:53 AM

"Lox and Jim refuse to give that evidence any recognition."
Your 'dippings in and pulling out of the hat' do not constitute evidence, certainly not to back up your all-embracing generalisations about British Pakistani culture - how on earth could it - it has not been collected.
Explain how the behaviour of a minority group of Pakistanis in say, Bradford relate to that of, say, Southall or Clapham or Birmingham.
Facile, agenda laden 'research' like yours would give even The Daily Mail a bad name.
Nobody is attempting to pardon criminals or excuse their crimes; we are opposing your attemps to lay them at the door of a whole culture, as you are still attempting to do.
Perhaps it's time for you to adopt a new persona again!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 08:06 AM

"You are misrepresenting the figures to argue that it is a new crime type and that it has a racial basis."

I am certainly NOT misrepresenting the figures,, just STATING them
56 convictions came within the remit of the study.
53 were BPs.
How do YOU explain that Lox? Jim? Don?
And how do YOU al lexplain Wilmer's case file of 400 families of victims and ALL perpetrators BPs?
And how do YOU all explain away the observations of Cryer, Straw, Ahmed, Allibhai-Brown, senior police officers, Mohamed Suiffiq,...?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 08:08 AM

Jim again with nothing to add except denial.
None of the evidence counts because it just can not be true because, er, just because!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 08:28 AM

"I am certainly NOT misrepresenting the figures,, just STATING them"

No - you also extrapolated a hypothesis which purports to explain THE CRIME TYPE of street grooming on RACIAL grounds ... therefore misrepresenting the figures in exactly the way described by the authors of the research.


"Lox and Jim refuse to give that evidence any recognition."

Unlike you keith, I actually read it, and examined it. You have yet to respond to the issues I raised about it, or indeed to bother examining how it correlates with your hypothesis.

You just make a statement, call it a hypothesis and then post some stuff that you call supporting evidence without bothering to understand it, let alone examine it.

For example, you posted a report that hasn't even been conducted yet as evidence to support your view.


In addition, you didn't look at the evidence I provided, or you would have known that the report I referred to was a different one to the one you had posted, and mine WAS complete and CONTRADICTED your view as squarely as could be imagined.


You're still just making shit up.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 08:52 AM

Are you incapable of separating the two issues Lox?

ISSUE 1. Is there are disproportionate number of BPs involved in street grooming and rape of children in certain cities?

The hard evidence of the survey alone is highly suggestive that it is true, and in conjunction with all the other evidence leaves any rational thinking person with little doubt that the over representation is a fact.
No hypothesis there.

ISSUE 2. GIVEN that a disproportionate number of BPs are involved in this cruel and wicked crime, what makes them do it?

This is not amenable to proof.
The hypothesis was made by people with deep knowledge of the community, or actually part of it.
They all agree on the same hypothesis.

On the first issue Lox, Jim and Don, do you have any other explanation, other than bizarre coincidence, for all the evidence?

On the second issue, why should we listen to you and ignore them?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 09:07 AM

"ISSUE 1. Is there are disproportionate number of BPs involved in street grooming and rape of children in certain cities?"

This is not a supportable assertion.

The figures only appear disporoportionate because they cover such a select case study.

The experts have made clear that for that reason iit is wrong to extrapolate that there is either a new crime type or a racial dimension.


"GIVEN that a disproportionate number of BPs are involved in this cruel and wicked crime" ...

As I have just stated, this is not a given - it is merely how YOU interpret SOME of the available evidence.

And the experts have made clear that your interpretation is a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 10:59 AM

Lox,
"The figures only appear disproportionate because they cover such a select case study."

It was NOT a select study.
It encompassed 14 separate cases.
Almost all the perpetrators just turned out to be BPs.

But anyway, Straw, Cryer and the senior police KNEW that issue 1 was true years before the report.
They knew from their own personal contact with victims over the years.
Allibhai-Brown KNEW it was true years ago from her own personal contact with some perpetrators.
They would all have predicted the outcome of the report.
The outcome was exactly what you would find if issue 1 was true.

Why do you deny this?
Do you claim they are all lying or deluded?
No.
You just know it can't be true.
It just can't be or you would have to open your mind and think.
Robotic repetition of your discredited dogma is so much easier, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 11:09 AM

17 court prosecutions since 1997, 14 of them in the past three years, involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 11:47 AM

Some more witnesses.
Racist bigots?
A day after UKs' former home secretary Jack Straw blamed some Pakistani Muslim men for targeting "vulnerable" White girls sexually, UK's Hindu and Sikh organizations also publicly accused Muslim groups of the same offence.

Straw, in an interview to the BBC recently, had said, "...there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men...who target vulnerable young white girls...they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care ... who they think are easy meat."

Feeling emboldened by Straw's statement, UK's Hindu and Sikh organizations have also come in open and accused some Pakistani men of specifically targeting Hindu and Sikh girls. "This has been a serious concern for the last decade," said Hardeep Singh of Network of Sikh Organizations (NSO) while talking to TOI on Monday.

Sikhs and Hindus are annoyed that Straw had shown concern for White girls and not the Hindu and the Sikh teenage girls who have been coaxed by some Pakistani men for sex and religious conversion.

"Straw does other communities a disservice by suggesting that only white girls were targets of this predatory behaviour. We raised the issue of our girls with the previous government and the police on several occasions over the last decade. This phenomenon has been there because a minority of Islamic extremists view all 'non believers' as legitimate targets," said director NSO Inderjit Singh.

Targeted sexual offences and forced conversions of Hindu and Sikh girls was not a new phenomenon in the UK, said Ashish Joshio from Media Monitoring group.

"This has been going on for decades in the UK . Young Muslim men have been boasting about seducing the Kaffir (unbeliever) women. The Hindu and the Sikh communities must be commended for showing both restraint and maturity under such provocation," he added.

Read on.
http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/11088.html

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 11:49 AM

"Jim again with nothing to add except denial."
And once again no answer to the question.
"Explain how the behaviour of a minority group of Pakistanis in say, Bradford.....?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 12:07 PM

And what exactly have I denied - and where?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 12:17 PM

What exactly you have denied is issue 1.
To do that you have denied the evidence of the Dando Institute study and the testimony of Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Allibhai-Brown, Wilmer, Suffiq, Senior police, and now Inderjit Singh and Ashish Joshio.

You have also denied even the possibilty that those who suggested an explanation might possibly be on to something.

You have contributed nothing yourself.
I now have to hunt down your half formed question.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 12:20 PM

Found it.
"Explain how the behaviour of a minority group of Pakistanis in say, Bradford relate to that of, say, Southall or Clapham or Birmingham."

I do not know if or how the behaviour relates.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 12:38 PM

"It was NOT a select study.
It encompassed 14 separate cases.
Almost all the perpetrators just turned out to be BPs."

Those who carried out the study say it was a select study.

You are representing it falsely, in exactly the way that they are concerned about and that they clarify is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 12:56 PM

"Some more witnesses."


Where?


Your link leads only to a second hand report, from a hindu website, based in India, reporting about more OPINIONS of some people in the UK..

People who are responding to the same news reports as you.

And who do not state ANYWHERE that british Pakistanis are predisposed in any way to child abuse.

So they don't even support your hhypothesis anyway.


not 1 shred of evidence anywhere.


NONE!


You can provide 10,000 opinions and it will STILL NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE.


Your hypothesis remains BASELESS.


Its foundation is 100% unqualified opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 01:02 PM

"What exactly you have denied is issue 1.
To do that you have denied the evidence of the Dando Institute study"


Keith - you are making more shit up.


THE DANDO INSTITUTE SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED THE EXACT VIEWS THAT YOU ARE EXPRESSING AS BEING WRONG.


Ane Cryer, Jack Straw etc are just expressing OPINION!


You are still lying.


One and a half months spent trying to prove that Pakistanis are closet Paedos...

... Makes you a Racist Liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 01:10 PM

Lox,
"Those who carried out the study say it was a select study."

I do not think they did say that Lox.
Quote please

I think it was a study of, 17 court prosecutions since 1997, 14 of them in the past three years, involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men.

Witness statements.   
accused some Pakistani men of specifically targeting Hindu and Sikh girls. "This has been a serious concern for the last decade," said Hardeep Singh of Network of Sikh Organizations (NSO)
We raised the issue of our girls with the previous government and the police on several occasions over the last decade. This phenomenon has been there because a minority of Islamic extremists view all 'non believers' as legitimate targets," said director NSO Inderjit Singh.

Targeted sexual offences and forced conversions of Hindu and Sikh girls was not a new phenomenon in the UK, said Ashish Joshio from Media Monitoring group.

Hardeep said that in 2007, The Hindu Forum of Britain claimed that hundreds of Hindu and Sikh girls had been first romantically coaxed and later intimidated and converted by Muslim men.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 01:15 PM

"THE DANDO INSTITUTE SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED THE EXACT VIEWS THAT YOU ARE EXPRESSING AS BEING WRONG."
I do not think they did Lox.
Quote please.

"Ane Cryer, Jack Straw etc are just expressing OPINION!"
No.
They were speaking of there own actual experience with victims of the child raping gangs.
It was not an opinion that the children were raped, and not an opinion who did the raping.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 01:31 PM

'men combining in teams to procure children in their hundreds from public spaces.' in answer to your question, no i dont know of examples of teams of adults grooming in such a public fashion. Most peadophile rings operate in a highly covert manner. I dont neccesarily think this therefore describes a new 'crime type' but it does perhaps describe a highly succesful methodology currently being employed by a particular group of abusers.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 01:52 PM

Unfortunately, we are still fighting the Crusades. There seems to be religious ideological differences that escalate into a Beirut style war.

The problem is that "belief" often translates into rigid ideology.

So much hinges on interpretations of religion. They differ, reading one thing into them,
shutting out other possibilities of meanings, categorically painting all with the same brush,not allowing for different behaviors resulting from interpretations, and above all not separating these religious ideologies from the ethics of the people who subscribe to them is important here.

There have been religious atrocities conducted historically in every epoch. There also have been religious productive efforts in stabilizing and generating social good, as well.

To get excited about specific incidents and using those to define the behavior of any religious group is narrow-minded, ignorant and a kind of intellectual denial.

Separate the ideology from the behavior of people and you find a positive solution
to the contemporary "Crusades".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 02:10 PM

I do not think anyone here has used specific incidents to define the behaviour of any religious group.

The street grooming issue was a major news story and was picked up here.
We just can not agree if there is a specific issue or not.
Can you help?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Smedley
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 02:11 PM

Help is certainly needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 03:19 PM

No I haven't - if I have where?
I have consistently denied that the behaviour they have described is a consequence of Pakistani culture, which is totally your own invention, and it is this that makes your stance racist.
"You have also denied even the possibilty that those who suggested an explanation might possibly be on to something."
Where?
"I do not know if or how the behaviour relates."
Then how can the behaviour under discussion be an outcome of the British Pakistani culture, as you have claimed - are they not all Pakistanis living in Britain?
"You have contributed nothing yourself."
If I have contributed nothing, at least I have not attempted to brand a ethnic community as potential sexual predators - I'm sure you have your quote off by heart by now.
Still very much in the minority, are resorting to empty rhetoric yet again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 03:42 PM

Jim,
"the behaviour they have described is a consequence of Pakistani culture, which is totally your own invention, and it is this that makes your stance racist"

It is not totally my own invention.
it is not my invention at all.
I got it from Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Suffiq and Allibhai-Brown as you very well know.
Why say it?
And, are they racist for inventing it?
And, are you accepting or denying that "the behaviour they have described " is real, or a lie?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 04:17 PM

Keith,

I've quoted it 3 times already.

You don't know because you HAVEN'T BEEN BOTHERED TO READ ANY POSTS.

Here it is AGAIN.

"Authors of the first independent academic analysis looking at "on-street grooming", where young girls, spotted outside, including at the school gates, have become targets, said they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type" based on race"

note "small, geographically concentrated" ie 'select'.

note concern that the data was generalized into a crime type based on race.

IN OTHER WORDS - THEY CLARIFY THAT THE DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR HYPOTHESIS.


Learn to fucking read.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 04:35 PM

i wish the moderators would attempt to manage the freely weilded abuse on this thread of all threads. Personally i find the tone here to be quite intimidating. As such this will be my last posting on this topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 04:39 PM

Knowledgeable sources have called those cases which have actually come to court as "the tip of the iceberg"
.
"Child support groups and even police are afraid to report or follow up lest they fall foul of civil/human rights legislation"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 05:36 PM

That does not make it a "select" study Lox.
Geographically concentrated, because that is where the cases turned out to be.
A crime type.
Obviouslsy.
They were studying the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men.
So that is what they found.
Not based on race though.
They must not say that.
And I do not say it.

If issue 1 is true, those results are EXACTLY what you would expect.
If issue 1 is not true, the results would be a bizarre anomoly requiring explanation.
I have not heard one.
If the study had never been carried out we would still KNOW issue 1 is true from the testimony of Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Suffiq, allibhai-brown, Wilmer, the senior police officers, Hardeep Singh of Network of Sikh Organizations (NSO), director NSO Inderjit Singh, and Ashish Joshio .

The study is just an extra bit of corroboration.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:21 PM

"I got it from Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Suffiq and Allibhai-Brown as you very well know."
Repeating your distortions alters nothing
Where has anybody said that sexual grooming and abuse is a trait of Pakistani culture - apart from yourself?
Why have you consistently ignored that warning of one of your own posting (which you dismissed as "a typical Guardian headline") that any findings that might have been made are at risk of being used by people like yourself to make racist points.
Try Lox's posting:
"Authors of the first independent academic analysis looking at "on-street grooming", where young girls, spotted outside, including at the school gates, have become targets, said they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type" based on race"
You continue - virtually alone now, apart from your homophobic friend - to take your own postings out of context and use them as an attack on the British Pakistani community.
"Why say it?"
It is you who have said it - address your own statement - including the implication that if it covers Pakistanis in the north of England, does it cover those in the other areas I mentioned - come on, don't be coy; we need to know?
"You have also denied even the possibilty that those who suggested an explanation might possibly be on to something."
Once again - where?
My point all along has been that RACIAL STEREOTYPING OF THE TYPE YOU ARE INDULGING IN IS WRONG, IS EVIL, AND IS RACIST.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:38 PM

I wiil repeat it again because it is no distortion.
It is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
"I got it from Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Suffiq and Allibhai-Brown as you very well know."

That has been my position throughout and I defy you to show otherwise.

Now Issue 1 is that there is an over representation.
I know Issue 1 is correct because of the experience reported by all those eminent people in public life.

The study actually found an over representation, but Lox and Jim claim this proves that there is NO over representation!

A triumph of dogma over reason!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:46 PM

This is utterly ridiculous.

Keith ... select = limited

ie - not enough evidence

Why not enough?

Because of limitations of geography AND SIZE ..

... DID YOU READ THAT? ... SIZE ... THE STATS COVER TOO SMALL A SAMPLE ... ie ITS TOO SELECT ...

The study does not corroborate your view unless its results are deliberately misrepresented - the authors have made that clear.

The reasons given by its authors are scientific, not political.

The study also SPECIFICALLY contradicts the OPINION of Straw, Cryer etc.

Yet Keith states that it "corroborates" their "evidence"


Cryer Straw etc have given no evidence.

They have only said what they SUSPECT.


Keith is asserting that if someone suspects you of a crime, then that is evidence enough that you have committed it.

This is another attempt to put the onus of proof on the denier.

Its YOUR hypothesis - you, Straw and cryer have to provide the evidence.

Just saying "a high profile politician suspects it therefore it is true" is NONSENSE.

Keith is inventing racist bullshit for which there is no supporting evidence and deliberately misrepresenting research done to support his agenda, even though those who carried out the researh specifically point out that his interpretation of their work is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:49 PM

"The study actually found an over representation, but Lox and Jim claim this proves that there is NO over representation!"

The Authors specifically stated that the study reveals nothing of the sort.


Keith is lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:51 PM

"A triumph of dogma over reason! "


The only Dogma here is that British Pakistanis are closet Paedos.

a dogma Keith has been fighting to assert for over a month.


Tell me what my dogma is keith and where I have said it.

You can't because I have none.


Another lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 07:23 PM

It is apparent that Keith does not debate to uncover the truth, but only to win.

The big challenge is to win the unwinnable argument.

A debate to him is nothing more than a battle of wits.


but in fact, his wits are insufficient to the task, which is why he must distort, misrepresent, and in extreme circumstances, simply tell lies.


In addition, in this case, he demonstrates a sinister fascination and need to slander a raciql group that he finds distasteful.


For that reason I'm out.


The first thing Keith will do in my absence will be to misquote, misrepresent and lie about me.

I don't understand that mentality, but I shall have to accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 12:28 AM

"In addition, in this case, he demonstrates a sinister fascination and need to slander a raciql group that he finds distasteful.
For that reason I'm out."   Lox
===
Keith, so far as I can see, has mentioned nothing about his views on any racial group; he has merely deplored & questioned the [undisputed] activities of a small but over-represented group among one localised demographic & has never claimed to be doing more.

So Lox is "out", is he? How many times is that on this thread, can anyone be bothered to count? And he has the gall to call other people 'liars' as well as indulging in random unbased lying abuse about them of a sort to raise severe concern as to his mental condition and sexual stability.

Wonder how long before he's back on-thread with more of his drivelling evasions. About 15 minutes, I should think, if past form anything to go by. Anyone care for a bet?

Mind you, because I have said that, he might after all actually take himself off and stay away. Wouldn't that be a delightful outcome, now, eh!

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 02:53 AM

Lox, all those people did NOT say they suspect there is an issue.
They all say the issue is FACT and say that from there own personal contact with victims, their families and in some cases perpetartors.

The over represenation is a fact.
The survey found a massive over representation which can hardly be claimed to be evidence against over representation.

There is a massive over representation of BPs in this crime.
Fact.
Accept that and then we can debate why.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 03:03 AM

Sorry Mike, we're not going to get beyond Keith's mantra and discover why 'it's a cultural thing' now.
Leave you all to your own opinions along with the "typical Guardian headline" from of one of Keith's findings, quoted ad nauseum and rejected by him.
"CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING STUDY SPARKS EXAGGERATED RACIAL STEREOTYPING"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 03:23 AM

The "exaggerated racial stereotyping" referred to the race of the victims.
Why can we not accept over representation and debate reasonably the possible causes?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 04:14 AM

The exaggerated racial stereotyping referred to the findings being used by racists - you are deliberately ditorting this up to defend your racism.
Don't you agree Mike - or not?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 04:55 AM

Don't bother Mike, sorry I asked.
Can't stomach this lying ratbag any more - I'm off
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 06:25 AM

Before you answer Mike, look what Jim Carrol edited out of the Guardian piece he posted.

The passage as in the original,
But Brayley and Cockbaine, whose six-month study was cited as evidence, said they were worried that limited data had been extended "to characterise an entire crime type, in particular of race and gender". They challenged claims that white girls were deliberately sought out by offenders. "Though the majority … were white so too were the majority of local inhabitants." Comparing the percentage of white people in the areas with black and ethnic minorities, their data, they said, showed "black and ethnic minority girls over-represented among the victims".

They added: "This challenges the view that white girls are sought out by offenders, suggesting instead that convenience and accessibility may be the prime drivers for those looking for new victims."

Read the original to see which of us is the liar who distorts the evidence.http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jan/06/child-sex-trafficking-racial-stereotyping

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 06:40 AM

This takes you to Jim's cut and paste that is carefully edited to change its meaning.
thread.cfm?threadid=135090&messages=1139#3103412

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 02:40 PM

""You have also denied even the possibilty that those who suggested an explanation might possibly be on to something.""

No we have not! We have suggested that there are other possible alternatives, which you have wantonly chosen to ignore, because they do not gel with your hard wired prejudice.

You in fact are the only person who is denying the possibility of any explanation other than your own, which is not fully supported, even by those you quote.

You act like a disaffected teenager, answering any questions with the equivalent of "Wha'evor!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 02:56 PM

""If issue 1 is not true, the results would be a bizarre anomoly requiring explanation.
I have not heard one.""

Any scientist will tell you point blank that statisics based on very small samples are unreliable in the extreme.

Why do you think you know more than the scientific experts?

Statistically, basing your claims on the existing sample without reference to what is happening in other areas with a high Pakistani population, is arrant nonsense, and any conclusions arising from it are not defensible.

On your second point, you would have heard (seen actually) alternative possible explanations had you taken the trouble to read our posts, and, unlike your theory, we are not claiming to have the only possible answer based on xenophobia.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 05:13 PM

Don, there has been no alternative explanation given by your side.
Lox kept up a pretence for a while that one could be found in his posts, but it was a charade.
Please do not pretend that I could find one by reading the posts.
I have scoured them now.
Your side has offered nothing.
It was all a lie.

We do not need the survey to know that the over representation is a fact.
We have the testimony of Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Suffiq, allibhai-brown, Wilmer, the senior police officers, Hardeep Singh of Network of Sikh Organizations (NSO), director NSO Inderjit Singh, and Ashish Joshio, all speaking from the FACT of their own contacts with victims, with their families and in some cases with perpetrators.

Then we have the survey.
It also found a massive over representation, but you all claimed that proved there is no over representation.
Ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 05:39 PM

From reading the article in the Guardian it seems to me that sex traffic is a world-wide
problem and not limited to any cultural group or gang. To narrow the issue it so that it fits the present xenophobia regarding Muslims is specious and destructive.

Any mention of Pakistani or Muslim groups today are subject to the same kind of
baiting that was used in earlier times to refer to African-Americans regarding white women being molested (history of the KKK and Reconstruction ala DW Griffith's "Birth of a Nation") and is based on fear and demonization and a long legacy of this sickness.

The point of the Guardian article as I see it is that it doesn't point to these incidents
as being exclusive to any one culture.

Racism doesn't explain anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 06:05 PM

Racism proves nothing.
Who could argue.

This issue became a news item in January.
There are gangs operating in certain English cities.
They win the confidence of children and then rape them.
Gang rape them whenever they feel like it.
Young lives destoyed.
This is not a nightmare fantasy, it has been going on for years.
There are certainly hundreds, and maybe thousands of young victims.

Should we continue the conspiracy of silence about this Stringsinger, just because the gangs happen to be from a particular ethnic group?

Is it OK to talk about it or not Stringsinger?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 06:20 PM

I do not think you have followed this whole debate Stringsinger.
Did you read this for instance?
http://www.sacw.net/article1945.html

It is written by a part Pakistani Muslim women whose whole life has been dedicated to fighting racism.
Yasmin Allibhai-Brown.
Google her, and also British Pakistani Lord Ahmed Stringsinger.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 06:54 PM

Strinsinger, Google Hillary Wilmer too.
Some of the stuff you may have missed, all posted here.

Hilary Willmer, of the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping, said that since 2002 her group had supported 400 families where girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men. "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg." But she cautioned against treating the matter as a race crime. "It's a criminal thing."

"At the beginning we worked on the assumption that girls were groomed by individual pimps, but later discovered widespread pimping networks, much like international people trafficking gangs. Shopping malls, games arcades, places around takeaways and parks are common meeting places.

"The girl (who's typically aged between 13 and 16, but can be only 11 or 12) may meet the man alone, or be introduced by a friend who already knows him. He is usually quite a lot older and good looking, well-dressed and may well have a fast car. He'll meet her regularly, shower her with gifts, give her drink and maybe also drugs, take her for rides, tell her how special she is. He may have sex with her, but not at first, and he will discourage her from telling her parents about him because "they wouldn't understand".

"At some point further down the line he will take her to a flat or down an alley and tell her that in return for all the things he has done for her, it's payback time and she has to do something for him. She will then probably be gang raped. She will be confused, weak, think she's in love with the pimp, but also feel ashamed and guilty. She goes home and takes it out on her family and also drops out of education."


Hilary said,
"The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"""The girl (who's typically aged between 13 and 16, but can be only 11 or 12) may meet the man alone, or be introduced by a friend who already knows him. He is usually quite a lot older and good looking, well-dressed and may well have a fast car. He'll meet her regularly, shower her with gifts, give her drink and maybe also drugs, take her for rides, tell her how special she is. He may have sex with her, but not at first, and he will discourage her from telling her parents about him because "they wouldn't understand".

"At some point further down the line he will take her to a flat or down an alley and tell her that in return for all the things he has done for her, it's payback time and she has to do something for him. She will then probably be gang raped. She will be confused, weak, think she's in love with the pimp, but also feel ashamed and guilty. She goes home and takes it out on her family and also drops out of education."""

"The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg."

Hilary Willmer set up a charity to help victim
She has worked with 400 families of victims, as I reported.

According to The Guardian, she said "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg."

Hilary Willmer, from the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping (Crop), said while she welcomes the new initiative, tackling internal trafficking would be hampered by a law that dictates girls over 13 should give evidence against their handlers in court - something they are rarely willing to do.

"It can happen to any child from any family," she said. "The men, the gangs have all the experience. The children, the families and the parents are bewildered, don't know what's happening.

"In practice, unless the primary victim is prepared to give evidence then it's very difficult to make charges stick. The men know this, so they often wait until the girls are 13 before actually having sex with them."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 04:28 AM

A final thought, and then I really am off.
This has been one of the most squalid threads I have ever been involved in.
It has been unbelievably depressing to see up close, concerted attempts by a tiny handful of posters to brand a whole racial/cultural community as sordid criminals, based on unresearched (and largely undigested by those who would attempt to make capital of it), 'information'.
All my life I have been witness to racism in three of Britain's major cities. I know it exists; I've seen it almost daily and have, when we were working with Travellers, experienced it first hand, yet, when I attempted to play devil's advocate and suggest that it might be an English cultural trait, the screams of outrage from the most vociferous advocates of British Pakistani degeneracy, could be heard from here to Buckingham Palace.
You really can't have it both ways.
If it is permissible to openly advocate that British Pakistanis are culturally inclined towards sexual degeneracy, then it is equally permissible to advocate that the English are culturally racist (and lousy lovers who can't make it in the bedroom), that Irishmen are moronic, Guinness-swilling bomb-throwers, that blacks are over-endowed, over-sexed drug dealers and users, and Americans are gun-toting loudmouths who tolerate torture and imprisonment without trial to be used by their politicians in their name.
Racial stereotyping is evil; it divides our society, it impoverishes and disadvantages whole communities, and it can kill – ask the parents of Stephen Lawrence.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 04:46 AM

No one said it was wrong to draw attention to the raping of children by priests.
Catholic priests can be regarded as an ethnic group with a culture and customs of their own.
No one said it was wrong to speculate on what predisposed some priests to rape children.
It was all discussed here.
Jim, Lox and Stringsinger all contributed.

It was a major news story that BPs had been observed to be disproportionately involved in the on-street grooming and rape of children in some areas.

I did not start the discussion. I joined after a few days and provided material for discussion, all from reputable sources and none of it my own creation.
What is wrong with that?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 05:02 AM

"Catholic priests can be regarded as an ethnic group with a culture and customs of their own."

That takes the biscuit!!!! So Catholic priests from India/ Africa/ Brazil/ Ireland/ England/ Germany etc etc etc form "an ethnic group"??


Keith,I believe the answer to this thread is rather simple, in truth. You are a BNP/ EDL member, no?

It strikes me as illuminating that your position in this matter mirrors exactly the party line. And, as we all know, the BNP seeks to demonise the Asian community in general and the Pakistani Muslim community in particular. Its objective? Quite simple really. To create divisions within society so as to increase its vote and thereby look forward to the establishment of a fascist state.

Is that your agenda? Are you, in fact, a party member? Is this why you have told lies, misrepresented what others have written and distorted their research findings, ignored the statistical shortcomings which the research scientists themselves have warned against?

Oh, and there is your blatant deceit in posting as someone else. And lying about that when you were caught out. Your determined last-wordism would probably have worked by now were it not for the fact that you have, on each occasion, sought to tell yet more lies and distort what people have said.

There are two possible explanations. One, you have a political agenda (see above) or two, you are incredibly thick - which is why you persist in exposing yourself as the Mudcat sheepshagger: "...just one sheep....". by repeating your lies ad nauseam. Is that it?

Oh wait! There is a third possibility. You might well be both.

And then there is your ongoing refusal to answer points put to you, claiming that it would take too long to read through the questions asked, that you cannot address more than two points at a time. The reality, of course, is that you are intellectually bereft. You have actually admitted that you have no opinions of your own, that you are merely positing the positions which others have put forward. Yet you do not even extend the courtesy of an accurate reflection of what these people have said. For someone who has no opinions of your own, you certainly come across with very strident and firmly rooted outpourings which are most certainly all your own.

So, which is it? BNP/ EDL activist, intellectually lazy buffoon or both?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 05:19 AM

You could engage in debate Cobra, instead of just slandering me personally.
It would be a bit more demanding to actually refer to my posts though.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 05:44 AM

"Catholic priests can be regarded as an ethnic group with a culture and customs of their own."
What??????????
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 05:48 AM

Jim: Much disappointed in your ~ avowed ~ last post. After all that has been pointed out to you, by me & others; & after the points you have explicitly agreed to on my other, 'Racism/catchall', thread, you persist on missing the point by a vast distance, merely giving further vent to shrill generalised cries of "Racism" which take no account of any of the points made.

I say again ~~ you are being doctrinaire: and politically motivated: and uncharacteristically dense ~~

and DISAPPOINTING.

~M~

I have already said all I consider appropriate about the fatuous, frivolous cobra

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 06:02 AM

Yes Jim, why is it OK to discuss rapist priests but not any other type?

And, Allibhai-Brown and Ahmed both say that there is an issue of BPs raping children and both explain it in terms of culture.
How can I be racist and them not.

Why not just drop the abuse and discuss the issue.
You just can't, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 07:05 AM

Likewise Mike
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 08:32 AM

I thought this piece offered an interesting perspective on contemporary 'anti-establishment' British Pakistani youth sub-culture to be found in economically deprived Northern towns:

Ibn Khaldun: Asian Gangs and White Girls

"Last week, The Times carried a piece on its front page that discussed the seemingly growing phenomenon of Asian gangs, of predominantly Pakistani heritage, sexually exploiting young and vulnerable white girls in the Midlands and the North. The BNP have been openly using this issue for propaganda purposes for a number of years and have aimed at transforming it into an 'Islam' issue. The Times, however, have been much more balanced and focused on the importance of discussing the issue out in the open whilst simultaneously challenging the culture of silence that pervades such sensitive issues in this country."
[...]
"I don't think this has much to do with faith in a direct way nor should it be discussed as a 'Muslim' issue. But it has everything to do with a British Pakistani sub-culture that has developed in many decaying northern towns and cities in this country. In these places, certain young Asian men are disconnected from mainstream society; they develop their own lingo, their own traditions and sub-culture. This sub-culture is often an amalgamation of rural Punjabi values and US hip-hop culture. This sub-culture, in turn, has a deviant offshoot, a sub-culture of a sub-culture if you like, that is anti-establishment, rebellious, crime-prone and deeply ignorant. Petty crime, racism, sexism and homophobia are standard."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 11:43 AM

""Don, there has been no alternative explanation given by your side""

You are a LIAR!!!

I have repeatedly posted on the obvious possibility that these men are a Paedophile Gang, which happens to be mainly Pakistani simply because like gravitates to like, and men trust their own community more than outsiders.

You have dismissed that utterly as a possible alternative because your twisted agenda is to denigrate yet another of the minorities you despise.

It defies logic that you base a theory upon your inaccurate interpretation of other peoples opinions, then claim absolute certainty that yours is the only possible explanation.

I would still like an answer to one question, so I will post it separately, so as not to overtax your goldfish attention span.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 11:50 AM

Shouldn't we be seeing similar percentages arising in other groups which live with exactly the same constraints on premarital sex?

One might expect that there would be young male Hindu gangs and gangs of non Pakistani Muslims indulging in the same activities.

Shouldn't we also be seeing the same pattern in other places with a high percentage of Pakistanis e.g. Southall

Doesn't the fact that this is not so give reason to doubt the "Cultural Paedophile Theory" (and it is nothing more than a theory) espoused with such relish by yourself?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 12:13 PM

"you are being doctrinaire: and politically motivated: and uncharacteristically dense"
A bit more time now.
I have studiously avoided pointing out that racism is the traditional weapon on the right - that whenever a government finds itself in trouble, living standards threatened and unemployment on the rise, the finger is inevitably pointed at non- Brits.
Before we start flinging 'politically motivated' accusations about please ascertain your own particular glass house is well shuttered, especially as you appear to be sharing the same rabbit-hole as a nutter who has just invented a new ethnic grouping (Catholic priests) to defend his excess of zeal in the race departnment.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 01:59 PM

===racism is the traditional weapon on the right===

Precisely as true, Jim, as the assertion that the traditional weapon on the left is to shriek "racism" whenever one is getting the worst of any argument.

You decide how true that is -

~~ bearing in mind however,please, the agreement you expressed on my "catchall" thread; one point of which, NB though, was that the technique had spread out from the political left as a means to be used by anyone to undermine any opponent; I started with an example of precisely such a tactic resorted to by a footballer who had been called an "Italian bastard" ~~ neither element of which, however offensively intended, could possible be described as racist in any viable definition.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 02:48 PM

"Precisely as true....,"
Which is why childish name-calling is best avoided, don't you think?
"political left as a means to be used by anyone to undermine any opponent"
Racism is the topic under discussion here, not something that has been produced out of the air as a mudslinging weapon, as has 'doctrinaire', 'politically motivated' and 'uncharacteristically dense' .
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 03:06 PM

Jim it is very cruel to say you are going and then to come back, as full of empty abuse as ever.

Don,
"possibility that these men are a Paedophile Gang, which happens to be mainly Pakistani simply because like gravitates to like, and men trust their own community more than outsiders."

The study covered 17 SEPARATE court cases over 14 years.
The witnesses talk of hundreds and hundreds of victims in several cities over many years.
It is silly to imagine it is just one gang.
Think before you call me a liar please.
There are liars here.
I do not lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 03:14 PM

Don,
""Cultural Paedophile Theory" (and it is nothing more than a theory) espoused with such relish by yourself?"

It is not espoused by me.
I am not in a position to hypothesise about it.
These people all suggested a cultural explanation.
Straw, Cryer, Shufiq, Allibhai-Brown and Ahmed.
Shufiq and Ahmed are BPs.
Allibhai Brown is Muslim and half Pakistani.
Are they not better informed than you, Jim, Lox and Cobra put together?
If they are not racists, how can reporting their views make me a racist?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 04:44 PM

Poster is akenaton
As far as I can see, not one victim.....was muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 05:36 PM

OK, Guest 999, here's what I think. The solution is simple. Separation of Church and State.
Let people do their religion as they wish provided they honor this simple but great idea
of democracy. I don't agree with any religion but they have a right to practice it as long as it doesn't step on other's rights. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 05:54 PM

Regarding gangs. These organizations aren't representative of any culture but may be associated with the criminal elements of that culture. It becomes an absurdity to claim that
any gang represents an ethnic culture or nationality in its totality.

Criminals come in all shapes, cultures, sizes and behavior.

Prejudice based on race, culture, economic level, or of any kind does nothing to
identify and isolate criminal behavior.

Prejudice in general is a shutting off of a mental capacity to evaluate people correctly.

Gangs are criminals and are not limited to any culture or nationality.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 01:20 AM

Stringsinger.
"It becomes an absurdity to claim that
any gang represents an ethnic culture or nationality in its totality."

Obviously true Stringsinger, but no one in the 1167 post on this thread has claimed that so what is your point?!


"Gangs are criminals and are not limited to any culture or nationality."
Again trite, obvious and pointless Stringsinger.

We have been discussing a very specific crime.
The on street grooming of under age girls by groups for the purpose of rape.
The evidence is that the groups ARE overwhelmingly of one culture.

Unless you have any actual evidence to the contrary.
Do you Stringsinger?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 02:50 AM

With reference to the racial aspect, it might be worth noting that I've read several (with the caveat that they are of course anecdotal) comments online from Sikhs who broadly maintain that Pakistani gangs were grooming Sikh girls before they began to target white working class girls.

Some comments I've read maintain that Pakistani gangs only began specifically targeting white working class girls, after being confronted by Sikh vigilante gangs who organised themselves to combat the crime back in the eighties and nineties.

An interesting alternative perspective on the problematic issue of 'racism' which appears to pervade this issue, might be found from some members of the Sikh community who feel that the police only took an interest in these particular crimes, once white girls were being targeted rather than Asian and black girls.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 02:58 AM

anon GUEST below, was not me by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 03:13 AM

Anecdotal maybe, but it fits the pattern only too well.

Cryer says she failed to persuade the police to act as long ago as 92, from memory, and I assume she was mainly dealing with white victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 03:24 AM

"Jim it is very cruel to say you are going and then to come back, as full of empty abuse as ever."
Keith - stop being pathetic.
As much as you would wish it otherwise, I will come back whenever I feel like it - sorry to have trespassed on your comfort zone.
Whether my postings are 'full of empty abuse' or not is there to be judged; I have not chosen to call anybody 'doctrinaire', 'politically motivated' and 'uncharacteristically dense' or even 'full of empty abuse' - that is abuse at its most empty as far as I am concerned.
Your 'war of attrition' technique, here, as elsewhere, encourages people to continue even though we have long abandoned the idea that you might actually be reading what others have written - a common accusation aimed at you, on this and other threads.
This is not your thread, anybody who wishes to can join in, and as far as I am concerned, racism is far too important a subject to be left to you and yours.
Long may people continue, even though some of us feel we would rather be a million light years away.
"The solution is simple. Separation of Church and State."
Amen to that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 04:13 AM

Despite warnings from one of his own sources, of racist attempting to make political capital of some ofthe findings, this is a selection from around a quarter of Keith's postings on this thread.
It is the picture Keith presents to us of the Pakistani community in Britian today - will get round to the rest of his postings later.
Jim Carroll

The on street grooming of under age girls by groups for the purpose of rape.
on-street grooming and rape of children in some areas
They win the confidence of children and then rape them.
Gang rape them whenever they feel like it.
child raping gangs.
Pakistani men specifically targeting Hindu and Sikh girls.
Targeted sexual offences and forced conversions of Hindu and Sikh girls
Islamic extremists view all 'non believers' as legitimate targets,
first romantically coaxed and later intimidated and converted by Muslim men.
Pakistani heritage men...who target vulnerable young white girls...they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care ... who they think are easy meat."
Young Muslim men have been boasting about seducing the Kaffir (unbeliever) women.
the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men.
gangs working together at it to rape children on a vast scale.
the grooming and rape of children
It is not being a Pakistani which causes potential sexual repression in these men. It is their Muslim upbringing
criminal practice of forced marriages
a connection between forced marriages and the Pakistani gangs in the north of England
British-born Pakistani men are too often forced into loveless marriages with cousins from abroad and suggested this encouraged them to seek out these young girls.
young girls and women handed over to cousins in Pakistan or to men they have never seen in Bangladesh and India.
Some Asian husbands trapped in loveless, dead relationships become -frustrated, their desires emotionally distorted.
Sex, for them, is not reciprocal or an act of consent. It is taken as a right, regardless of what their wives — or indeed, those young girls they prey on
her husband now has a 13-year-old white 'girlfriend
he too used to prey on young white girls.
looking for easy sex with white girls
savage sexual and physical abuse and emotional persecution meted out to rebellious sons.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 04:17 AM

Empty abuse.
You say "racist" because you have nothing else to say.

The people saying there is an issue with BPs and this crime include BPs and famous anti racists, yet you call me racist for quoting them

Empty abuse.

The people giving an explanation based on culture also include BPs and famous anti racists, yet again you call me racist for accepting their explanation in the complete absence of any other provided by you or Lox.

Empty abuse because you have nothing else to offer.

You can keep posting here, but you have nothing to post.
Do you Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 04:40 AM

"The people giving an explanation based on culture"

As link I posted previously comments, I believe it may be more accurate to speak in terms of a particular hybrid British Pakistani 'criminal sub-culture' to be found in some cities.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 04:52 AM

Jim: purely for reasons of accuracy and equity, I must remind you that "politically motivated, doctrinaire, uncharacteristically dense", which you appear to quote as words used to you by Keith, in fact came from me.

I stand by them. Sorry.

While on, otherwise probably shouldn't bother, I can't see what your recent long litany of discrete extracts from Keith's posts is intended to prove, or what purpose it is supposed to serve whatever.


Regards ~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 05:52 AM

I too am bemused at Jim's long post.

Are you saying Jim that I was wrong to provide those quotes?
They are from reputable sources and very relevant to the discussion.

Should some kind of censorship be imposed Jim?
Please explain your thinking here.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 05:56 AM

"politically motivated, doctrinaire, uncharacteristically dense"
For the reasons of accuracy and equity, I didn't claim otherwise. I may well be placing yours and Keith's outlook under the same heading, but there is no danger of my confusing your postings.
"I can't see what your recent long litany of discrete extracts from Keith's posts is intended to prove."
It is a picture of the Pakistani communities in Britain as presented by Keith throughout this thread - nothing more nor less. Tell us it is not.
"You say "racist" because you have nothing else to say."
Then once again you are not reading what others are posting. What I have said may be wrong, but I have said something - go read it. You appear to have the affliction of not seeing what you don't agree with.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 06:06 AM

"It is a picture of the Pakistani communities in Britain as presented by Keith throughout this thread"

No, it is amassed evidence for the fact of this issue.

Are you on my side now?
Thanks for your support.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 07:27 AM

Just read this in the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363772/Muslim-extremist-burned-poppies-Armistice-Day-fined-just-50.html

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 07:53 AM

Oh careful, I nearly got my head ripped off by quoting anything from the Daily Mail.

It seems there are those who vet which reports they habitually agree or disagree with . . .

Not that I particularly give a rat's **** either way of course.

Interesting I've still not got one response to the question, why do you think there is prejudice amongst the rank and file of the population against (radical) Muslims.

I still laugh at the smears of racial bigotry aimed at me, especially when you look at the definition of such terms and then look at what the Muslim extremists openly and publically state. And I'M the one accused - no sense of the ridiculous some people out there.

Just for the record, I am against ANYONE of ANY religion, of ANY colour, of ANY political persuasion, of ANY nationality that seeks to disinherit me and mine by violent means.

If THAT makes me a racist bigot, then I am proud to be so.

What is nice to see, is I have some well educated and articulate allies. Well done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 08:21 AM

"No, it is amassed evidence for the fact of this issue."
No it isn't, it is a selection of a handful of incidents, unquantified and unqualified - we have no idea if they are even representitive of the areas in which they occurred, never mind of the Pakistani communities in Britain - we have no idea how they fit into British life whatever. If you have any information on this, please present it; you haven't so far.
The classic technique of racism is to take examples of the worst behaviour of members of immigrant communities and present them as typical, leaving us with the impression that this is how all immigrants behave.
The sheer weight alone of your postings (I nearly wrote examples, but in fact they are very few, just repeated over and over again as a mantra) would be enough to leave us with this impression, but you have compounded this with your claim that this behaviour is the result of British Pakistani culture. That, for me, is what makes your stance racist.
I have never claimed that the incidents described never happened, any more than I would claim that the same behaviour is not present in every other cultural group in Britain, including the indigenous population.
I do say that it is racist to present it, as in any way typical of the Pakistani communities, as you persistanly have throughout this thread.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 09:12 AM

Then how am I supposed to debate?
Obviously you would prefer I did not challenge your precious dogma.

We started to discuss this major news story, and Lox and later you said it was not true.

So I post a quote from a reputable person whose experience is that it is true.
You still deny it, so I find another, and so on.

And that makes me racist?

If you did not deny the experience of every witness I put up, and every bit of hard evidence, I would not keep putting up more.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 11:15 AM

'Then how am I supposed to debate?'
With a degree of sensitivity and knowledge the subject requires, which you obviously don't posess, with an awareness of the consequences of misrepresenting the subject (which was warned about in one of your own examples and which you dismissed as 'a typical Guardian headline') and without the 'agenda' the number and nature of your postings and your outrageous 'cultural' analysis carries with it.
"precious dogma."
What precious dogma - I believe your contribution to this thread paints a grotesque and distorted view of the British-Pakistani population, one projected continually by organisations like the BNP. Exposing that view as the oft repeated lie that it is, is my only agenda.
"You still deny it"
Where do I deny it - I challenged your 'impeccible sources' claim, I don't believe impeccible sources on the question of race exist, at least certainly not among politicians. As I keep repeating and you keep ignoring the reseach simply hasn't been carried out on this subject I have neither questioned nor accepted anything your sources have had to say; if anybody has done that, it is you who passed off the warning of one of them as 'a typical Guardian headline'. - I simply don't know the FULL facts any more than you do. You are still unable to produce one scrap qualitative or quantitive documentation on the events described - how do they represent the Pakistan population or its culture, as you have claimed they do?
"And that makes me racist?"
The volume and nature of your postings and the conclusions you appear to draw from your handful of examples is what makes you a racist.
"If you did not deny the experience of every witness I put up, and every bit of hard evidence"
Where did I do this?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 11:45 AM

OK Jim, straight answer please.
Is on street grooming by groups mainly a crime of BPs?

To get you to accept that is the only reason I put up all those quotes.
I do not see a need to be sensitive when talking about child rapists, which I acknowledge most BPs are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 01:05 PM

"Is on street grooming by groups mainly a crime of BPs?"
Yes where have I claimed it wasn't? (please answer)
"To get you to accept that is the only reason I put up all those quotes."
I don't believe you - the volume and content of your postings leaves me with the impression that you are attempting to present a sordidpicture of the Pakistani populatio in Britain.
"If you did not deny the experience of every witness I put up, and every bit of hard evidence"
Where did I do this - please answer - and all the other requests I made for examples to your accusations of 'my agenda' and 'my denials' in your previous post.
Your continuing evasions are exactly what makes me believe you are working to some sort of agenda, such as "I do not see a need to be sensitive when talking about child rapists". We are talking about smearing whole communities with 'cultural' labels, not 'child rapists', which we all deplore.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 01:15 PM

"the volume and content of your postings leaves me with the impression that you are attempting to present a sordidpicture of the Pakistani populatio in Britain."

Yes, Jim; and an 'impression' is exactly what it is, not any sort of accurate extrapolation from anything that has been said.
...

"We are talking about smearing whole communities with 'cultural' labels"

No WE are not, Jim; YOU are. Nobody else is. And it isn't what anyone is actually doing, except in your 'impressions'.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 02:02 PM

"Yes, Jim; and an 'impression' is exactly what it is, not any sort of accurate extrapolation from anything that has been said."
Then it is an impression he has given everybody on this thread (the great majority) who have spoken up against him - first reasonably, then in anger, and finally walking away in disgust.
"Nobody else is."
Yes he is - it is he who has claimed a 'cultural' link between abuse and British Pakistani culture - surely you don't want me to put up the quote again
Off for the evening; I await with interest to see if he provides any proof of his accusations, as requested, but maybe you on do that on his behalf?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 02:04 PM

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 02:51 PM

I am very surprised that you accept that on street grooming by groups is mainly a crime of BPs.
Am I alone in believing that you denied it?
I am sorry I got it wrong but posts like this were misleading;

""All the people listed said it is a problem specific to BPs."
Are you for real? Grooming and pimping specific to Pakistanis??"

"all the people listed" were talking about on street grooming, and so was I.

We should not have been arguing.
I am surprised that you dismiss the explanation given by so many, including BPs, but I would not have made an issue of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 03:29 PM

"Designating the procuring and marketing of underage girls as 'Muslim' or 'British Pakistani' or any secific racial or cultural group, predominantly or otherwise, is as racist as it was when it was used against the Irish and the West Indian communities in the past. "

"So what have we got - a mish-mash of hearsay evidence that some Pakistanis may be involved in prostitution in some parts of the North of England - no cultural connection and no documentary proof whatever to back these statements up. "

"My concern is, and remains, that accusations of a crime were being made, without proof, against a single national/religious (bit of an ambiguity there as well) community,"

"Is anybody claiming that the result you have come up with is only to be found in the Asian community? That would be racist and stupid."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 03:51 PM

"Then it is an impression he has given everybody on this thread (the great majority) who have spoken up against him," sez Jim·····

You, Jim; + Steve, Don.T & Stinkilox ----

& in the blue corner ~~ Brian, Ake, Lively, me ~~ where exactly are your 'everybody' (hastily corrected to 'the great majority)?

You are floundering, Jim. You would do well to stop digging.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 05:05 PM

Lively,
", I believe it may be more accurate to speak in terms of a particular hybrid British Pakistani 'criminal sub-culture'"

I am sure there is truth in this, but every culture has its criminal sub culture.

The descriptions we have come across in this have been respectable married men and men linked by family rather than just criminality.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 05:31 PM

Lox. Don. Cobra.
Jim says,
""Is on street grooming by groups mainly a crime of BPs?"
Yes"

Do I still need to convince you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 02:11 AM

"The descriptions we have come across in this have been respectable married men and men linked by family rather than just criminality."

And the Krays loved their Mum and hob-nobbed with celebrities, I don't know what this tells us more broadly about English culture however? As for family links, as far as I'm aware that's not exactly uncommon in gang culture, particularly in more deprived areas where petty crime can become the norm among groups who have been otherwise disenfranchised from fulfilling the economic and material aspirations of society at large.

A quite blunt response to "why do they do it" is possibly "because they can" and this is where I see the particular method (not crime type) of on-street grooming coming in. It seems clear enough to me, from what I've read on the topic, that there is a general consensus among commentators (including moderate and Muslim voices) that this has everything to do with a "culture of silence" or taboo that has arisen around crimes that have particular racial elements. And it is this taboo, which has led to a terrible failure to protect innocent children from systematic sexual exploitation over some decades buy a large network of very efficient sexual predators.

I don't know what can be done about this, other than to try to begin openly discussing it, without exercising prejudices, aggressive "knee-jerk" reactions, political agendas (be they left or right), without the wielding of personal axes and especially without the hurling of personal abuse. I actually think the girls being abused are worthy of this.

PS Mike, with respect, I'd prefer not have my views pigeonholed in a "my side" v's "your side" style standoff. As you may appreciate, particularly in respect of my last paragraph, my views are my own and do not belong to any perceived side in this umm 'debate'.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 03:24 AM

Lively, you have been open minded about the evidence, and not resorted to name calling at those with differing views.
There is (was?) a group here who were blinkered and full of abuse.
You will agree you are not one of them.

Jim, the posts I quoted show that you did deny that it is mainly a crime of BPs and you called me racist for putting up evidence of that.

Now that you have opened your eyes, we would all like to hear your view of WHY it is mainly a crime of BPs.

Lox, Don, Cobra, You have heaped vile abuse on me for saying what Jim now says.
Some response is called for.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 03:31 AM

"Lox, Don, Cobra, You have heaped vile abuse on me for saying what Jim now says. Some response is called for."

There are always PM's for anyone genuinely wishing to discuss personal arguments further? Just a thought. Otherwise there probably isn't much scope for taking this topic any further.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 03:34 AM

No answers, no discussion, no progress. just rather childish and unpleasant name calling and evasive repetition.
I think we've gone just about as far as we are going to.
I'll leave you to it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 03:54 AM

Agreed, Jim, which is why I dropped out some while ago. I note now that my name is still being dredged up by one of the chief ante-uppers (I want to be in the red corner, please, if that nasty lot are in the blue - appropriate in a way I can almost put my finger on). Let me ask Keith or any of his blue corner henchpersons - do you or do you not think that the propensity for grooming young girls for sex is more predominant in the DNA of Pakistani males than in other groups?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 04:17 AM

"do you or do you not think that the propensity for grooming young girls for sex is more predominant in the DNA of Pakistani males than in other groups? "

Of course not.
It has not even been suggested in any of the material I have produced.
I have quoted people who believe it comes from custom and culture, and said I have been convinced by that argument.

Given that this crime is mainly committed by BPs, and given that the above explanation has been denounced as racist, can we have an alternative please.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 04:42 AM

Sorry Keith - a quick clarification and then I really will leave you in peace.
"Given that this crime is mainly committed by BPs...."
Are you talking about regionally, nationally....?
Where exactly are British Pakistanis the main culprits in the crime of grooming and raping young girls?
I would like to have your answer framed and hung on the wall.
Oh - and is that the verdict of you all?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 04:56 AM

Absolute rubbish, Keith. If it comes from "custom and culture," explain to me why 99.9% of Pakistani males don't do it. I should like to submit that, as the overwhelming majority don't do it, it is in their "custom and culture" not to groom young girls for sex. So if it isn't "custom and culture," and not in their DNA, what is it then, Keith? I am puzzled.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 05:33 AM

Jim you said,
""Is on street grooming by groups mainly a crime of BPs?"
Yes where have I claimed it wasn't?"

You tell us what you meant.

Steve you say that explanation is rubbish, and you are entitled to your opinion.
That explanation has been put forward by Straw, Cryer, Shuffiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown, but they could all be wrong.
I have said that I have been convinced.

No one has come up with an alternative yet, have you Steve, Lox, Jim...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 05:38 AM

I dont believe you are stupid Steve.....so it figures you are being obstructive?

Keith has explained numerous times that BP's are massively over represented in this particular type of crime.

Just think percentages....and keep thinking percentages, all will be revealed.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 05:49 AM

'Oh - and is that the verdict of you all?
Jim Carroll'
===

Is what the verdict ofwho all, Jim?

Your thinking, or at least its expression, is getting woollier by the second. Where the hell have you parked your intellect while this thread is going on? What has happened to you, Jim? I am getting seriously concerned...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 05:57 AM

"Just think percentages....and keep thinking percentages, all will be revealed."

And herein lies one of the nubs of the problem when discussing 'taboo' topics: where are the figures to be gleaned from if there is a "culture of silence" which prevents certain crimes from being brought to light in the first place? How long did it take for the scale of clerical abuse to come to light despite the fact that among those working class communities within which it was mainly occurring, the problem of clerical abuse was effectively 'common knowledge'? The official figures may register nil when in fact there are thousands of unrecognised and unacknowledged victims. According to numerous comments and articles posted on this topic online, the "figures" substantially under-represent the scale of the problem. How often to "the figures" under-represent poorly educated and economically underprivileged victims of crime who have little or no power to make themselves heard, far less believed?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 06:01 AM

"You tell us what you meant....."
No answer tells me all I need to know - thanks for that.
"Your thinking, or at least its expression, is getting woollier"
And your invective is getting nastier - we should have quit while we had some respect for each other.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 06:08 AM

Jim why are YOU unable to clarify what YOU posted?
Why do you demand I clarify what is meant by your post?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 06:33 AM

I don't do 'invective', Jim.

And I retain much respect for you---

--- which is why I am concerned at the unfocussed nature of your observations on this thread, of which that meaningless "And is that the verdict of you all?", with no precise indications of to what or to whom you were referring, will do very well as an example.

I genuinely am concerned.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 07:46 AM

dont believe you are stupid Steve.....so it figures you are being obstructive?

Keith has explained numerous times that BP's are massively over represented in this particular type of crime.

Just think percentages....and keep thinking percentages, all will be revealed.

Nah. You think percentages, then tell me what the percentage threshold is for the proportion of people from a certain group doing a certain thing for it it to be justifiably concluded that that certain thing derives from their "custom and culture." 10 per cent? Five? One per cent? A tenth of one per cent? If a tenth of one per cent of males collect butterflies, does butterfly-collecting derive from our "custom and culture?"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 07:58 AM

No percentage allows that conclusion.
All we have his the fact that BPs are massively, massively over represented in this crime.
That does not tell us why.

I have given you the explanation separately offered by all those people, who include BPs and Muslims.
I am convinced.
You say it is rubbish but offer nothing better.
Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 08:33 AM

"And is that the verdict of you all?"
Was interested to find out exactly how much support Keith's mealy-mouthed evasions actually had; still don't know.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 08:46 AM

"And is that the verdict of you all?"
Was interested to find out exactly how much support Keith's mealy-mouthed evasions actually had; still don't know.
Jim Carroll



If I'm being invited to discuss "the opinions of Keith" here, I think I'll decline. He appears to have enough of a fan base already!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 08:58 AM

Quite!
This could be a reasoned debate again.
Jim and I now agree that this is a mainly BP crime.
I would like to consider some explanations, but have only seen the one already mentioned and rejected by Jim, Steve, Lox, and Don.

You must have an opinion Jim.
Lox, you thought you had some explanations, but then you didn't.
Anything now?
Don, you had that one but it imagined just a single group of mates.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 11:16 AM

Pakistani young males form a tiny part of the population of the UK. Just a few gangs in one or two areas and the statistics are totally skewed. That's what happens when you misapply statistics to small populations. The only "evidence" you have come up with is the opinions of a few big knobs. I suppose you do religion too. You'd fit in well.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 11:26 AM

There do not seem to be any gangs that are not BPs are there Steve?
As you say, BPs form a small minority group, so there is something that needs explaining.
Jim has come round to accepting that this is a mainly BP crime.
He clearly thinks the evidence is there.
Have another look Steve at the evidence of the study, and of Hillary Wilmer who is no big nob, and Allibhai-Brown.
Cryer is no big nob, just an ex MP.
Ahmed is a lifelong socialist and defender of his (BP) community.
Straw was a big nob in government, but his testimony comes from his experience as an MP.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 11:50 AM

Yes there are gangs that are not "BPs." When I was a lad in the north of England there were gangs of lads in our streets who took girls off to shag 'em in the public bogs. Or take 'em back to their houses when their mams and dads were in the boozer. Everybody was white and nobody told. But wow, Pakistanis and white kids? Everybody sees, everybody tells, everybody gets outraged! There's a real world out there in them there streets, and those politicos don't go out at eleven at night and see it, do they? When the kids are out, getting their mates to buy 'em cheap cider, their parents drunk at home not giving a toss. The police stay in their cars too these days - they might just leap out if they see a non-white or two. Ask the blacks in inner London about that! Keith, there is a real world that you are simply not seeing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 12:29 PM

"When I was a lad in the north of England there were gangs of lads in our streets who took girls off to shag 'em in the public bogs. Or take 'em back to their houses when their mams and dads were in the boozer. Everybody was white and nobody told."

Were these young girls being raped and trafficked by much older pimps? If so, and nobody told, then shame on them. I have heard that "nobody told" about a lot of bad things in the old days. Thankfully, hopefully, the climate of unspoken acceptance of and apathy towards abuse is gradually changing. But no doubt we still have some way to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 01:35 PM

"Jim has come round to accepting that this is a mainly BP crime."
Not waving but drowning.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 01:55 PM

Steve...did you pass the young girls you "shagged" on to your extended family to provide a "bit of fun"?
I dont think so Steve.....these children have been dehumanised, turned into sex objects, worthless, "easy meat"

Do you really equate your behaviour with that?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 02:16 PM

It is scurrilous of you to suggest it was my behaviour. Withdraw immediately please.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 02:25 PM

Were these young girls being raped and trafficked by much older pimps? If so, and nobody told, then shame on them. I have heard that "nobody told" about a lot of bad things in the old days. Thankfully, hopefully, the climate of unspoken acceptance of and apathy towards abuse is gradually changing. But no doubt we still have some way to go.

I don't know. What I do know is that pimping and rape are activities indulged in widely by white men. As is trafficking. And kids' subcultures are often concealed from adults. Kids are bloody good at that, as anyone who's had teenagers can tell you. I live in a peaceful seaside town with a low crime rate, but there is still a severe problem with feral kids out late, their parents probably oblivious to the fact they're even out of the house at all, being supplied with booze by older kids or adults. This thread, hypocritically, has focussed on a very specific activity by a very specific group that was uncovered, ignoring the generality of sexual abuse in this country and trying to make out that, somehow, here we have a Pakistani problem. Stinks, don't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 02:36 PM

Why were all the victims who turned to Wilmer's support group victims of BPs?
And all the victims who turned to Ann Cryer?
Why are BPs like Ahmed, Allibhai-Brown and Shufiq so sure that this is a particular problem of BPs?
The senior police officers?
Why does Jim think this is mainly a crime of BPs?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 02:51 PM

"This thread, hypocritically, has focussed on a very specific activity by a very specific group that was uncovered, ignoring the generality of sexual abuse in this country and trying to make out that, somehow, here we have a Pakistani problem. Stinks, don't it."

As I put it earlier, if people prefer not to discuss it the problem of on-street grooming of underage girls by British Pakistani gangs in the North of England, then this particular organised crime can only continue. If people don't discuss it, this form of organised crime will continue and will not be successfully tackled.

I suspect that white peadophile gangs in this country operate covertly here rather than out in the open, not through choice, but simply because they have to. As such white paedophiles like to go to Thialand, where they can indulge their proclivities more freely and they are far less likely to be challenged by the authorities.

If there is a 'culture of silence' or taboo around the public acknowledgment of certain crimes due to, for example, particular racial aspects of those crimes (or indeed any other reason, such as deference to religious authority), then firstly those crimes are being effectively facilitated or enabled by that silence (and those who would seek to close open discussion), and secondly such silence is only furthering the cause of bigotry and racism against the wider communities to whom such criminal sub-cultures belong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 02:59 PM

Certainly Steve, as I said,I did not seriously think that you would behave like that........ or the other lads you referred to.

But it was disingenuous of you to try to equate the two cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 03:06 PM

"Why does Jim think this is mainly a crime of BPs?"
You now appear to have moved on from prevarication to openly lying - no surprise; it comes with the territory.
I do hope your supporters have armed themselves with long enough spoons!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 03:06 PM

As I put it earlier, if people prefer not to discuss it the problem of on-street grooming of underage girls by British Pakistani gangs in the North of England, then this particular organised crime can only continue. If people don't discuss it, this form of organised crime will continue and will not be successfully tackled.

I don't think for one second that anyone here thinks that any crime that comes to light shouldn't be robustly tackled. But we're not tackling crime on this thread - we're tussling with root causes, and we're coming up with wrong answers because we are doing what all good racists do, which is focussing on one particular ethnic group, singling out a tiny minority of that group and trying to extrapolate from their misdeeds towards a conclusion that there is an intrinsic propensity for such behaviour within that whole group. No matter that Keith et al. can't put a statistic on what qualifies as a propensity, etc., no consideration that these young men are in the gangs they are in at least partly because of racism leading to ghettoisation and social deprivation. I'm not trying to make excuses for bad behaviour, but we can only attempt to explain it if we take all relevant factors into account, and we are not doing that in this thread, some of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 03:28 PM

OK Jim, straight answer please.
Is on street grooming by groups mainly a crime of BPs?

Steve,
"these young men are in the gangs they are in at least partly because of racism leading to ghettoisation and social deprivation"

Ghettoisation. BPs tend to live in communities around Mosques, madrasas, Halal suppliers, etc, and because they want to preserve their culture.
I do not think anyone is to blame for that.
It has been stated that these gang members are quite affluent, with their fancy cars, money, alcohol and drugs on tap.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 03:28 PM

"we can only attempt to explain it if we take all relevant factors into account, and we are not doing that in this thread,"

Agreed, but I would contend that such discussions as this do not automatically *have* to descend into extreme polarisation of positions and they can perhaps attempt to "take in all relevant factors", or at least as many factors as we may be able to garner through amateur Googling - imperfect as such um 'research' may be.

If we can't have a civilly conducted, open discussion on a 'folk forum' of all places without descending into cat-calling (and I found it personally somewhat intimidating), what hope is there for reconciling the tensions present in our modern multicultural Britain?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 03:35 PM

"these gang members are quite affluent,"

Affluent on the proceeds of criminal activity, of which pimping out young girs would appear to be one. However economic deprivation itself, is a key element in the formation of gang culture, and indeed much non gang-related crime, itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 03:54 PM

PS, with respect to the "furthering of bigotry and racism" point I made, does anyone really want to see this smug greasy face chuckling:

http://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/statuses/22618299623804928

I would contend that this propaganda "victory" by the far-right, has been facilitated by a failure by the left to fully engage in open dialogue on this particular topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 04:37 PM

I would widen that to ....MOST controversial subjects!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 04:48 PM

"I would widen that to ....MOST controversial subjects!"

Eh! When did the left become so nervous and flaccid? Perhaps it had something to do with a diet of environmentally sourced sushi wraps? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 05:53 PM

"Is on street grooming by groups mainly a crime of BPs?"
If you are claiming this as a crime carried out by the majority of the Pakistani population in Britain - no, I certainly do not believe that, I believe that making such a claim is racist.
As you have consistently refused to qualify your 'mainly' I can only assume that you are referring to the Pakistani population as a whole, therefore I believe your statemant not only to be racist, but also cowardly as you are not prepared to stand behind your own claims - now which is it to be - 'mainly' in terms of unspecified districts, areas villages, towns, cities, Britain as a whole - answer please?
I believe it racist to attempt to identify one national or cultural group with a crime without documantary proof.
I believe it racist to claim without documentary proof that any cultural or national group is culturally prone to any particular crime.
If you are relating either of these claims to the British Pakistani population as a whole, then you are making racist statements - no empty rhetoric, no name calling if this is what you have said, you are a racist; show that you are not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 11 - 06:05 PM

"Ghettoisation. BPs tend to live in communities around Mosques, madrasas, Halal suppliers, etc, and because they want to preserve their culture.
I do not think anyone is to blame for that.
It has been stated that these gang members are quite affluent, with their fancy cars, money, alcohol and drugs on tap."

Blatant demonisation. The next step is openly racist condemnation. And you are even resorting to weasel words now: "tend to live..." "It has been stated..." Shame on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 12:55 AM

"If you are claiming this as a crime carried out by the majority of the Pakistani population in Britain -"

Of course I am not.
I meant exactly the same as when I asked the same question 24hours earlier.

The question
"Is on street grooming by groups mainly a crime of BPs?"

This clearly means, are the perpetrators mostly BPs?

24 hours previous you gave the straight answer "yes"

Straight answer please Jim.
Is on street grooming by groups mainly a crime of BPs?

Steve, how is it "demonisation" to make the commonplace observation,
"BPs tend to live in communities around Mosques, madrases, Halal suppliers, etc, and because they want to preserve their culture."?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 01:52 AM

Jim, if you really believed I meant,

"Is this as a crime carried out by the majority of the Pakistani population in Britain"    why did you answer,

"Yes where have I claimed it wasn't?" ???

That is SO racist Jim.
Please clarify what you thought I was asking, and give a straight answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 03:21 AM

"Is this as a crime carried out by the majority of the Pakistani population in Britain" why did you answer,"
Put it down to (though I'm sure that you won't) battle fatigue in your war of attrition - a misunderstanding on my part.
I won't be surprised if you milk this slip for all the capital you are able to get from it, in fact, I will be more than a little disappointed if you don't, such is the level at which you appear to operate.
My stance on your attacks on British Pakistanis remains as it was at the beginning, one of disgust and contempt.
"Is on street grooming by groups mainly a crime of BPs?"
No, of course it isn't; it is a crime committed within all groups in Britain, immigrant and indigenous; you are the only one claiming otherwise.
In order to back your claim you have deliberately distorted out of context a tiny handful of quotes from people working in unspecified areas of Britain to smear the British Pakistani population.
Virtually single handedly you have taken a thread that originated as an honest discussion on Muslim prejudice and turned it into a racist diatribe. You have recived almost no support for this, your remaining prop being of no surprise to me as he has in the past mounted similar attacks on homosexuals, describing their 'perversion' as being a major cause of paedophilia.
If your accusations had been made publicly to the extent and of the nature of those made here, say by a national newspaper, I have little doubt that those responsible would be facing prosecution under Britain's incitement to race hatred laws. As it is, they are made from the safety of an internet discussion forum, so you run no such risk - one of the 'benefits' of modern technology, apparently.
The distorted use of your sources would, I have no doubt, have incurred the wrath of those whose work you have used in your 'crusade' - one article specifically warns against the use you have put their opinions to. Another of your sources is a distinguished anti-racist whose work has earned her the honour af being targeted by the cream of Britain's journalism, The Daily Telegraph as 'the stupidest woman in Britain'. I'm sure she would be delighted to see her opinions being used as a stick to beat her own people!
I have to confess to being a little sceptical when Cobra suggested that you might be an ultra-right 'mole' encouraged to make contributions such as this; over this discussion some of that scepticism has dissipated.
Past encounters with you: your apoligist stance on the use of chemical weapons on civilians in Gaza, the occasion when the mask slipped regarding your opinions of the Irish people and your open support of violently abusive and aggressive sectarian demonstrations in Ireland, passing them off as 'harmless days out' - all have led me to an clear opinion of where you stand politically.
One thing you may be sure of; should we find ourselves engaged in discussion ever again, you will not have heard the last of "this is a crime carried out by the majority of the Pakistani population in Britain" or your claims that the British Pakistani culture is one of the causes of their grooming and raping children.
Have a good day,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 03:40 AM

All the arguments I put up WERE in Guardian, Independent, BBC and indeed all the media.
Unlike you, I never distorted but quoted verbatim.

You are reduced again to smearing me.
There were no chemical weapons, just the smoke that all forces use including Irish.
It is a lie that I said anything unfriendly about the Irish people.
I took Sinn Fein's stance on the parades.
All you have is lies about my previous because you have no answers.

And, you have made a complete arse of yourself again.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 04:08 AM

Steve, how is it "demonisation" to make the commonplace observation,
"BPs tend to live in communities around Mosques, madrases, Halal suppliers, etc, and because they want to preserve their culture."?

The demonisation came in the next bit, the one about the fancy cars. This bit starts with weasel words and comes into the "these people" category, Look at it again. You don't build mosques, madrases and Halal shops then hope that Muslims will accumulate around them. It's just nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 04:16 AM

They like to live in community goups, just like expat English people do .

The perpetrators were described as using flash cars and gifts to entice young girls.
I had no reason to doubt those reports.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 04:40 AM

Desperation has set in Keith, they are starting to hallucinate.
I dont know how one enables "liberals" to open their minds, Orwell was so right!

Perhaps its a bit of a defense system, a ten foot concrete wall against reality?
The strange thing is that most of them are virulently anti religion, which performs much the same function.......Isnt life strange?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 04:52 AM

And they are virulently anti-censorship too, Ake ~~ until it comes to topics which outrage their doctrinaire lefty {sorry, 'liberal'} preconceptions.

Strange indeed.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 05:05 AM

The perpetrators were described as using flash cars and gifts to entice young girls.
I had no reason to doubt those reports.

I doubt all reports until I know their exact source. Don't you think that there is something deliberate about the use of the word "flash?" It wouldn't have been The Guardian then... Assuming for a minute that these reports have some substance, the issue remains that you are sharply focussing your aim on a tiny minority of a tiny minority. There is a much bigger picture, of course, but racism can never look further than the bits that conveniently confirm their prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 05:08 AM

Desperation has set in Keith, they are starting to hallucinate.
I dont know how one enables "liberals" to open their minds, Orwell was so right!

Perhaps its a bit of a defense system, a ten foot concrete wall against reality?
The strange thing is that most of them are virulently anti religion, which performs much the same function.......Isnt life strange?

What a completely vacuous post, as indeed is the one by Michael following it. Heheh. With friends like these, Keith...well, you must be very embarrassed! Commiserations, old chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 05:09 AM

I am no racist.
But it is easier to smear than to debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 05:19 AM

Helen B again, quoted by Yorkshire Post.
"At the beginning we worked on the assumption that girls were groomed by individual pimps, but later discovered widespread pimping networks, much like international people trafficking gangs. Shopping malls, games arcades, places around takeaways and parks are common meeting places.

"The girl (who's typically aged between 13 and 16, but can be only 11 or 12) may meet the man alone, or be introduced by a friend who already knows him. He is usually quite a lot older and good looking, well-dressed and may well have a fast car. He'll meet her regularly, shower her with gifts, give her drink and maybe also drugs, take her for rides, tell her how special she is. He may have sex with her, but not at first, and he will discourage her from telling her parents about him because "they wouldn't understand".

"At some point further down the line he will take her to a flat or down an alley and tell her that in return for all the things he has done for her, it's payback time and she has to do something for him. She will then probably be gang raped. She will be confused, weak, think she's in love with the pimp, but also feel ashamed and guilty. She goes home and takes it out on her family and also drops out of education."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 05:23 AM

Sorry, Hillary Wilmer not HB.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 05:24 AM

"Don't you think that there is something deliberate about the use of the word "flash?"


How "vacuous" is that!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 05:27 AM

Link to Yorkshire Post Quote
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/features/hilary_s_drive_to_protect_young_people_1_2583232?action=logout

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 07:29 AM

"And they are virulently anti-censorship too, Ake"
A statement you have no grounds whatever for making here - I couldn't point out one of these contributors ever having said they are opposed to censorship - can you? You appear to have caught a nasty dose of Keith-like stereotyping, possibly from standing to close to him.
Personally, I would be delighted if racism (and homophobia) could be censored out of existence - wouldn't you? Unfortnately it can't be, so it has to be exposed and opposed.
"doctrinaire lefty {sorry, 'liberal'} preconceptions"
And you were saying about "I don't do 'invective', Jim"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 08:00 AM

Well, Keith, a very detailed article. Very distressing. I admire the woman. All it lacks is any mention whatsoever of Pakistanis.

Yes, achytony, "flash cars" is intended to give us slightly more than a factual account. It is an unsubtle attempt to paint a picture for us of well-off spivs, innit? It's more like what you'd read in The Sun than in The Guardian. I prefer my sources to stick to factual neutrality, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 08:39 AM

That piece was before Straw broke the taboo.
He is a national figure who could endure the frenzied shit storm of abuse that would inevitably provoke.
She was not.
After Straw brought it into the open she told The Guardian that of the 400 families of victims who came to her, all the perpetrators were BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 08:52 AM

Oh dear, Keith. You shouldn't have mentioned the Guardian, should you? The article therein doesn't support your standpoint at all, in fact it cautions strongly against it. Hilary doesn't support it either. She would hate what you're trying to do on this thread.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jan/06/child-sex-trafficking-racial-stereotyping?INTCMP=SRCH

You're sussed, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 09:55 AM

Here's one story describing gang "on-street grooming" methods, which highlights among other things, the use of glamorous cars and clothes. All abusers no doubt use those enticements available to them which are appropriate to the age range, economic conditions, and degree of protection surrounding their preferred targets:

"So, when your thirteen, if a boy who's seventeen, who's got a nice BMW and he's dressed really nicely in latest clothes and who's nice looking, makes out he's attracted to you, then you're going to be flattered by it."

Woman's Hour - Emma's Story

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 10:18 AM

From that Guardian piece.
Hilary Willmer, of the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping, said that since 2002 her group had supported 400 families where girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men. "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg." But she cautioned against treating the matter as a race crime. "It's a criminal thing."

She said "It's a criminal thing."
The Guardian says "But she cautioned against treating the matter as a race crime."
On message.
Like the headline.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 10:36 AM

Thanks for that Lively.
I linked to that back in January, but I listened to the whole 13 minutes again.
Anyone sufficiently interested to post, should do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 10:59 AM

Jim: ~~~Definitions of invective on the Web:

vituperation: abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invective
An expression which inveighs or rails against a person; A severe or violent censure or reproach; Something spoken or written, intended to cast opprobrium, censure, or reproach on another; A harsh or reproachful accusation; Characterized by invection or railing
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/invective
An invective is a violent denunciation. It's a severe curse. A violent vituperation. Diatribe, Tirade are the words that mean the same and appear in GRE almost every time.
learnwordlist.com/blog/15-minutes-to-gre-vocabulary/2009/12/gre-word-list-test-blog-barrons-vocabulary
an emotionally violent, verbal denunciation or attack using strong, abusive language.
www.buhstech.org/mackenzie/assignments/Glossary%20of%20Terms.doc
an intensely vehement, highly emotional verbal attack
cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/5272071714341570/lib/5272071714341570/List_of_Literary_Terms.doc
A violent attack, usually of a personal nature.
www.ravenspire.com/coolschool/docs/dictionary.html
======
Now, Jim; do you honestly think my mild language, words like "lefty" & "doctrinaire", will really qualify as "curse; violent vituperation; emotionally violent verbal denunciation"???

Honest, now? Stop being so wet & thin-skinned. If you can't stand the lukewarm heat I am generating in my language you would do well to get right out of the kitchen. I am surprised at you, using a word like "invective" to me. Get back into the real world, for heaven's sake, or go away.

Best

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:00 AM

This is what Jack Straw actually said, in context, and the reaction to it (emphases mine). Interesting to compare it with Keith's selective analysis.
Jim Carroll

Labour statesman Jack Straw sparks race row after Newsnight comments
Jan 9 2011 Mark Aitken, Sunday Mail
ASIAN community leaders yesterday rounded on former Home Secretary Jack Straw after he claimed some Pakistani men see white girls as "easy meat".
The Labour MP faced criticism from party colleagues and Muslim leaders after speaking out on so-called "street-grooming" when young girls are seduced by older men before being sexually abused.
Straw voiced his views after two Asian men were jailed for subjecting a series of girls to rapes and sexual assaults.
Mohammed Liaqat, 28, and Abid Saddique, 27, were jailed at Nottingham Crown Court for raping and sexually abusing several girls aged between 12 and 18.
The judge in the case said the race of the victims and their abusers was "coincidental".
But, in an interview for the BBC's Newsnight, the Blackburn MP claimed there is a problem with young Pakistani men grooming and sexually abusing vulnerable white girls.
Straw said: "Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders.
"But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men who target vulnerable young white girls.
"We need to get the l Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way."
Straw added: "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."
But Labour colleagues challenged his comments.
Former Govan Labour MP Mohammad Sarwar said: "It is very unhelpful to tarnish any community in a blanket way.
"There are good and bad in every community.
"I don't know many cases in Scotland where the people who are subject of an investigation are Pakistani men."
Labour MP Keith Vaz, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "I understand what he said, but I disagree with it. I think we should look at this issue, primarily, as one of criminality."
Glasgow-based human rights campaigner Osama Saeed said: "Any evidence of this would need to be acted upon.
"But it's not clear what Jack Straw would have the 'Pakistani community' do. Are they any more capable of controlling brown criminals as white people are with those who share their colour?"
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth organisation in the UK, said: "No community or faith ever sanctions these evil crimes and to suggest that this is somehow ingrained in the community is deeply offensive."
Former police officers said the problem of grooming was not linked to any one ethnic group.
Retired detective chief superintendent Max McLean, who led an investigation into grooming and trafficking young girls in Leeds, said: "I'm not suggesting, and I do not think anybody is, that it is a problem within a community."
Graeme Pearson, former deputy chief constable of Strathclyde Police and ex-director of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, added: "I don't have any experience of ethnic groups targeting vulnerable girls.
"There has not been evidence presented to me of a growing significance in that regard.
"But I'm sure there will be areas, particularly in our big cities, where there will be men targeting vulnerable kids and the authorities have to be alive to that threat."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:01 AM

"Thanks for that Lively."

Or perhaps thanks to Emma for sharing her story, and to a generally left-leaning magazine program for airing it. Of couse it is not a thorough statistical analysis of the issue, but as I've been saying through my posts, how can one glean necessary statistics where - as there appears to be here - there is a conspiracy of silence around a topic? And indeed are statistics a prerequisite to public discussion? Because if so, then we find ourselves in a bindingly Kafkaesque conundrum.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:03 AM

Sorry - from The Daily Record, March 10th 2011
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:05 AM

If I were really one to use invective, would I exclaim "for heaven's sake" or enjoin you to "go away". I am sure an invective-user could find other terms to employ without too much effort..

Think on, Jim.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:10 AM

Thanks for the clarification Mike, (put my ignorance down to my Secondary Modern education).
Perhaps I should have said schoolyard namecalling - how does that suit?
The rest of my postings I assume you accept with good grace!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:12 AM

Once again, Keith, you betray your penchant for selecting bits which you think reinforce your racist argument and ignore the inconvenient bits. From the same article:

The authors, Helen Brayley and Ella Cockbain, from UCL's Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, said they were surprised their research, confined to just two police operations in the north and Midlands, which found perpetrators were predominantly but not exclusively from the British Pakistani community, had been cited in support of the claims that such offences were widespread.

Their comments follow claims that a culture of silence has impeded investigations into a hidden pattern of offending by British Pakistani gangs sexually abusing hundreds of young white girls...

...But Brayley and Cockbaine, whose six-month study was cited as evidence, said they were worried that limited data had been extended "to characterise an entire crime type, in particular of race and gender". They challenged claims that white girls were deliberately sought out by offenders. "Though the majority … were white so too were the majority of local inhabitants." Comparing the percentage of white people in the areas with black and ethnic minorities, their data, they said, showed "black and ethnic minority girls over-represented among the victims".

They added: "This challenges the view that white girls are sought out by offenders, suggesting instead that convenience and accessibility may be the prime drivers for those looking for new victims."

Just shows how selective you've been, Keith. Here we have two women who actually spent months researching this, not Jack Straw, Keith Vaz and Ann Cryer, who simply megaphone about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:21 AM

I don't ever remember "doctrinaire lefty" being a term of abuse (or, if you prefer, a "name-call") much employed in the playground of Hendon County School! Even there we could be more abusive than that if we really set our minds to it.

Best from the guaranteed invective-free, schoolyard-namecalling-avoiding

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:47 AM

Selective?
I posted this on 23rd January.
"The victims are not all sluts.
They were not all picked up on the streets late at night.
Those ones tended to be girls within the care system.
Girls from respectable families have given their stories of being enticed away from shopping malls in daylight.
Not all white either."

I have learned a lot since then.
Unlike you.
On street grooming of children by groups for rape.
Apart from those 3 out of the 56, every instance of the crime is BPs.
(And those three part of an overwhelmingly BP gang)
All ann Cryers experiences in Keithly.
All Bps
All the hundreds who turned to Wilmer.
All BPs
All Jack Straw's experiences in Blackburn.
Wherever you look at it.
Hundreds and hundreds of young girls with devastated lives.
Have you found one case not involving BPs?
Have you?
Why is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:55 AM

"All Jack Straw's experiences in Blackburn."
Your sources, and the way you have carefully edited what they had to say seem to be falling like ninepins - racist agenda or what?
"doctrinaire lefty"
Whatever Mike!
im arroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:59 AM

Sorry - keyboard trouble
Jim Carroll
PS I didn't think your schoolyard taunt posting was up to your usual standard and intended to apologise in advance in case it was Keith prentending to be somebody else - again.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 12:03 PM

Jim, it was YOU who carefully edited the Gaurdian piece to hide something, remember.
I have never done that.
You can not provide an example can you.
Jack Sraw said what I have always acknowledged, that BPs are under represented in other sex crimes, "But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men who target vulnerable young white girls."

How many non BP cases have you found Jim.
Hundreds and probably thousands street groomed and raped by BPs.
But not one case, not one, where the child rapers are not BP.
Or have I missed one?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 12:22 PM

"Jim, it was YOU who carefully edited the Gaurdian piece to hide something, remember."
Now you're still making it up - I presented a headline and a couple of opening lines claiming it nothing more than that. You had already put up the Guardian article in full (making any attempts at 'editing' on my part pretty silly) and neglected to point out the warning that the opinions contained in it were not to be used for racist purposes - which was my sole point in putting it up (and which you have consistently ignored)
Stop wriggling and come clean - there's a good chap!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 12:34 PM

You are quick to call me liar.
I never lie.
You posted THE HEADLINE AND THE WHOLE ARTICLE on 27th Feb 0325 AM
You just edited out the section that showed the denial of racial stereotyping referred the the victims not the perpetrators.
Here is the post.
Which of us lied?
thread.cfm?threadid=135090&messages=1268#3103412

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 12:48 PM

Correction.
28th Feb 1200PM is the edited version, and it is not the whole piece.
I forgot he posted it all twice.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 01:12 PM

No I did not Keith - I selected the part of the article which contained the warning about the findings being abused by racists such as your good self, which was my stated reason for posting it - you accepted it as such and referred to it as 'a typical Guardian headline'.
As I just said - you had already posted it in full so it would have been pretty stupid of me to attempt to re-jig it.
Anyway, would I try to pass off a hookey cutting in the presence of such a master of the art as yourself?
Stop feckin' wriggling - you're bang-to-rights bor!
Now address your own selective editing.
You have based your case on tampered cuttings and drawn attention to them ad nauseum.
"You are quick to call me liar."
And you are just as quick to prove yourself a liar
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 01:42 PM

And by the way - the only reference I have ever made to the Guardian article was that you have blatently ignored the warning about its contents being abused for racist purposes (you even attempted to deny tha at one stage, claiming the writer meant something else). Had I, as you claim, deiberately edited it I would have done so for a purpose - what was that purppose and where is any claim I have made?
I have never challenged the articles contents or questioned the veracity of any of the statements contained in it. I have never made any claims on it whatever other than the one stated - that you have used it to further your racist agenda. If I have, show me where - must be easy enough to cut-n-paste - you're good at that!
You are now using it to create a smokescreen to obscure your own blatently dishonest behaviour.
It's a fair cop, I'm afraid.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 02:41 PM

This is how paragraph 9 is supposed to start.

"But Brayley and Cockbaine, whose six-month study was cited as evidence, said they were worried that limited data had been extended "to characterise an entire crime type, in particular of race and gender". They challenged claims that white girls were deliberately sought out by offenders."

Their worry was just about who the victims were.

Jim's version inserts a bit of para 9 into para 2, then runs that into a repeat of para 1 !

Authors of the first independent academic analysis looking at "on-street grooming", where young girls, spotted outside, including at the school gates, have become targets, said they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type".Authors of study on 'on-street grooming' in the north and Midlands, where young girls have been targeted on the streets and at school gates, are concerned their findings about Pakistani gangs have been generalised.

Stopped in mid sentence, a full stop added, and a sentence from paragraph 2 put after it, and then jump to paragraph 1!

Deliberate distortion to conceal the true meaning

thread.cfm?threadid=135090&messages=1273#3104300
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jan/06/child-sex-trafficking-racial-stereotyping?INTCMP=SRCH

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 03:28 PM

I see what has happened.

You pasted the photo caption and the first two paragraphs, then pasted it again making it all look like one piece which was extra confusing because those bits also contain quotes from later in the piece!
Your posts are either very long, very dull or incomprehensible!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 03:37 PM

Keith YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE TO HAVE MADE FALSE CLAIMS BASED ON DOCTORED EVIDENCE ON THIS THREAD.
IF THAT IS NOT TRUE TELL US WHO ELSE HAS DONE SO AND WHAT CLAIMS HAVE BEEN MADE.
I don't really expect anything other than evasion from here on, but here is how it should be done.
After carefully editing out the following from Jack Straw's statement:
"Straw said: "Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders."
and
"Straw added: "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."
You then went on to cite Jack Straw no less than 43 times to back up your claims.
Ake cited him four times and David el Gnomo once to back you up, though I have no doubt that they were as much taken in by your selective editing as the rest of us were.
Knowing that you had removed the passages above, two of your own peons of praise for your source of information were:
"You can not just dismiss a statement by a figure like Straw."
and
"What Jack Straw said so carefully is true".
Now what use did you say I put my editing to?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 03:41 PM

Hope that's not too long and complicated for you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 04:03 PM

PS I didn't think your schoolyard taunt posting was up to your usual standard ++++

Really, Jim? What was I supposed to say to your identification of "doctrinaire lefty" as schoolyard language, except "Not in my schoolyard, it wasn't"?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 04:33 PM

I have made no false claim, and have "doctored" nothing.

"Straw said: "Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders."

I have stated REPEATEDLY that BPs are under represented in other sex crimes.
I KEEP TELLING YOU IT IS ONLY ON STREET GROOMING OF CHILDREN FOR RAPE BY GROUPS.
No one else is doing that, are they Jim?
Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of victims, and perpetrators all BPs.

and
"Straw added: "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."

That supports my issue 2 but is irrelevant to my issue 1.
What were we discussing at the time?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 04:48 PM

Me 27th jan.
I will concede at once that they are under represented in every other type of non terrorist crime.

Me 28th Jan.
I acknowledged that Muslims are under represented in all other non terrorist crimes.
That includes other sex crimes.

No need to quote Straw on that.
It was not in dispute.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 05:48 PM

Don:- ""I have repeatedly posted on the possibility that these men are a Paedophile Gang, which happens to be mainly Pakistani simply because like gravitates to like, and men trust their own community more than outsiders.""


Keith:- ""Don, there has been no alternative explanation given by your side.""


Keith:- ""I do not lie.""

My repeated posts suggesting this alternative are available for anybody who reads this thread.

Therefore both of the above verbatim quotes from your posts are LIES!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 06:57 PM

Shouldn't we also be seeing the same pattern in other places with a high percentage of Pakistanis e.g.

London       2.4%
Slough      12.2%
Wycombe      5.7%
Bristol      1.4%
Aylesbury    2.4%
Watford      4.6%
Crawley      3.4%

Total 220,200 Pakistanis out of a total of 747,285 in the UK, or 29.47%.

Well over one quarter of the total number of British Pakistanis, and no indication of any cases among those "BPs". What does that do to your percentages Keith and Ake?

Your gangs are highly localised Paedo rings, who just happen to be Pakistani, and I don't even need a failed politician or a publicity seeking "expert" to back up these figures.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 08:40 PM

Sorry, I didn't realise that the Guardian article had already been aired (I had temporarily given up the will to live). Though I quoted bits from it, the whole article stands up well to refute Keith and his allies. The thrust of the whole thing is that you can "prove" anything you like by selective use of statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 01:00 AM

Don:- ""I have repeatedly posted on the possibility that these men are a Paedophile Gang, which happens to be mainly Pakistani simply because like gravitates to like, and men trust their own community more than outsiders.""

This is going on in many cities and has been for decades.
I agree that you have described how each gang probably originates, but it does not explain why there are so many gangs or why they are all BPs.
A case of this not involving BPs has yet to emerge.
The MPs and support group people have seen many hundreds of victims over many years and report all BP perpetrators.
The study was of all cases that have come to court so far.
17 cases.

I take your point that you might have expected cases in the South.
I have no explanation, because I have no information.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 01:02 AM

Steve, despite the "on message" Guardian headline and slant, all the hard evidence and quotes clearly show that this is an extensive and long term issue and overwhelmingly a crime of BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 03:36 AM

Mike,
"Really, Jim? What was I supposed to say to your identification of "doctrinaire lefty" as schoolyard language, except "Not in my schoolyard, it wasn't"?"
Sorry Mike - I really do not see any point in continuing to discuss a stupid remark made by me at a time when I (along with others, I suspect) had been reduced to a state of anger and frustration by somebody who has deliberately set out to produce falsified evidence to back up his racist claims.
It was not my intention to insult you or anybody else on this thread, (with the obvious exception) and if I have done so, I apologise sincerely.
I find it mind-boggling that Keith should wish to continue his sordid campaign after his cover has been so conclusively blown - as far as I am concerned, he may crawl back into the hole from whence he came and take his employers/backers with him, whoever they are.
I am happy to discuss racism with anybody, with the exception of full time, long term, and obviously so convinced racists with an agenda to peddle - what was it the lady said about giving them the 'oxygen of publicity'?
Apologies to all,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 04:13 AM

"falsified evidence to back up his racist claims"

You have repeated the falsified evidence claim Jim.
I refute it.
It is a lie.

Racist claims.
It is not my fault that all these perpetrators of child rape are BPs.
I do not wish it.
I would prefer it were not so.
Calling it and me racist does not stop it being true.

You even agreed it was true yourself for 24 hours.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 05:34 AM

Keith
After carefully editing out the following from Jack Straw's statement:
"Straw said: "Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders."
and
"Straw added: "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."
You then went on to cite Jack Straw no less than 43 times to back up your claims......
......Knowing that you had removed the passages above, two of your own peons of praise for your source of information were:
"You can not just dismiss a statement by a figure like Straw."
and
"What Jack Straw said so carefully is true". (my emphasis added)
You deliberately removed the two quotes from Jack Staw's statement that would have invalidated you from using him to back up your case.   
Say you did none of this, and if you did, why did you do it?
"You even agreed it was true yourself for 24 hours."
And now you are deliberately using something I have withdrawn as a mistake to back your case.
Are you on medication; if not, perhaps you should take advice?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 07:11 AM

Jim, I do not put up pages of pasting and hope someone will read it all and find something helpful.
Straw has said many things that I have not put up.
That stuff about most sex offenders being white was never in dispute, so why post it.
I just showed you evidence that I have been acknowledging that, on this thread, since January!

The other piece was his cultural explanation for why BPs might be predisposed to this crime.
I know your side do not accept that, and do not even believe they are predisposed, so why would I post that?!!

I have never edited out something that contradicts me or helps you.
Never.
Have I Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 07:33 AM

I somehow doubt that you counted all my references to Straw yourself Jim.
Was it the Deranged Stalker by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 07:47 AM

Steve, despite the "on message" Guardian headline and slant, all the hard evidence and quotes clearly show that this is an extensive and long term issue and overwhelmingly a crime of BPs.

Look up weasel words on wiki, Keith. I suppose you think that if you keep repeating the message like a mantra it will miraculously become true. Poor chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 08:01 AM

"I have never edited out something that contradicts me or helps you."
Y'know Keith, I have always been sort of grateful to whoever invented the mosquito because they had the good grace to build in an early-warning system so you could swat the little bastards before they got to you. It is the same with racists - enough of the thinking ability has been removed so you can almost smell 'em a mile off.
You have been caught with a smoking gun in your hand and every time you put finger to keyboard the atmosphere becomes a little murkier.
I have no intention whatever of entering into a dialogue with you, or any other of your sub-species - please feck off and foul up somebody else's day.
"I somehow doubt that you counted all my references to Straw yourself".
Then I suggest you count them yourself, or get somebody else to do it for you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Keith
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 08:15 AM

Sorry to be a Guest today.
I will authenticate these posts by 10pm mudcat time.

You did not need a counter Jim.
Any number would have done.
Only The Stalker would have checked.

Back to pure abuse then Jim.
And a smoking gun claim that you can not substantiate.

All you actually need to do to demolish my whole case is to find some non BP examples of this child abuse.
There are just the hundreds and hundreds of children raped by BPs and none to stand against them.

It would be nice if this was just a racist fantasy.
I take no pleasure in rubbing your noses in this truth, much as I enjoy doing it on other issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 08:16 AM

'swat the little bastards'

'please feck off and foul up somebody else's day.' ---

From Jim's last post addressed to Keith

~~ might, according to the online definitions I posted a bit ago, just qualify as the "invective", of which you inaccurately and unjustifiably, but in so denunciatory a tone of shock-horror, accused me a bit back - eh, Jim?

Just a thought.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 09:31 AM

'swat the little bastards''swat the little bastards'
You mean the mosquitos I referred to - should I have called them 'Sir'?
I did not complain about what I incorrectly (now corrected) called your 'invective' - merely pointed out an apparent contradiction in your earlier posting.
Have now apologised, which apparently is not sufficient - enjoy your meal!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 12:06 PM

I authenticate my earlier Guest posts.

"I have no intention whatever of entering into a dialogue with you,"
Er.....you have been for the last three weeks Jim!

Why would I edit out something I have been saying myself for weeks Jim?
Have you not found ONE THING edited out that contradicts me or helps you?
Not very sensible to mention it then Jim!

You may have withdrawn that answer, but it was not a mistake.
You read my question.
You copied and pasted my question.
You answered it.
The only mistake was that you said what you really think.
Perhaps it was tiredness.
You then pretended you thought I asked something else, but that would have made your answer that of a drooling, rabid racist!
Whoops.

Michael, to be fair, Jim only resorts to invective when he has nothing of substance to say.
Unfortunately that has been most of the time on this thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Nick
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 12:52 PM

"The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II, with the stated goal of regaining control of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims, who had captured them from the Byzantines in 638."

Not exactly a new topic is it?

Lot's of people been persecuted from both sides over the 1000+ years and all to change fuck all.

Move on and get on with people and get over your prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: ollaimh
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 01:38 PM

boy still at it, what empty and wasted lives keith and the other bigots have. going to your grave as ignorant and uneducated as you came into this world is a great waste and can be avoided but you have to stop opining and get some education

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 02:44 PM

Both sides have been at it equally Ollaimh.
Why only criticise one side?

It was not an opinion that this is mainly a crime of BPs.
It is a fact observed by numerous reliable, reputable and vey well educated people, and the victims themselves.

The explanation for it can only be an opinion.
We had the explanation put forward by many Muslims, BPs and others with knowledge of that culture.
Against that we had, errr, nothing.
Not one alternative explanation offered in two months of furious denial.

Perhaps if we do keep at it they will come up with something.
Probably not though.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 09:09 PM

There is nothing to explain, Keith, except your deliberate misuse of statistics by focussing on the bits you need to reinforce your prejudices. It's a time-honoured method, I'll grant you that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 11:38 PM

"misuse of statistics by focussing on the bits you need to reinforce your prejudices." ···
,,,,,,

So give us the other 'bits', Steve, why don't you? -

- so that Keith's 'misuse' will be exposed as such, a mere factor of his 'prejudices'.

Fair's fair ~ no?

So come on then ~~ put up or shut up.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 01:49 AM

Misuse of statistics!
I have not made my case on statistics, but on the testimony of reputable people whose work brings them into contact with this crime and its pitiful victims.
They all say the perpetrators are BPs.
All.
True Steve?
There was only one statistic anyway.
Of all the cases ever brought to conviction, 95% BPs.

But there is misuse here.
The misuse of young childrens' lives by subjecting them to multiple rape.
These people especially target children in the care system.
They are more susceptible to the lure of faked affection.
Orphans. The easiest of easy meat.

Steve said I should be more "sensitive" about these people.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 05:50 AM

Why is this stupid and vicious thread continuing?
Keith has shot his bolt with his appalling and dishonest behaviour.
He appears to be in total denial of what he has done and will continue to humiliate himself by keeping this thread open and drawing attention to his dishonesty.
If Mike wants to help him, tell us how his behaviour wasn't dishonest.
As you say - put up or shut up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 06:44 AM

Very tiresome, Michael. I've covered this again and again. By focussing on specific sex crimes in specific parts of the country and ignoring the generality of sex crimes in the country as a whole you can prove anything you want. Which is Keith's mission in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 07:25 AM

"appalling and dishonest behaviour"
But you can not give a single example.
That IS dishonest.

You have no answer so you try and smear.
That IS appalling.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 07:29 AM

""I know your side do not accept that, and do not even believe they are predisposed, so why would I post that?!!""

I don't know why you still adhere to that nonsensical idea.

It may have escaped your notice, given that you admit to not reading opposing posts, but I think it fair to state that I shot that theory down in flames a short time ago.

No similar cultural predisposition exists among the more than 29% of British Pakistanis who live in the South.

Explain the difference between Northern and Southern British Pakistanis in a logical fashion which allows your "Cultural Paedophile" theory to stand.

If you can't then STFU about it, and accept that these are Paedophiles who are coincidentally Pakistani for the reasons I suggested.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 07:36 AM

""Not one alternative explanation offered in two months of furious denial.""

Yet another terminological inexactitude from Keith, who of course would never lie........except when he does, which is about five times a day on this thread alone.

When are you going to give up this proven LIE Keith?

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 07:39 AM

"But you can not give a single example."
I have done and you continue to ignore it YOU DOCTORED JACK STRAW'S STATEMENT BY REMOVING THE PASSAGES THAT UNDERMINED YOUR 'CULTURAL' CASE - Jack Straw took pains to say the case was not a matter of race, The Trial judge said it was not a matter of race, the police incvolved said it was a matter of race, you continue to insist that it is a matter of race. The Guardian report warns against dealing with these events as a racist ssue - this is exactly what you have done.
Tell me which of this is NOT "appalling and dishonest behaviour"
Several 'single' examples - take your pick.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 07:41 AM

""misuse of statistics by focussing on the bits you need to reinforce your prejudices." ···
,,,,,,

So give us the other 'bits', Steve, why don't you? -""

I have saved Steve the bother Mike, and done just that for him......TWICE!!!

But none of the Keithophiles seem to have bothered to read it, and Keith, who did, simply missed (as usual) the point.

Give it a read. It only involves looking at my posts of yesterday and today.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 07:52 AM

Keith has claimed nowhere, Steve, to be writing of more than the small number of particular cases he has identified, + the others found in her further investigations by Hilary Wilmer. He has written with entire truth & accuracy of these, and of the gross imbalance shown in the racial identity of the perpetrators revealed therein; and of nothing else. You persistently accuse him of lying because he has not quoted any other instances of the same pattern of behaviour; but why should he? ~ it isn't what he is writing about; & if you are so concerned about this, why have you provided no such examples? All you have done is to name some other towns with large communities of Pakistani origin in which no such instances are known to have occurred ~ and who has contradicted you? ~ and appeared to have mistaken this for some sort of knockdown argument. Pray explain how this convicts Keith of any untruth. I say again ~~ put up or shut up ...

... which formulation you repeat to me, Jim. I "put up" way back, convincing you then that my interest in this topic has been confined to the statistics furnished by these instances, which I find worrying enough just by themselves, and by nothing else. You previously accepted my assurances of this with relief; but have now shifted your ground yet again to accuse me (insofar as I take your meaning at all ~ see below) of acting to protect Keith from accusations of lying ~~ which he has not, I repeat (see above what I say to Steve), done. I am afraid, Jim, with all due respect (& I do mean that), I think that you are floundering so out of your depth in this thread, and have been doing so throughout {ever since you joined it late, didn't read the preceding posts properly, & had to have it pointed out to you that the accusations were of grooming for passing around within the groups involved and not of brothel-keeping; as well as what the correct meaning of 'incvective' was}, that your contributions have degenerated to the point of absolute incomprehensibility.   I have frankly no idea what this last one is supposed to be talking about. Your hatred of racism, together with your annoyance at some previous statements by Keith on other threads which have nothing to do with this one, seem to me to have deprived you of all judgment as to what you are saying in this present exchange. Get off before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself: please, for crying out loud...

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 08:03 AM

You will gather, Jim, that, due to cross-posting with DonT sticking his oar in to muddy up the waters a bit more, that it was your penultimate post that I couldn't make heads or tails of ~~ that of, just to make sure, 0550 am

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 08:05 AM

which he has not, I repeat (see above what I say to Steve), done.
Distortion of facts which not only do not back your case, but positively contradict them is a form of lying - and it is a time 'dishonoured' tactic.
To say I have 'floundered' is a matter of opinion - yours Ake's nd Keith's I hope - I can comfortably live with that, especially as you now appear to have taken up one of Keith's tactics of presenting past mistakes which I have acknowledged. That to me is a pretty clear indication of 'floundering'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 08:09 AM

"Get off before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself: please, for crying out loud..."
Is that invective, btw?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 08:13 AM

""You will gather, Jim, that, due to cross-posting with DonT sticking his oar in to muddy up the waters a bit more, that it was your penultimate post that I couldn't make heads or tails of ~~ that of, just to make sure, 0550 am""

May I suggest Mike, that since I have been polite to you, you might serve yourself better by reading and respondingto my posts, than by snide sarcastic sideswipes.

That way you could tell me what your explanation is for the fact that there is no cultural predisposition in the 29% of British Pakistanis who live in the South.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 08:16 AM

As I have pointed out several times, street grooming of underage girls has been a feature of British crime since before there were ANY British Pakistanis.

Underage runaways mostly, because they were naive and and unlikely to survive in the Cities.

They were picked up and offered help at bus stations, railway stations, and in the streets, then groomed, broken in (by multiple rape), often hooked on drugs then turned out as prostitutes, or kept as sex slaves rented out to clients.

So Keith's contention that this is a new, or a Pakistani, crime is simply not true.

The reason why he can pretend it is true is simply that it has always been reported as part of the wider category of sex abuse, and not separately as grooming.

So, it is not true that British Pakistanis have invented their own crime, and it is not true that they are culturally predisposed, which leaves the question of what is true.

Easy!! They are Paedophiles, Rapists and Sex Traffickers who have been caught, tried, convicted and sentenced.

Oh and they are members of a small number of gangs of mainly British Pakistanis, who have been interlinked by their predilection for Paedophilia, rather than by their ethnic origins.

Surely the point is they have been dealt with, as have any others (Eastern European, Caribbean, or White British) with the same nasty habits, who have been caught.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 08:24 AM

+++"Get off before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself: please, for crying out loud..."
Is that invective, btw?
Jim Carroll+++

Now you are just being an old tease, Jim. If I wanted to be invectivous {if that is the word}, don't you think I caould find better synonyms for "get" and for "idiot" in the above"/

Don ~~ sorry you find my "sideswipes" "sarcastic" ~~ but, as I said, I am not concerned with those statisics, in which you demand a proof for a negative, which, as any logistician will tell you ... ~~ but simply with the statistics which we do have as to what did happen, undisputedly, in specific instances, which seem to me to provide worry enough. I have not joined in the "this proves it's all in the culture" brigade at any point. My speculations as to positive causes for the phenomenon have been merely ~ ah ~ speculative. But the existence of the phenomenon in itself appears worrying enough to me; which , it seems to me, what you lot over there are in alarming denial about.

Non-sarcastic greetings, and please let us all keep our tempers.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 09:20 AM

Michael. I don't care whether we call it lying or self-delusion. The point is that Keith (with your moral support, which appears to include hectoring of other posters with rudeness and insults) has focussed sharply on what goes on, sex-crime wise, in a couple of very restricted areas of the country. Areas with relatively large numbers of young Pakistani males. He is being exceptionally selective in choosing to point just to these instances whilst ignoring the generality of sex crimes in the country as a whole. He's your mate so perhaps you could elicit from him what his motive is. Grooming young girls for sex, gang rape, pimping, soliciting and trafficking have been merrily going on since Adam were a bloody lad, and certainly it was all going on long before there were Asian communities here. What some of us want to know from Keith, and you, is what's the point here?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 09:22 AM

Jim
YOU DOCTORED JACK STRAW'S STATEMENT BY REMOVING THE PASSAGES THAT UNDERMINED YOUR 'CULTURAL' CASE - Jack Straw took pains to say the case was not a matter of race, The Trial judge said it was not a matter of race, the police incvolved said it was a matter of race, you continue to insist that it is a matter of race.

Straw said they have the same sexual drives as other young men, but their own girls are off limits.
That was my 'cultural' case, but I felt it carried more weight when given by actual Muslims and BPs
Straw said "But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men who target vulnerable young white girls."

The trial judge is required to treat each case in isolation.
That is not valid.
I produced many senior police who were aware of an issue with BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 09:32 AM

I don't know what Keith's point is, Steve. How should I? He is not my 'mate', we have never met. I simply feel he is being consistently misrepresented in posts at least as cogently expressed as any of my poor efforts {rude? insulting? moi!], which I consider unfair.

My point is simply that certain very specific numbers have been published which show a remarkable over-representation in certain places of members of a certain community in a particular malfeasance; I find this worrying; I speculate, without coming to any conclusion tho obviously listening to suggestions from other informed people like ex-cabinet-ministers and leaders of the community in question, as to the possible causes of this.

I find the lack of worry about this from those of you over there most questionable motive-wise, suspecting, I think reasonably and as I have never concealed, that you are deliberately ignoring such evidence as there is, as it fails to conform to certain predetermined political doctrines which you embrace.

That is all my point. I am still not sure what yours is.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 09:40 AM

P.S "hectoring"; "rudeness"; "insult" ~~~

Your post addressed to me contains a "bloody"; a recent one of Jim's had a "bastards" & a "feck off".

My posts contain no such. Just show me one such on this thread ~~ or any within the last year or so.

Pots & kettles, my dear Steve. Likewise glasshouses & stones.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 09:52 AM

Steve, you say I " focussed sharply on what goes on, sex-crime wise, in a couple of very restricted areas of the country. Areas with relatively large numbers of young Pakistani males. He is being exceptionally selective in choosing to point just to these instances whilst ignoring the generality of sex crimes in the country as a whole."

This is about on street grooming by groups.
These are the only places where it has been identified, unless you know different.
Do you Steve?
Sorry, but I did not choose this subject for discussion, and I did not choose where it is found.

This has only been criminalised in recent years, mainly due to the lobbying of people like Hillary Wilmer and Ann Cryer.

There had only ever been 17 court cases when the study was made, and since then I think just one more where the study was accepted in evidence.

If you want to talk about other crimes, start another thread.
Do not castigate me for providing information relative to this debate, and especially do no falsely say I have witheld or distorted anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 10:12 AM

My point is simply that certain very specific numbers have been published which show a remarkable over-representation in certain places of members of a certain community in a particular malfeasance

Last August, in my back garden (=the inner city), three members of my extended family (=vulnerable young white girls) were stung (=groomed then raped) by wasps (=young Pakistani males). When I told all my mates about this, complaining that wasps in general had it in for my extended family (=racist attitude), they told me not to be so silly, because didn't I know there was a wasps' nest (=Pakistani community) ten feet away from my picnic table, so of course I was going to be prejudiced against wasps! They pointed out to me that wasps in general, away from wasps' nests, are generally quite benign beasts, disinclined to sting at all. I mustn't tar all wasps with the same brush on the strength of just a couple of incidents in my back garden. Not only that, bees (=not Pakistanis) also sting, and midges and mosquitos (=also not Pakistanis) with their bites (=a sex crime but of a different sort) are just as bad, if not worse, and certainly they strike far more frequently, and not just at my extended family (=not just vulnerable young white girls). They castigated me for my unfair focus on wasps whilst ignoring all that other stuff that insects visit on humanity. One of them even called me Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 10:32 AM

I am sure the whole of the Mudcat community will be much entertained by your last post, Steve ~~ if any of them can make any kind of heads-or-tails of what your point or purpose in posting it may be. It seems to be addressed to me as it bears a quote from a post of mine at the top ~~

~~ but if I am expected to glean any enlightenment therefrom, I am blessed if I know what it may be.

Honest, now ~~ can anyone give me any idea what Steve is on about?

{Was that a rude or insulting or hectoring thing to say, Steve? Oh dear me. That will never do!}

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 10:39 AM

The point is that focussing on a specific and easily-identifiable group's activities in a narrowly-defined area does not yield any justifiable extrapolation beyond that area. Basically, the point is that this happened, and the fair-minded among us are all saying "so what?" What conclusion have you and Keith reached about young Pakistani males? I bet you don't answer that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 10:48 AM

You lose! What was the bet. Come on, pay up.

If you had read my posts [as your are always enjoining people o-so-vehemently ~~ indeed, hectoringly! ~~ to read yours], you would know I have reached no "conclusions" whatever about the actual phenomenon under consideration; I merely find it somewhat alarming intrinsically. I cannot, of course, speak for Keith, who will no doubt respond for himself.

The only "conclusion" I have reached is that you lot, for doctrinaire, prejudiced, biased, politically tendentious {cont p 94} reasons of your own, prefer to pretend that the phenomenon doesn't even exist.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 10:55 AM

Once again Mike, I am not complaining about your invective, why would I, I'm prone to it myself on occasion. I'm just commenting on it in the light of your "not doing" it.
On the other hand, if you spent more time answering questions, (like why Keith's deliberate manipulation of his own quotes is not out-and-out lying), and less time disparaging people who disagree with you:
"I think that you are floundering so out of your depth in this thread,"
"seem to me to have deprived you of all judgment as to what you are saying in this present exchange."
"Get off before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself: please, for crying out loud...":
we all might regain a little of the 'respect' we once had for one another's views.
"That was my 'cultural' case"
No it was not and you know it; how could it be; you deliberately removed what Straw had to say on this issue?
"Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders."
"Straw added: "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"
If it was "your cultural case", then why deliberately edit it out?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 12:05 PM

Jim,
"If it was "your cultural case", then why deliberately edit it out?"

It IS my cultural case, so it does support me, but it carries more weight when put forward by actual BPs and Muslims.
There were plenty of them so I did not need Straw.
I try not to put up unnecessary stuff, but I am very happy that you have put up evidence for me.

You have no justification for saying Keith's deliberate manipulation of his own quotes is out-and-out lying

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 12:13 PM

Steve,
"What conclusion have you and Keith reached about young Pakistani males? I bet you don't answer that. "

I began here just trying to make you people accept there is an issue.

By conclusion, I assume you mean an explanation for that behaviour.
That has been given by people with knowledge of the culture and from within it.
I had an open mind but they have convinced me.

What makes you so certain they are wrong Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 12:13 PM

""I think reasonably and as I have never concealed, that you are deliberately ignoring such evidence as there is, as it fails to conform to certain predetermined political doctrines which you embrace.""

And that wouldn't of course be exactly what Keith is doing in the opposite direction?

Your stance is, in my opinion, even more dangerous, in that you seem to be saying that these 17 cases involving 56 men over a thirteen year period are statistically significant in themselves (which any good mathematician will tell you is arrant nonsense), and that no consideration should be given to anything outside that narrow set.

This is akin to claiming that because a riot has taken place in a small eskimo village, Eskimos are over represented in the violent crime figures of Alaska.

It is both disingenuous and dishonest to state that the lack of similar incidents in the South is not germane to the issue. Keith has put forward a theory win which he asserts a number of "factoids":-

1. That British Pakistanis are over represented in the crime of street groomng.

2. That there have been no cases of street grooming which were committed by any other ethnic group.

3. That the reason for this is that their repressive culture slightly predisposes them to commit this crime.

From point 1, we now have you saying that in assessing whether or no any over representation occurs we must ignore 29% because taking them into account would destroy the average required.

You claim that taking the whole group when working out averages would be trying to prove a negative. Try getting that one past any competent primary school teacher, let alone a mathematician.

From point 2, another rent in the fabric of the claims. Street grooming has been endemic since well before the arrival of the first Pakistani immigrant, so if not committed by non Pakistanis, then who?

Point three completes the cycle of Keith misinformation, because it is apparent that it doesn't hold for any but the small contingent already exposed.

This is where we get the only true statement from Keith, when in response to a comment from me, he replied that there were only these seventeen cases, and 56 men

ONLY FIFTY SIX MEN!!........out of the British Pakistani population of SEVEN HUNDRED AND FORTY SEVEN AND A QUARTER THOUSAND.

And please don't feed me the tired old "tip of the iceberg" crap, because that would be introducing untestable conjecture, which by its nature cannot prove anything. A bit like trying to prove a negative, which as you can see, I was not.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 12:28 PM

Keith A of Hertford is on a determined and hard fought campaign to ram home his message that all young British Pakistani men are potentially Paedophiles and Rapists, made so by their culture.

That is the sum total of this thread, stripped of all irrelevances.

Not one of those he cites as authority went halfway to that conclusion.

If not Racist, then what?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 12:34 PM

Keith it isn't a cultural case; Straw said it wasn't, the judge said it wasn't, the police said it wasn't, you few, you happy few, you band of brothers are the only ones claiming it is.
If you didn't need Straw why use him as an example and mention him forty-odd times in the course of the thread, (I certainly agree that you need him at the present time like a typist needs a nasty dose of piles).
You knew what he actually said contradicted your case so you deliberately removed the awkward bits, if you hadn't he would have contradicted your case - and you wouldn't be in the klarts that you now find yourself - isn't life just full of 'if onlys'.
"but I am very happy that you have put up evidence for me."
I just bet you are!!!
"You have no justification for saying Keith's deliberate manipulation of his own quotes is out-and-out lying "
Why are you now referring to yourself in the third person - have you suddenly become somebody else (the queen maybe - Thatcher used to do something similar), or do you just wish you were somebody else?
Please stop this embarrasing charade; the more you dig the deeper you sink.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 12:58 PM

Jim, Straw said they did it because girls from their own community were off limits to them.
They are off limits because the culture is restrictive of them. That is a cultural explanation of the behaviour.

I thought it carried more weight coming from actual BPs and Muslims so I did not need Straw.
I did use Straw's testimony as evidence that there is an issue to be explained.
His work as an MP gave him experience of it in his constituency.
That is why I referred to him so many times, and because you keep pretending not to believe it (except when you are tired and go off message).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 02:34 PM

You continue to wriggle Keith - each time managing to contradict what you have said yourself - get your own story straight.
You appear to be still making it up as you go along
Please tell us why you edited out the bits of Straw's statement thta you did, especially as, as you have shown by the number of times you quoted him, he was at one time your star witness - now, it seems, you've relegated him to the B-team?
Oh, and while you're at it "There is a massive over representation of BPs in this crime."
Can you tell us who ese has said the BP's part in this crime was "massive" - can't find it anywhere - apart from you - at least a dozen times.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 02:54 PM

I did not edit anything out.
He spoke voluminously on this.
I only post relevant stuff.
I left out his explanation of why they did it.
I got that from Muslims and BPs.
Yes, he is B team on that, but A team as a witness that there is an issue.

It is the over representation I describe as "massive."
They are a minority, even in the cities where this has been described, yet the perps. are overwhelmingly BPs.
They are massively over represented in proportion to their numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 03:06 PM

Some bad taste humour - one for the girls perhaps..

http://www.cafepress.co.uk/uncovered_meat

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 03:19 PM

This has become too much like a bloodsport for my taste - it would not have involved me as it has if the subject had not been racism.
As far as I can see, you have taken a stance that the British Pakistani culture is a degenerate one.
You have carefully selected your 'evidence' to prove this; on examination, that 'evidence' is little more than a sample of OPINIONS of people working in the field in limited areas (unspecified), and blown it out of all proportion to make your case.
You took the 'evidence'/opinion of your star witness, extracted the awkward bits, and presented his EDITED 'case' (43 times) to prove your point; blatently ignoring the warning of one of your own examples that there ws a danger that the cases under scrutiny were in danger of being used for racist purposes.
You have not even acknowledged the statements of the judge and the police involved in the cases, who have stressed that the crimes have nothing whatever to do with race or culture.
When your editing stunt was revealed you thrashed around and attempted to implicate others (me) in similar behaviour.
You also (as I predicted you would) seized on a mistake on my part (acknowleged by me) to suggest that I was a racist, similar to yourself.
I could go on.....
I have arrived at, and stated my opinion (or even confirmed earlier ones) of what you are and what you stand for.
Unless you can produce clear (unedited) evidence that I am wrong, I'm going to leave it there.
Whether or not you wish to continue with this 'farceathon' is your decision entirely - I'm done!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 03:22 PM

"I did not edit anything out."
Ooooo - you little liar!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 03:45 PM

I do not post pages of irrelevancies.
Straw said they did it because their culture makes their own girls off limits.
That supports my case, but you accuse me of editing it out to support my case.
You are making an arse of yourself again.

The judge rightly looked at the case in isolation.
If he had been influenced by the ethnicity of the accused, or previous cases in which they were not involved, the conviction would rightly have been overturned.

Likewise the police involved should not have put any significance on the ethnicity of the suspects.
I quoted several senior officers who observed the pattern we are discussing over many years.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 10:34 AM

Keith A of Hertford is on a determined and hard fought campaign to ram home his message that all young British Pakistani men are potentially Paedophiles and Rapists, made so by their culture.

That is the sum total of this thread, stripped of all irrelevances.

Not one of those he cites as authority went halfway to that conclusion.

If not Racist, then what?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 11:19 AM

It is impossible to say how many "potentially."
We can say only a tiny minority actually are.

That this is mainly a crime of BPs has been said by a number of people from their own experience.
Some of those quoted are BPs and Muslims.
That is the only reason I think it might be true.

I did not start this discussion Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 05:23 AM

No one has been prepared to reconsider the "racist" slander against me by Don, Jim, Steve and Lox.

Those who claim that this is mainly a crime of BPs, are the hundreds of children who have been violently gang raped by them.

They told their stories to local politicians, support volunteers and police, and I reported their experience here.
That does not make me racist.

I do not agree that hundreds of children, in a large area of Northern England, raped by members of a minority group, is insignificant.
That is not racist either.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 06:26 AM

"No one has been prepared to reconsider the "racist" slander against me"
Wonder why?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 06:34 AM

"I do not agree that hundreds of children, in a large area of Northern England, raped by members of a minority group, is insignificant.
That is not racist either."

Neither do I.
I suspect that it is the minimalist or reductive manner in which you present your position which causes some to react so angrily. And I understand their reasoning, but find the manner unhelpful. Particularly in light of the issues raised by some concerning the taboo relating to crimes which have a particular racial element. Repressing discussions on such a topic with shouts of "racist bigot!" can only contribute further to the problem.

Meanwhile, I've been following some of the discussions on this topic on a variety of fora which include a far broader demographic than here. We don't have a variety of people from different ethnic backgrounds at Mudcat, but my impression from reading other fora which do, is that they can result in less of a "man the barricades" response to these issues. In particular I've found some of the blogs posted by Westerners with Asian backgrounds to be helpful in broadening my awareness of some of the complex issues surrounding this phenomenon. And of course "complex issues" is a key point there. Arguably one which Straw et al, have failed to address in those comments you've highlighted about aspects of Pakistani culture which they argue are causing this problem.

This blog from Eurasian Sensation - The thorny question of Muslim youth and rape has this to say about the role of "culture" in these crimes:

"The sort of young men of Muslim backgrounds who commit this sort of crime are certainly not acting out any religious or cultural imperative. Rather, they are cherry-picking whatever cultural influences serve their purposes in the worst way. The rebellious sociopathy of the gang lifestyle; the lure of easy sex and cheap titillation that abounds in Western countries. These things of course are totally at odds with the culture of Pakistan, Lebanon or any other traditional country. Yet by channelling that traditional perspective of female morality, and victimising only those they view as degraded and cheap, it becomes that much easier to justify."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 06:40 AM

Because name calling is the whole of your argument Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 07:11 AM

"Because name calling is the whole of your argument Jim? "
And the fact that you put that up as an excuse rather than the racism contained in your own arguments coupled with the blatently dishonest manner in which you have advanced your case, is exactly why many of us consider you a racist.
As a humanitarian gesture, can somebody please close down this appalling thread and prevent this idiot from making himself more of a figure of ridicule than he already has.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 07:50 AM

You failed to identify any dishonesty, because there is none.
My arguments are also made by Muslims, BPs and world famous anti racists.
ALL my arguments Jim. If it is not racist for them to say, me copying it is not racist either.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 08:01 AM

Very informative Lively.
Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 10:55 AM

On another thread, Jim boasts that I have crashed in flames on this.

He thinks he has achieved this by calling me names, and by dishonestly and falsely claiming that I have distorted something.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 01:22 PM

911 was a political football for GW Bush.

Peter (Joseph McCarthy) King has limited his discussion of his self-styled "terrorism"
to Muslims. No American Nazis or White Supremacists, KKK members, or others of that ilk.

There are fanatics of all stripes in the human zoo. They come in all colors, religions, politics and cultures.

Prejudice is a form of fanaticism. The way to counteract "terrorism" is to redefine it
as "criminal activity" and deal with it through law enforcement.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 05:47 PM

Jim, the only figures of ridicule on this thread are yourself and Don, who have not the wit between you to realise your position has been comprehensively demolished, quite calmly by Keith.

The few others who argued a lost cause, have sensibly moved on to pastures new.
I suggest you do the same.

Interesting link and wise words Lively.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 08:40 PM

Well, achytony, I'm still here and you didn't mention me. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. What I do know is that your post shows that you clearly live on the planet Zod. Perhaps there are no blacks or queers up there.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 02:24 AM

You have been away three and a half days.
I thought you had gone too.
Jim stays aways less than when he announces he is leaving for good!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 02:35 AM

And you have hardly made a reasoned contribution now.
Just empty abuse.
No point.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 04:06 AM

"Jim, the only figures of ridicule on this thread are yourself and Don"
Which is evidenced by the avalanche of support you and he have received for your argument - and for Keith's blatently dishonest behaviour.
"....when he announces he is leaving for good! "
You're being pathetic again Keith - snap out of it boy!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 04:10 AM

There has been no avalanche for either side Jim.

You have failed to identify any dishonesty from me, so it is dishonest to claim it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 05:55 AM

Steve ~ You have been away since I called you on a bet & you disappeared without paying: so pay up or shut up.

How much was the bet? Er ~ I'm glad you asked me that...

Welcome back, whatever; we have missed your ever-entertaining, tho on occasion puzzlingly whimsical, contributions to the commonweal of discourse.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 06:00 AM

Keith is right up to a point, mind. Soppy ole CrapLox, with his interminable nonsensical sesquipedalianly assertive idiocies, seems to have withdrawn.

Phew ~~ perhaps there is a God after all?...

~M~

Not that they bothered me that much; disposing of their absurdities by the simple expedient of not bothering to read them...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 07:04 AM

Steve,I did not lump you in with Jim and Don, as you can often see things objectively and are quite humorous in your posting style.

A sense of humour is a great thing....a thing which Jim and Don seem to be completely devoid of.

Its just a pity that you're wrong so much of the time.....you could even aspire to our team   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 03:18 AM

It is two days now since I put forward this discussion point, and not one reply has been posted. Have you left the discussion Jim, Steve, Lox?

Those who claim that this is mainly a crime of BPs, are the hundreds of children who have been violently gang raped by them.

They told their stories to local politicians, support volunteers and police, and I reported their experience here.
That does not make me racist.

I do not agree that hundreds of children, in a large area of Northern England, raped by members of a minority group, is insignificant.
That is not racist either.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 04:34 AM

Sorry Lively.
You did respond and developed the point, but no one challenged it.

Jim and Steve both insisted they were still in, but did not actually contribute anything.

Are you still in this debate or not boys?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 09:08 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....*snort* ...Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 09:14 AM

That's a no then.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 09:21 AM

What debate? You mean this big long thread in which you arrived with a fixed idea and refuse to listen to anyone who demurs? That debate?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:36 PM

The one where I made points that you were unable to reply to, except to call me racist.
Any reply to those lasts points?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:58 PM

Keith, several people in this thread could write a small book each containing our considered responses and we are not calling you racist at every juncture. A similar book from you would have about twenty-eight chapters in it, all identical and all incredibly tedious.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 01:58 PM

My chapters would be tedious because, as you say, I have only been saying one thing.
A large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.

I had to keep saying it because you and others either deny it or say it is not significant.

Do you still deny it?
Do you think it significant?
Do you think it racist?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 02:20 PM

When have I ever denied it? Or said it was insignificant? If that's how you read my comments then you need English lessons. What's wrong is the gloss you're putting on it, your focus to the exclusion of all other sex crime in this country. You seem to be on a mission to besmirch one particular small group of people. That could be racist for all I know. It's down to you to defend that stance and you have signally failed to do so, which is why you are being confronted with scepticism by so many people. It doesn't help when you blatantly misrepresent what people post, as here, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 03:14 PM

Thanks Steve.
If you accept that I have no other issue, but I refute that I " focus to the exclusion of all other sex crime in this country."

It is just that we happened to be discussing this crime, i.e. on-street grooming of children by groups.

I did acknowledge whenever it came up that BPs were under represented in all other crime incuding other sex crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 02:59 AM

Jim, you have been pleading for someone to close this thread.
That was not to spare you further embarrassment, was it?

Straight answers from you now would close it to everyone's satisfaction.

A large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.

Do you still deny it?
Do you think it significant?
Do you think it racist?

And please, do not try to make it all about me again.
Or, if you must, put up specific evidence for each allegation

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 07:53 AM

""Not that they bothered me that much; disposing of their absurdities by the simple expedient of not bothering to read them... ""

AH! That explains why you think you've won something.

The text equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la, I'm not listening".

Exactly the same technique as used by Keith, as he himself stated.

Pathetic!

As for Ake, he's already in La La Land, and has been for a very long time, and the reason he hasn't seen my sense of humour is that he's never said anything the least bit funny.......


.....or sensible.

Definitely one to ignore. His attitude to minorities is well documented.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 08:08 AM

""A large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.""

Wilmer spoke to 400 victims, all of whom claimed to have been abused by British Pakistani men.

Only 17 cases followed, involving 56 Pakistani men.

Does this not surprise you.

Questions you haven't bothered to consider in your eagerness to libel a whole culture.

1. How did those victims know that their abusers were Pakistanis? Swarthy skin?..Beards?...Asian accents?

Or did they ask to see their passports?

2. Is it not possible that many other races with the same generic appearance were involved?......Indian, Filippino?...even Spanish?

3. Is it not possible that Wilmer (not a trained interrogator of children) led the children into her preconceived path?

How about putting you money where your mouth is and actually fulfilling your expressed willingness to answer questions?

A direct answer for the first time would be good.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 09:46 AM

Don ~~ I had made it abundantly clear that I was only referring to that kingsize fool Lox's posts, not yours or Steve's or Jim's, to all of whom I have endeavoured to respond rationally, and not to lalala with fingers in ears; as none of you had wasted my time earlier on with ill-conceived and inaccurate and idiotic abuse.

You are perfectly aware of this, and so your attack on me two posts back was unfair and ill-natured. I am ashamed of you ~~ tho I suppose it is too much to expect you to be ashamed of yourself.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 10:24 AM

Apologies unreserved Mike.

I did indeed misread and do you an injustice.

Not so Keith however.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 12:01 PM

Don, how you would enjoy cross examining the poor, terrified children in court.
Did you read Wilmer's account of how most girls simply can't face their violent abusers in court?
Have you read how hard it has proved to get any police action?

Kids learn from a young age to recognise the different ethnic groups in their towns.
You can believe the victims.
Grooming involves getting close to them.

Wilmer talked of four hundred families who had sought help from her support group.
Many don't, and those in care have no families anyway.
She is aware that she only sees "the tip of the iceberg."
It is also hardly likely that the politicians saw just the same people as Wilmer.

But nothing would ever convince you that you have got it wrong this time.
I am giving up on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 03:20 PM

Thank you, Don.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Mar 11 - 11:26 AM

No worries Mike! I'm happy to admit and apologise when I get it wrong.

I'm also happy to see both sides of any story, which is apparently not permitted in discussion with Keith.

He has a point of view which may have some merit, but he chooses to insist that there is no other, and refuses to read any posts which disagree with him.

Then, when backed into a corner with direct yes or no questions requiring yes or no answers, he waffles then runs away with a perfect definition of his own behaviour (""But nothing would ever convince you that you have got it wrong this time.""), followed by a very weak cop out (""I am giving up on you."").

I have repeatedly asked him questions which begin "Is it not possible......", and he knows damn well that, however much he wants it not to be, it patently IS POSSIBLE!

I wonder how he'll react when he comes back and is reminded of his responses when others leave and then return.

As I said above, Pathetic!.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Mar 11 - 11:40 AM

""Don, how you would enjoy cross examining the poor, terrified children in court.""

That is the kind of deliberate misapprehension and scurrilous attack I have come to expect from you sir.

You simply do not know where to draw the line.

I was referring to the well recognised and equally well documented danger that in questioning children, the questioner can very easily, and totally inadvertently lead them to give the answers they believe she wants.

Roughly along the lines of:-
Child "He had a brown face, and a beard".
Questioner "Like the man in this photograph"?
Child "Yes"
Questioner "Thank you", notes down Probably Pakistani.

That is why those who deal with children have a high degree of advanced training for the job.

Does Wilmer have that training?.....Answer....YOU DO NOT KNOW!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Mar 11 - 01:57 PM

Again, it's about what people do which is more important than what they profess to believe.

In the States, here, there are not a lot of suicide bombings by extremist Muslim groups if any at all. The bible is full of contradictory statements about how to live as is also the koran and the torah and the ghita and the ............... There are always those who choose violence to support their claims of belief and others who are more rational.

There are those in the Christian community who would shoot someone who didn't agree with them so why not in any other religious community as well?

Does Matthew Shepherd, Franklin Graham or Fred Phelps ring a bell?

You can always find some nut somewhere that wants to play at being a god with a gun and appropriate "answers" to the world's problems.

Remember the movie "The Gangs of New York"?

Prejudice by any other name would smell....................

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 11 - 03:11 PM

In the States, here, there are not a lot of suicide bombings by extremist Muslim groups if any at all.

Errrrr - what happened on 9/11? OK it is not a lot. But it sure was a big un!

Nothing to do with the spririt of the thread I guess but, yes, I am a pedantic nit-picker...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 03:52 AM

Don, many things are possible, but exceedingly unlikely.

Here there is an infinitely more probable explanation, that you seem unable to consider.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 08:14 AM

Blimey - 20th of March - thats 2 months since Keith began his crusade to prove that Pakistanis in Britain are closet paedophiles who struggle not to abuse children.

He states that Pakistanis are overrepresented in the crime of "street grooming".

This despite the Dando institute report whose authors state that to describe street grooming as a seperate crime type is a misrepresentation of the facts.

This also despite the wording of the statute (posted by keith) which clarifies that grooming of any sort is merely the means by which child abusers trap their victims.

In other words, the distinction keith makes between these child abusers and other child abusers is false and his hypothesis has no premise.

Keith knows all this but ignores it as it is inconvenient, and states that we "know" it is true because of fourth hand evidence ... helen wilmer said, that some parents said, that some kids said, that they were abused by Pakistani Gangs ... and she thiinks it COULD be the tip of the iceberg.

And that ladies and gents is the proof for his "hypothesis" that British Pakistanis are culturally predisposed to kidnapping and raping children.

Meanwhile MtheGM dribbles overexcitedly into his bib as his bitterness over being born with no talent or wit seeps forth in a constant trickle of insignificant bile.

I'll check in in another month to have a little chuckle at the farcical crap being posted.

Til then do have fun xx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 09:09 AM

""Here there is an infinitely more probable explanation, that you seem unable to consider.""

That's what I love about you Keith, your arrogant ability to assign new meanings to words.

Look up "infinite" in the dictionary, then, armed with the knowledge of what it actually means, rethink that inane comment.

What you call a more probable explanation, most people would regard as an implausible mishmash of poorly informed, and ill considered nonsense.

You extrapolate from a series of events which have taken place amongst a minority in a localised area of a much larger country, to draw completely indefensible conclusions about the whole race/religion/culture from which that minority stems.

None of those you cite in support of your theory have drawn the same conclusions, and large groups of the same ethnic origins in other parts of the country show no sign of this "predilection" but, come hell or high water you won't yield one inch.

How you have the gall to accuse others of having fixed ideas I do not know.

At least my take on the matter doesn't involve labelling a whole culture as potential sex criminals, and I'll stick with that thanks.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 02:01 PM

"That was not to spare you further embarrassment, was it?"
You re-opened this deplorable thread with a plea for people to come to your defence as not being a racist - don't see many takers - do you?
A large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.
Where do your figures come from? Do you have any idea how many children were involved?
"Do you think it significant?"
I think the rape of any child extremely significant, whether the rapist is Muslim, Catholic Jew, black white, striped or polka-dotted.
"Do you think it racist?"
I think it racist to make a cultural issue that the rapist happens to be a Pakistani, I think it racist to suggest that paedophilia is a cultural or race issue, I think it racist to suggest 'large numbers' - 'many hundreds', on figures you do not have, especially as your star witness (in the bit you snopaked out) took pains to point out that this was a case of young men coming from a culture with high moral standards, doing what other young men of their age have done before them. He also pointed out that overwhelmingly paedophilia was not an Asian/Muslim crime - but you snopaked that bit out too.
Another piece of your 'evidence' pointed out the dangers of these reports being used for racist purposes, as you have attempted to use them.
Do I believe you to be a racist - yup; you've talked me (and nearly everybody else) into that one a hundred percent.
It is you and you alone who has despicable made the rape of children a vehicle to air your own prejudices.
As for my non-appearance on this thread; surprisingly, I found the Inishowen singing Festival a breath of fresh air compared to this cess-pit.
.... put up specific evidence for each allegation
See above.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 02:06 PM

Lox,
"This despite the Dando institute report whose authors state that to describe street grooming as a seperate crime type is a misrepresentation of the facts."

Wrong AGAIN Lox.
It does not state that.
The report was actually into "on-street grooming".
THAT WAS ITS SUBJECT, and there is to be a follow up study ON THE SAME SUBJECT.
They could hardly conclude that there is no such thing!

"the distinction keith makes between these child abusers and other child abusers is false"

They use a different strategy to ensnare the children.
That IS the distinction!
That and the vast scale of it.
Even the recent global anti paedophile operation invoved a fraction of this number of child victims.

"helen wilmer said, that some parents said, that some kids said, that they were abused by Pakistani Gangs ... and she thiinks it COULD be the tip of the iceberg."
Wrong AGAIN Lox.
She said that, of the hundreds of families who turned to her, ALL the abusers were BPs.
She says it is the tip of an iceberg.
You say it is not, but you are just some random bloke from Ireland, so I choose to believe her.

"And that ladies and gents is the proof for his "hypothesis" that British Pakistanis are culturally predisposed to kidnapping and raping children."
WRONG YET AGAIN Lox!
That is just some of the evidence for over representation.
There is no proof of the hypothesis.
But the Muslims and BPs who have made that hypothesis are more likely to be right than some random bloke from Ireland.

Don, you choose not to accept the evidence.
Nothing would convince you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 02:14 PM

Jim,
"Where do your figures come from? Do you have any idea how many children were involved?"
Wilmer talked of four hundred families who had sought help from her support group.
Many don't, and those in care have no families anyway.
She is aware that she only sees "the tip of the iceberg."
It is also hardly likely that the politicians saw just the same people as Wilmer.

I ask again, Do you deny that a large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.

Do you regard that as a significant issue, and why is it racist to mention it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 02:51 PM

"Authors of the first independent academic analysis looking at "on-street grooming", where young girls, spotted outside, including at the school gates, have become targets, said they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type"."

Thats what the authors said.

They were concerned that the research they carried out was being generalized to an entire crime type.

They were concerned because people like keith are sying it is a new crime type WHEN IT ISN'T ONE.

But the results and conclusions of the researchers are irrelevant according to Keith.

The only proof he needs is the fact that ALLEGATIONS have been reported and that an investigation has been carried out.

It does not interest him that the investigators conclusions flatly CONTRADICT his view.

2 months selling a racist hypothesis ... and twice referring to my Irish Nationality as if to suggest that it somehow delegitimizes my arguments ... thankyou for clarifying your agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 03:29 PM

You've had my answer Keith - unlike you I will not condemn a whole culture or race on the basis of hearsay evidence AND NEITHER DID YOUR STAR WITNESS, JACK STRAW, THE PART WHERE HE SAYS SO YOU CAREFULLY REMOVED FROM YOUR CUT-N-PASTE.
Straw carefully points out that there is no cultural signficance to the events under discussion - you are contradicting this and have deliberately removed his saying so - you are a manipulative racist with no support for your racist claims.
I have already included a selection of your racist accusations against British Pakistanis taken from only some of your postings; hope to get down to the rest later this week - impressive reading, what!
Nobody loves you Keith - live with it!
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 04:32 PM

"and twice referring to my Irish Nationality"
He hasn't asked you to go back to where you came from yet - but he will - he will!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 04:32 PM

Lox, they said that "data from" their survey had been generalised, not that its subject did not exist as a type of crime.

Jim, in the bit you claim I left out dishonestly, Straw said the BPs abused children because their culture makes their own girls off limits.

I did not need to quote that, because I quoted actual BPs saying the same thing.

You are making an arse of yourself again.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 04:36 PM

Hillary Wilmer, because of her years of work with victims, knows more about this issue than anyone else.
When she is contradicted by one random bloke from Kent and two from Ireland, no one is going to take any notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 05:39 PM

Oooh dearie·weary me. CrapLox doesn't think me witty. How shall I live with the shame & disgrace! Down the garden to eat worms again! And when he himself is such a witty old wiseacre too, to be sure. Don't you just adore that constant rib- tickling tease of his, of "I am leaving this thread! Boo! I'm back! Gotcha!" Look, he has just done it again; on this very thread; for the, uh, 7th time, is it? Sorry; lost count. Hilarious! To say nothing of that sidesplitting series of ésprits about the colostomy bags and the wheelchairs and the bondage... Absolutely priceless, Oh, dear sweet darling Poxy-Loxy-Woxy; please stop pretending to leave the thread. It's so ♥·less & crool... What shall we ever ever ever do without you, duckling!!!

〠〠〠❧❦❧〠〠〠

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 07:38 PM

Keith says "they said that "data from" their survey had been generalised, not that its subject did not exist as a type of crime."

Ok well lets read it again then Keith shall we ...

... the data was "generalised to an entire crime type" ...

ok so they are concerned that the information they gathered was being "generalised to an entire crime type" ...

... hmmm ...

You know keith, when I read that I get an idea that they are concerned about the data being "generalised to an entire crime type" ...

... i.e there is no new "crime type".


As for Helen Wilmer,

She is REPORTING a series of ALLEGATIONS ... thats it.

That is not evidence of crimes, just evidence that ALLEGATIONS have been made.

So for you to derive from this that we KNOW that hundreds of crimes have been commited by Pakistanis is also MISREPRESENTATION of the data.

So there is no new crime type, just ALLEGATIONS - and not allegations by Helen Wilmer, only allegations REPORTED by Helen Wilmer.


You state that because Street Grooming was investigated, therefore it exists.

If I allege that you are a thief, and the police investigate it, the fact that you are being investigated for theft does not make you a thief.

And if, as in this case, the investigators specifically state that the data does not support the allegation, then I think it is safe to say that the allegation can be dismissed.

Just like your racist hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 12:28 AM

Didn't read the last post: ☞☜·in·〠 lalalalalalala

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 02:11 AM

You are right Lox.
Just allegations.
Hundreds of children alleged they had been groomed and raped by BPs, but people like you would not listen because it would not be PC.
Thank God that Wilmer did.
(How she deserves the award she received for her work.)

Unknown numbers more went to their MPs when the police would not help.

The study looked at actual convictions for this crime type (that does not exist.)
It would be wrong to generalise, but they looked at 17 (non existent) trials and found that those convicted of this (non existent) crime were nearly all BPs.

A larger follow up study has been ordered into this (non existent) crime.

All of which proves to Lox's satisfaction that there is no issue and no crime, just racism.
Should those children be punished for telling Lox, are is having their young lives devastated enough for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 02:50 AM

Lox, let me help you to comprehend the meaning of your Guardian quote.
"ok so they are concerned that the information they gathered was being "generalised to an entire crime type" "

It means that there is a recognised crime type here.
They have only studied a small number (17) of cases so the data should not be generalised to the whole of this (recognised) crime type.
That leaves open the possibility that these cases are indeed typical of this crime type.

More study of this (recognised) crime type is required to confirm that.
OK Lox?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 04:44 AM

"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

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 05:35 AM

Jim,
""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."

I have been saying that they are under represented in all non terror crime including other sex crime, since January.
It was not in contention so no need to include it.
I try to keep my posts short.

"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."

There is nothing here that contradicts anything I have argued.
What do you see that supports you?
"Pakistani heritage girls are off limits"
Why? Culture.
Result? This crime.
My case in a nutshell.

You are making a COMPLETE arse of yourself over this.
Thanks Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 06:01 AM

"I try to keep my posts short."
Piss off Keith - that was not the reason for removing evidence from your cut-n-paste, which took about two sentences. You removed it because it undermined your argument that Pakistanis were culturally sexual predators NOBODY, NOT EVEN YOUR FEW SUPPORTERS, BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHY YOU DIT IT.
"There is nothing here that contradicts anything I have argued."
Yes there is - Straw points out that Pakistani men are no different from any other racial/cultural group - you have consistently argued that predatory behaviour is an inbuilt cultural trait.
"Pakistani heritage girls are off limits"
Are you suggesting that they should be put 'on limits' to protect 'our white women'? You have just said it again - Pakistani culture = predatory sexual behaviour
"You are making a COMPLETE arse of yourself over this."
If I am an arse where is the avalanche of support for your case, your racism and your dishonest behaviour - the very reason you re-opened this thread - where is your backing?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 06:13 AM

It is not just two sentences Jim.
I have left out great tranches of irrelevant gush, including those two sentences.

But I am delighted that you are exposing them, because they support my case anyway!

" Straw points out that Pakistani men are no different from any other racial/cultural group - you have consistently argued that predatory behaviour is an inbuilt cultural trait."

I have said that they are biologically the same as all of us.
They have the same drives, but no outlet for this one within their own community, leading to this crime.
We have this stated by BPs like Ahmed, Allibhai-Brown and Shufiq, never mind Straw, and Cryer.

How do you know they are all wrong?
You just know.
Right?

IT CAN'T BE TRUE.
IT JUST CAN'T.
RACIST! BIGOT! LIAR!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 06:28 AM

Jim,
"If I am an arse where is the avalanche of support for your case, your racism and your dishonest behaviour - the very reason you re-opened this thread - where is your backing?"

Joe does not think either of us are racists.
He was good enough to describe us as both good people.
He described your persistent attemps to discredit me as cheap.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 06:43 AM

···"Your reason for re-opening this thread - to plead that you are not a dishonest, manipulative racist, appears to have fallen on deaf ears"...

"If I am an arse where is the avalanche of support for your case, your racism and your dishonest behaviour - the very reason you re-opened this thread - where is your backing?"···
===
I am sorry, Jim; I am still here to tell you that I think that you & Steve & Don have got it wrong, &, insofar as the small but significant section of the matter concerning the over-representation of one demographic regarding one particular segment within a pattern of overall conduct is concerned, Keith has got it right.

Your attempts to widen the matter to cover the whole of this conduct spectrum are counterproductive, in emphasising the over-representation within this particular part which is all that is at issue to Keith & me. Your constant repetitions of Keith's "previous" on other threads likewise raises the question as to why you need to resort to such manifest irrelevancies if your overall case is as strong as you appear to think.

I hope you will believe that I am not attempting merely to controversialise. BWM paid us both the compliment above of saying how gratifying he found it that we could differ in an urbane and courteous manner, and I much regret that here might have been some passages since then when we let this sort of discourse slip into hostility or disrespecful unmannerliness. But I do not think I can let go your above assertions that Keith's case is being undermined by a deafening silence in response and an overwhelming lack of support.

I'm still here.

Best regards as ever

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 07:29 AM

Mike - we really have visited Keith's racist and generally bigotted shrine before - they are not irrelevant to his present stance.
His torrent of racist examples, only some of which I have taken from his posts, are indications of his racist views as far as I am concerned.
His failure to read what others have written has been pointed out to him again and again, by others as well as me.
I would no more exclude what has gone before from this discussion than I would Ake's vicious homophobia - they are part of what they are - bigots.
No doubt Keith will take some comfort from your support - perhaps I should have said 'apart from those few who have already declared support for some of his views.'
I do hope you have armed yourself with a very long spoon.
Best regards to you too.
"I have said that they are biologically the same as all of us."
Biologically so are Colonel Gadaffi, Denis Mugabe Margaret Thatcher and Augusto Pinochet - that is not under discussion here - it is individual weaknesses and personal experiences that make criminals and human rights monsters, not cultural traiits or racial origins.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 07:38 AM

I am no racist, and have never posted anything to justify that slander.
I refute it.
It is a lie.
You can put nothing up in support of it.

Joe, bless him, really has had to read all the guff we have both put up.
He still sees us as both good people.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 08:14 AM

""Don, you choose not to accept the evidence.
Nothing would convince you.""

Looking in the mirror again Keith?

And you said you would ANSWER QUESTIONS, so I have another for you.

WHEN WILL YOU ANSWER?

To date you have avoided, evaded, deliberately misrepresented, and waffled aimlessly, but you have not yet deigned to give one direct answer to any actual question.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 08:26 AM

I keep saying Don, just post them one or two at a time and I promise to answer.
If you just vaguely say that there were questions I missed somewhere back in this very, very long thread, then I can not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 08:41 AM

"Joe, bless him, really has had to read all the guff we have both put up."Joe, bless him, really has had to read all the guff we have both put up."
Joe is a mediator - one whose decisions you have tried to over-ride at the time of your notorious attempt at forgery - remember.
He has attempted to immediate but chose not to comment on ether of our respective cases.
"I keep saying Don, just post them one or two at a time and I promise to answer."
Answer the ***** questions that hae been put to you and stop the patetic waffling.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 08:46 AM

Jim, Joe said, we were both good people.
Good people does not include racists.
He also said,
"OK, so this is what Jim said, and I guess I have to say that Keith has a valid complaint and that Jim has unfairly distorted Keith's positions in a cheap attempt to ridicule his thinking. "

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 09:15 AM

""Hillary Wilmer, because of her years of work with victims, knows more about this issue than anyone else.
When she is contradicted by one random bloke from Kent and two from Ireland, no one is going to take any notice.""

He's real big on dehumanising opponents isn't he?

Straight out of the Josef G school of propaganda.

Call 'em BPs, Irishmen, or random blokes, and they become non-persons to whom you can feel superior, and whose arguments you can ignore. That way you can hide the fact that you have absolutely NO answers to those arguments.

He has posted the same dishonest crap on just about every thread he has bothered with, and almost always with a racial aspect to his views.

An examination of his chosen targets over a period of years will tell the reader exactly where he is coming from, and leave no doubt as to his motives.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 09:32 AM

""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.""

"Like any other young men"

Like young hindus?
Like young Arabs?
Like the 29% of British Pakistanis living in the South of England?
In fact, Like all British Pakistanis outside of the very limited area in which these few gangs operated?

These young men all have one thing in common. None of them show any lack of ability to control their urge to rape and traffic underage girls.

I also would take issue with the description vulnerable (except for perhaps those in care), when applied to white girls in general.

I would need some serious evidence for believing that all white girls are somehow a pushover for any Asian man who fancies them, yet manage to avoid white Paedophiles' advances.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 09:43 AM

""If you just vaguely say that there were questions I missed somewhere back in this very, very long thread, then I can not.""

Correction!! Not cannot,......WILL NOT!

You can't even be honest with yourself.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 11:21 AM

Don, Straw suggested it was just white girls, but I never did.
I said that it was not just white girls in my first post on this on Jan 23rd., and more recently posted some stuff from non muslim Asians who have also suffered this crime.

You are right to say that I can not answer questions without knowing what they are.
Just post them one or two at a time and I have promised to give the best answer I can.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 12:33 PM

Here is Keith's contribution to our knowledge of the British Pakistani community - a people I have personally always found to be quiet, industrious, eager to learn, friendly and anxious to avoid trouble.
His opinions, and those he has chosen to represent his views of that communty, are peppered with denials of his being a racist or of bearing any ill-will towards that community - I've made up my own mind how valid those denials are - I have no doubt that others are quite capable of doing the same.
Because of the sheer size of his postings I am going to have to offer them in installments, just like a Dickens novel - they certainly resemble Dickens' work in size and squalor.
Jim Carroll

Chapter one
The muslim communty does not encourage its girls to have relationships.
Marriages are usually arranged, and usually with partners in Pakistan.
Their unmarried young men must abstain or find sex outside their own community, but not have lasting relationships.
Paedophilia is not endorsed, but the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a child bride.
This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.
There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for.
First cousin marriage is common within Pakistani culture.
Does it imply that all Pakistanis do it and no others do it?
An undesirable consequence is that they suffer a high level of inherited disabilities and a high infant mortality.
All I ever said about Pakistani culture is that girls tend not to be allowed to engage in courtship behaviour.
British Pakistani culture generally does not encourage the kind of courtship behaviour prevalent in Western cultures.
A young man of any ethnicity will find it hard to live a saintly life under the cultural pressures found here.
Marriage partners are arranged at a young age, but relationships with girls are not allowed.
The gangs in this case are predominantly made up of Pakistanis.
British Pakistanis generally do not approve of girls having relationships with males?
Marriages are very often arranged at a young age?
Parents try to marry their daughters at the earliest age possible while men marry much later in life. The reason for this is to prevent the bride from losing her respectability through personal encounters with other men. Whilst the man marries much later in life as he is responsible for providing for his wife and future children. For most Pakistani men it takes time before they are economically established for this role. This of course means the bride will marry a man considerably older than herself, an age difference of ten years is not uncommon.
Parents start saving towards the cost of the wedding from the birth of their child as marriage is expensive. The most common marriage arrangement is between first cousins. If a first cousin of suitable age is not found then a second or third cousin will do. Marriages between unrelated couples are uncommon.
Though Pakistanis have immigrated in groups an entire family including extended relations is not always present in the UK. In such cases the marriage partner will be in Pakistan. Where one partner is in Pakistan problems are often encountered if the partner is male. Experience suggests UK immigration officials are usually quite happy to grant visas for brides from Pakistan to enter the country, however men from Pakistan usually face a long and ardous struggle to gain entry to the UK
Whether the prospective partners are allowed to see each other prior to the wedding depends on the families concerned. If one partner lives in Pakistan a photo may be all that is provided. when partners are allowed to meet, the meeting will take place amongst the two families who will be present at all times. It is not unusual for the couple to have no direct contact prior to the wedding.
'They are forced into marriages and they are not happy. They are married to girls from overseas who they don't have anything in common with, and they have children and a family.
'But they are looking for fun in their sexual activities and seek out vulnerable girls.'
He said Asian men resort to abusing young white girls because they do not want meaningful relationships with adult white women.
'An adult woman – if you are having an affair – would want your time, money and for you to break up your marriage,' the peer added.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 12:34 PM

Chapter 2
Jim Carroll
His comments come weeks after former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw provoked national outrage by saying that some Pakistani men look at white girls as 'easy meat' for sexual abuse.
Labour peer Lord Ahmed said: 'I get a lot of criticism from Asian people who ask, "How can you say this about Asian men?" But they must wake up and realise there is a problem.
'I am deeply worried about this as it has happened in my own backyard, and in Rochdale and Bradford.
'This didn't happen in my or my father's generation. This is happening among young Asians. While I respect individual choice, I think the community needs to look at marriages in the UK rather than cousin marriages or economic marriages from abroad.'
The girls tended to be 16 or younger. Often they were from challenging backgrounds - homes with inconsistent parenting, or with a history of alcohol or drug problems.
The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim.
Their culture inspires a slight predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls
There have been no none Pakistani gang that has been found to be involved in such a crime, and that is the only crime under discussion.
Gangs forming for the purpose of street grooming.
While acknowledging the under representation of BPs in all other non terror crimes including other sex crimes, there is a massive over representation here.
Some Asian husbands trapped in loveless, dead ¬relationships become -frustrated, their desires ¬emotionally distorted. And yes, as Lord Ahmed says, they prey on young white girls for their perverse sexual satisfaction.
Sex, for them, is not reciprocal or an act of consent. It is taken as a right, regardless of what their wives — or indeed, those young girls they prey on — think.
I recently met a young ¬Muslim woman called Munee, who told me she was brought over from Pakistan to marry her cousin when she was 17.
With brutal candour, she said to me: 'It was like rape every time because he didn't want me and I didn't want him.' She ran away. And, she told me, her husband now has a 13-year-old white 'girlfriend'.
But her husband is far from acting alone in the Pakistani community. One man I met, called Taher, looks back with ¬revulsion at his previous self, for he too used to prey on young white girls. Today he works for a charity and says he feels desperately sorry for the ¬victims of arranged marriages. 'I was crazy — a young man with sexual needs married off to a young virgin. She was very sweet, but there was nothing between us,' he says.
'I would not sleep with her, so I started cruising with these guys looking for easy sex with white girls.'
A Number of Asian men run off to get away from forced marriages. I know of stories of savage sexual and physical abuse and ¬emotional persecution meted out to rebellious sons.
He continues: 'There was one really sweet teenager — her mother was a drunk — who really got attached to me. She changed my attitude. Everybody had failed her, so I stopped behaving like that.
'I still feel guilty and filthy for what I did in the past. And I now want to help these families.'
One in 10 young British Asians believes so-called honour killings can be justified, according to a poll for the BBC's Asian Network.
In one recent case, two men were jailed for life for murdering their relative after she fell in love with an asylum seeker.
Greengrocer Azhar Nazir, 30, and his cousin Imran Mohammed, 17, stabbed Nazir's sister Samaira 18 times at the family home in Southall in April 2005.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 12:36 PM

Chapter 3
Jim Carroll

The 25-year-old recruitment consultant was killed after she asked to marry an Afghan man - instead of marrying someone in the Pakistani family circle.
Child sexualisation.
Pakistani human rights activists are outraged at reports that a long-running blood feud in a remote corner of western Baluchistan province has been resolved by the handing over of 15 girls, aged between three and 10, for marriage.
"There has to be action," said Asma Jahangir, a leading rights campaigner. "These people who force others to sell their daughters must be sent to prison."
The new government in Islamabad, led by the party of the late Benazir Bhutto, has promised to act. "We will not allow young girls to be traded like this," said the information minister, Sherry Rehman. "The culprits who tried to do this will be arrested. The orders have been given."
But Jahangir said those orders had not been acted upon. "There is a dysfunction in the whole system. They are not listening to the government," she said. "We need to see them being more effective than just rhetoric."
Vanni, an ancient tribal practice in which feuding clans settle their differences by exchanging women for marriage, is illegal in Pakistan. In 2004 the Sindh high court outlawed all such "parallel justice" systems. But the writ of government is weak in rural areas, and local police often turn a blind eye.
"The girl (who's typically aged between 13 and 16, but can be only 11 or 12) may meet the man alone, or be introduced by a friend who already knows him. He is usually quite a lot older and good looking, well-dressed and may well have a fast car. He'll meet her regularly, shower her with gifts, give her drink and maybe also drugs, take her for rides, tell her how special she is. He may have sex with her, but not at first, and he will discourage her from telling her parents about him because "they wouldn't understand".
"At some point further down the line he will take her to a flat or down an alley and tell her that in return for all the things he has done for her, it's payback time and she has to do something for him. She will then probably be gang raped. She will be confused, weak, think she's in love with the pimp, but also feel ashamed and guilty. She goes home and takes it out on her family and also drops out of education."
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg.
It can happen to any child from any family," she said. "The men, the gangs have all the experience. The children, the families and the parents are bewildered, don't know what's happening.
"In practice, unless the primary victim is prepared to give evidence then it's very difficult to make charges stick. The men know this, so they often wait until the girls are 13 before actually having sex with them."
Of course criminality is an exception to the rule, but it is remarkable that there are so many exceptions to this particular rule.
So it has been remarked on.
I suspect, based on the testimony of knowledgeable people, that there is a cultural explanation.
Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb.
Lox, BPs are massively over represented in infant mortality and serious, crippling childhood disease.
First cousin marriage is a part of BP culture.
By accepted theory, it is to blame.
Men are predisposed because there is no outlet for sexual relationships within the community, and no intimate relationship permitted outside.
There were 12 "honour killings" in Britain last year - six in London, according to Scotland Yard.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 12:38 PM

So which is the racist bit Jim?
These are quotes from people not ever accused of racism, including BPs, or me reporting what such people have said.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 12:38 PM

Chapter 4
Jim Carroll

But Ram Gidoomal, of the South Asian Development Partnership charity, told BBC News: "There are many more that go unreported."
Victims were sometimes taken abroad before being murdered, he added.
It was estimated there were more than 13 honour killings worldwide every day in 2000.
Entire families can be involved.
And women have even been murdered for the "dishonour" of being raped.
The question for us is if Heshu had gone into a police station saying she felt at risk would she have been treated with the urgency her concerns warrented.
For dozens of couples in the UK, such threats have become all too real. Police are now investigating more than 120 deaths they suspect of being "honour killings". It has been estimated that 12 women a year die in the UK as a result of such terrifying acts.
It is estimated that at least 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and the tradition is also common among some other South Asian communities and in some Middle Eastern countries.
British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.
Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder.
It is estimated that at least 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and the tradition is also common among some other South Asian communities and in some Middle Eastern countries.
British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.
Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder.
The risk of chromosome disorders increases to a maximum of about 1 in 21 at age 45.
The risk of genetic disease given in the BBC report was 1 in 10 for first cousins More than double.
It appears, despite your low opinion, that most girls are hoping for some kind of relationship, and only the young and naive do not realise that these men are all promised in marriage.
But these areas are the hot spots and BPs are overwhelmingly responsible.
This crime is unknown outside cities with a large BP community, and practically all the perps. are BPs.
Many HUNDREDS of girls, often vulnerable or underage girls, ensnared into sexual bondage by accomplished gangs.
Why is it confined to cities with a large BP community?
Why are the perps, almost without exception, BPs?
Late marriage and a denial of intimate relationships drives some men to co-operate in the grooming and abuse of these girls.
Hilary Willmer, of the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping, said that since 2002 her group had supported 400 families where girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men. "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg." But she cautioned against treating the matter as a race crime. "It's a criminal thing
Helen B again, quoted by Yorkshire Post.
"At the beginning we worked on the assumption that girls were groomed by individual pimps, but later discovered widespread pimping networks, much like international people trafficking gangs. Shopping malls, games arcades, places around takeaways and parks are common meeting places.
"The girl (who's typically aged between 13 and 16, but can be only 11 or 12) may meet the man alone, or be introduced by a friend who already knows him. He is usually quite a lot older and good looking, well-dressed and may well have a fast car. He'll meet her regularly, shower her with gifts, give her drink and maybe also drugs, take her for rides, tell her how special she is. He may have sex with her, but not at first, and he will discourage her from telling her parents about him because "they wouldn't understand".
"At some point further down the line he will take her to a flat or down an alley and tell her that in return for all the things he has done for her, it's payback time and she has to do something for him. She will then probably be gang raped. She will be confused, weak, think she's in love with the pimp, but also feel ashamed and guilty. She goes home and takes it out on her family and also drops out of education."
I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE EXCEPT WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM THOSE EMINENT, REPUTABLE PEOPLE WITH ALL THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE. (my emphasis)
Four men launched a horrific attack on a teacher in which they slashed his face and left him with a fractured skull because they did not approve of him teaching religion to Muslim girls.
Akmol Hussein, 26, Sheikh Rashid, 27, Azad Hussain, 25, and Simon Alam, 19, attacked Gary Smith with a Stanley knife, an iron rod and a block of cement.
Mr Smith, who is head of religious education at Central Foundation Girls' School in Bow, east London, also suffered a fractured skull.
The four now face a jail sentence.
Detectives made secret recordings of the gang's plot to attack Mr Smith prior to the brutal assault.
The covert audio probe captured the gang condemning Mr Smith for 'teaching other religions to our sisters', the court heard.
The RE teacher was targeted as he made his way on foot along Burdett Road in nearby Mile End on July 12 last year, Snaresbrook Crown Court was told.
Prosecutor Sarah Whitehouse told the court: 'The evidence from what was said on the probe points overwhelmingly to a religious motive for this attack.
The authors do not refute that BPs are the abusers, only that all the victims are white, which I always acknowledged.Then it says, "Hilary Willmer, of the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping, said that since 2002 her group had supported 400 families where girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men. "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg."
Ann Cryer, a Labour member of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, has been at the forefront of attempting to tackle the problem after receiving complaints from mothers in her constituency about young Asian men targeting their under-age daughters.
Although campaigners claim that hundreds of young girls are already being passed around men within the Asian community for sex, she said that attempts to raise the problem with community leaders had met with little success, with most of them being in a state of denial about it.
She said: "The family and cultural norms of their community means they are expected to marry a first cousin or other relative back in a village in Mirapur or wherever the family comes from. Therefore, until that marriage is arranged they look out for sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 12:41 PM

And last, but not least
Chapter 5
Jim Carroll

"At the point in their lives when they are ready for this sort of activity, Asians cannot go to Asian girls because it would be a terrible breach of the honour of the community and their family to have sex with an Asian girl before marriage." She said that the reason Asian men targeted very young white girls was because older white girls knew that a relationship with an Asian youth was unlikely to last as the community would seek an arranged marriage with someone from the Asian sub- continent. Police and groups campaigning to protect women insisted that the grooming of youngsters is not segregated along race lines, though there is concern at the attitudes of some young Asian men towards white girls.
Parents claim that criminal networks are able to prey on young girls because the authorities are reluctant to tackle the issue for fear of upsetting race relations in areas of the North West with large ethnic minority communities.
However, Ms Cryer added: "I think there is a problem with the view Asian men generally have about white women. Their view about white women is generally fairly low
Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer, said he was talking about Asian men in general and warned they can target young Asian girls as well as white girls.
He said: "They are forced into marriages and they are not happy.
"They are married to girls from overseas who they don't have anything in common with, and they have children and a family.
"But they are looking for fun in their sexual activities and seek out vulnerable girls.
"I get a lot of criticism from Asian people who ask, 'How can you say this about Asian men?' But they must wake up and realise there is a problem.
"WHAT JACK STRAW HAS SAID SO CAREFULLY IS TRUE: (my emphasis) There is a problem with some members of the Pakistani community targeting young women in this way. In recent years we have seen it specifically with victims aged just 14, 15 or 16-years-old who are out on the streets at night and groomed by predatory gangs.

"For people to just come out and call Mr Straw racist is wrong. There must be a debate, not on his right to make the comments but on the issue itself because if we can't do that then we can't be honest about the issues that currently affect our communities."
Grooming is only a crime if against children.
As their id evedence that a disproportionate number of BPs are involved, it is quite reasonable to ask why.
People who know the culture, and some members of it blame the culture.
They convinced me.
BPs are predisposed to marry cousins, resulting in very high child and infant mortality. It is true.
t is not being a Pakistani which causes potential sexual repression in these men. It is their Muslim upbringing which sets the rules by which they are expected to live.
Those same rules apply to virtually all Muslims, no matter what their country of origin. The same rules regarding sexual behaviour also apply to Hindus, and to various other faiths.
Yet you steadfastly adhere to the belief that of all the people in the world living under those constraints, the only ones who transgress are British Pakistanis.

Share with us your no doubt brilliant explanation for the fact that Moroccans, Bahrainis, Tunisians and Iranians in this country, for example, and of course Hindus, seem to have no similar problems living with pre marital sexual repression.
56 convictions came within the remit of the study.
53 were BPs.
And how do YOU al lexplain Wilmer's case file of 400 families of victims and ALL perpetrators BPs?
17 court prosecutions since 1997, 14 of them in the past three years, involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men.
I think it was a study of, 17 court prosecutions since 1997, 14 of them in the past three years, involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men.
Witness statements.   
accused some Pakistani men of specifically targeting Hindu and Sikh girls. "This has been a serious concern for the last decade," said Hardeep Singh of Network of Sikh Organizations (NSO)
We raised the issue of our girls with the previous government and the police on several occasions over the last decade. This phenomenon has been there because a minority of Islamic extremists view all 'non believers' as legitimate targets," said director NSO Inderjit Singh.
Targeted sexual offences and forced conversions of Hindu and Sikh girls was not a new phenomenon in the UK, said Ashish Joshio from Media Monitoring group.
Hardeep said that in 2007, The Hindu Forum of Britain claimed that hundreds of Hindu and Sikh girls had been first romantically coaxed and later intimidated and converted by Muslim men.
They were speaking of there own actual experience with victims of the child raping gangs.
It was not an opinion that the children were raped, and not an opinion who did the raping.
'men combining in teams to procure children in their hundreds from public spaces.' in answer to your question, no i dont know of examples of teams of adults grooming in such a public fashion. Most peadophile rings operate in a highly covert manner. I dont neccesarily think this therefore describes a new 'crime type' but it does perhaps describe a highly succesful methodology currently being employed by a particular group of abusers.
The survey found a massive over representation which can hardly be claimed to be evidence against over representation.
There is a massive over representation of BPs in this crime.
Helen B again, quoted by Yorkshire Post.
"At the beginning we worked on the assumption that girls were groomed by individual pimps, but later discovered widespread pimping networks, much like international people trafficking gangs. Shopping malls, games arcades, places around takeaways and parks are common meeting places.
"The girl (who's typically aged between 13 and 16, but can be only 11 or 12) may meet the man alone, or be introduced by a friend who already knows him. He is usually quite a lot older and good looking, well-dressed and may well have a fast car. He'll meet her regularly, shower her with gifts, give her drink and maybe also drugs, take her for rides, tell her how special she is. He may have sex with her, but not at first, and he will discourage her from telling her parents about him because "they wouldn't understand".
"At some point further down the line he will take her to a flat or down an alley and tell her that in return for all the things he has done for her, it's payback time and she has to do something for him. She will then probably be gang raped. She will be confused, weak, think she's in love with the pimp, but also feel ashamed and guilty. She goes home and takes it out on her family and also drops out of education."
I have stated REPEATEDLY that BPs are under represented in other sex crimes.
I KEEP TELLING YOU IT IS ONLY ON STREET GROOMING OF CHILDREN FOR RAPE BY GROUPS.
This is going on in many cities and has been for decades.
I agree that you have described how each gang probably originates, but it does not explain why there are so many gangs or why they are all BPs.
A case of this not involving BPs has yet to emerge.
The MPs and support group people have seen many hundreds of victims over many years and report all BP perpetrators.
The study was of all cases that have come to court so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 01:10 PM

Jim ~~ I am greatly exercised as to WHAT POINT YOU IMAGINE YOURSELF TO BE MAKING with all this. We have all read these extracts for ourselves, on the thread above. They seem to me to be cogent arguments for the imbalance Keith states to have been found in certain contexts within the conduct of this demographic. Why repeat them, except to reinforce his arguments by repetition?

I have, however, obligingly read them all again ~~ and still can't find the racism you purport to have uncovered therein. Point it out to me, please. Perhaps I am just being thick. But then again, perhaps the very suspicion of any whiff of racism by the mention of any demographic in any adverse context is enough to raise your instinctively antiracist hackles to the extent of their smothering your judgement? Just perhaps...

Don, meanwhile, goes on widening the argument to insist that other contexts than the one we are discussing are somehow relevant, but does not specify how. Please see my last post, Don, 0643 AM, addressed mainly to Jim, but also to you & Steve, as to how I find this approach counterproductive to what I take to be your position, which none of you has endeavoured thus far to dispute.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 02:46 PM

Mike,
Virtually all the examples Keith has shephered together on this thread are subjective opinions based on extremely limited experiences; we have no idea how subjective and how limited because he has chosen to keep it that way by refusing to say whether he believes the deplorable picture he paints of Paskistani life in Britain is local, town-based, city-based or national.
The careful shepherding of all this material together under one roof and presenting it as life in Pakistani Britain today presents us with a corrupt and degenerate people made so by their culture and their racial origins.
The sheer size of the sum of his postings does that, even if his examples were not so appalling - his lip-service interjections serve only to confuse rather than clarify.
I have no doubt whatever that any one of us could have done the same job on any cultural or racial community in Britain today - West Indian, Irish, Jewish, Polish, Greek, Traveller, the indigenous population..... - all have their villains, perverts, criminals, thugs. Concentrating on these and their behaviour in the way Keith has (even to the extent of faking his evidence) is what makes his attitude racist.
Nobody here has denied such behaviour exists within the Pakistani community, and nobody would in any way defend or excuse that behaviour, but the whole thrust of Keith's approach gives us a decadent community who should all be marched to the nearest airport forthwith and shipped back to whence they came (not sure what you do about the 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation who were born in Britain and have no claim to their ancestral origins - a 'final solution' maybe!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 03:30 PM

===but the whole thrust of Keith's approach gives us a decadent community who should all be marched to the nearest airport forthwith and shipped back to whence they came (not sure what you do about the 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation who were born in Britain and have no claim to their ancestral origins - a 'final solution' maybe!!===
,,,,,

Where?

How come you can see this "thrust" while all I can see are remarks related to the undisputed imbalance of the Pakistani community's involvement in 17 identified cases of grooming for exploitation + 400 cases reported as having been brought to her attention by the respected and respectable Hilary Wilmer ~~ and nothing else than I can see.

In particular I can see no demands for repatriation; & I must add that, with my racial origins of which you are quite aware, I find your use of the phrase "final solution" with all its overtones peculiarly distatsteful; as well as being in no way related so far as I can perceive to anything of Keith's that you have cited in your "chapters" of quotations.

Forget "thrusts": show me specific points which will not fit the programme I have just rubricated.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 03:54 PM

Jim, could you not have picked the one most extreme example of what you consider to be my racism?

No one will read it all, far less if I responded to it all..
Taking one at random,
"BPs are predisposed to marry cousins, resulting in very high child and infant mortality."

This is factually true. I can give you chapter and verse from a BBC piece I linked to.
How can it be said to be racist?????

The biggest question is, why can't we just debate the issue?
Why does it always have to be about me?
It seems a little obsessive Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 04:05 PM

"In particular I can see no demands for repatriation"
There are none here, but plenty out there in the big wide world - certainly the one I occuied in my UK days.
I have already mentioned the deep-seated racism that exists in the UK, in England in particular - challenged ony by Keith.
"I must add that, with my racial origins of which you are quite aware, I find your use of the phrase "final solution" with all its overtones peculiarly distatsteful."
It was well within my lifetime that JP Harry Watton was calling for Travellers who refused to conform to be exterminated.
Not forgetting our/your own Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood'.
I failed to get a response from either you or Keith when I mentioned the Stephen Lawrence killing and the fact that the killers remain free thanks to institutional racism.
Not in the same league as the holocaust, I'll grant you, but great oaks.... etc.
To repeat; the sheer volume and nature of Keith's postings (not to mention with the enthusiasm verging on glee with which he presented it, qualifies it for a racist contribution the BNP would be proud to admit to - you show me where it isn't.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 04:07 PM

"The study looked at actual convictions for this crime type (that does not exist.)"

The convictions were for trafficking sex slaves. No one was convicted for "street grooming"

Spin it how you want, the verifiable research contradicts you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 04:08 PM

"The study looked at actual convictions for this crime type (that does not exist.)"

The convictions were for trafficking sex slaves. No one was convicted for "street grooming"

Spin it how you want, the verifiable research contradicts you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 04:35 PM

Lox, this is how your guardian piece described it.

Authors of the first independent academic analysis looking at "on-street grooming", where young girls, spotted outside, including at the school gates, have become targets,....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 04:37 PM

There is no crime of "street grooming" in statute or in common law.

When You posted this, you also posted the clarification tht street grooming is Merely the means by which abusers and traffickers trap their victims.

So the crime isn't street grroming, the crimes are trafficking and sexual abuse.


The Dando report confirms that the data they retrieved has not changed this reality.

Grooming, including Street grooming, remains merely the means by which victims are snared.

The authors clarify that the data does not indicate a new crime type, and they do so because they are concerned about people like you who are generalizing it into an entire crime type.

What it indicates is indicates a variation on a long established crime type.

A crime type in which Pakistanis are not overrepresented.

You are desperate to twist their words so they have another meaning, but despite working hard to do so you have failed as their meaning and intent are so clear and unambiguous.

Their intent is to confront misrepresentations of the data, by which they were "surprised" (remember?) by people trying to assert that Pakistani men are over-represented in a horrendous crime type practically unique to them.

ie, their intent was to confront people like YOU.


PS keith,

Can you explain the relevance of my nationality? I ask as you have brought it up twice?

(Since you are not racist I am sure you will have no difficulty explaining the relevance of my being from Ireland)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 04:48 PM

··· '"In particular I can see no demands for repatriation"
There are none here' ···

Quite: thank you, Jim.
,,,,,,,

~~~"the enthusiasm verging on glee with which he presented it, qualifies it for a racist contribution the BNP would be proud to admit to - you show me where it isn't".~~~

You know better than to ask for a demonstration of a negative, Jim.

So come on; put your intellect where your typing-finger is, & — for the I·have·lost·count·of·how·manyeth·time — show me where it IS!


~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 04:59 PM

"Why does it always have to be about me?"
You have single handedly turned a thread that was about Muslim prejudice into an open attack on British Pakistanis; you have distorted your 'evidence' by tampering with it and you have persistently tried to prove that Muslims/British Pakistanis should be treated with distrust and are deserving of prejudice.
Without counting, I would guess that your postings make up around half of those to this thread. That is why it has become about you - you have worked extremely hard to make it so. You want 'obsession' - count your own postings - a man with a mission, if I ever saw one.
And you still haven't responded to:
"Virtually all the examples Keith has shephered together on this thread are subjective opinions based on extremely limited experiences; we have no idea how subjective and how limited because he has chosen to keep it that way by refusing to say whether he believes the deplorable picture he paints of Paskistani life in Britain is local, town-based, city-based or national."
Or given a satisfactory explanation why it was necessary to tamper with your 'evidence'
Or answered any of Don's questions.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 05:00 PM

From the www.

'Anecdotally, as far back as the mid-90s, local agencies have been aware of the participation of ethnic minority men in some cases of serial abuse. But what has not emerged is any consistent evidence to suggest that Pakistani Muslim men are uniquely and disproportionately involved in these crimes, nor that they are preying on white girls because they believe them to be legitimate sexual quarry, as is now being suggested.

The Times investigation is based around 56 men convicted in the Midlands and north of England since 1997, 50 from Muslim backgrounds. Granted, such prosecutions are notoriously difficult to sustain, but, nonetheless, this is a small sample used to evidence the "tidal wave" of offending referred to by unnamed police sources. Martin Narey, the chief executive of Barnardo's, which has run projects in the areas concerned for many years, tells me that, while he is pleased to see open discussion of child sexual exploitation, he worries that "decent Pakistani men will now be looked at as potential child abusers". He insists: "This is not just about Pakistani men, and not just about Asian men. And it is happening all over the country."'

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 05:08 PM

Ans another pearl of Keith's wisdom on Moslem culture from the 'Burning Korans thread
"Other religions would just shrug off such an insult. They will kill people. That is the real problem."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 06:22 PM

Lox,
"Can you explain the relevance of my nationality? I ask as you have brought it up twice?"

Only that Ireland, like Kent and Hertford, are very remote from these events.
I would not express an opinion.
I rely on the testimony of those intimately involved.

Jim,
"refusing to say whether he believes the deplorable picture he paints of Paskistani life in Britain is local, town-based, city-based or national."

I have painted no deplorable picture.
My opinion and experience is as yours, of a peacable, industrious and law abiding people.
I keep telling you all that it is only a tiny minority who are making this a crime of mainly BPs, as far as we know in just these Northern towns and cities.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 06:32 PM

Well Blimey,

I should call 999 more often.

Looks like Barnardos are echoing the sentiments and conclsions of the dando institute research.

"But what has not emerged is any consistent evidence to suggest that Pakistani Muslim men are uniquely and disproportionately involved in these crimes, nor that they are preying on white girls because they believe them to be legitimate sexual quarry, as is now being suggested."

Not being politicians with an agenda, but being Britains foremost child welfare agency whose sole concern is to identify threats to children and to try and offer protection, their interpretation is infinitely more valuable and better informed than that of Straw, cryer, Ahmed, or the self Serving Alibhai Brown put together.

Game Over.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 06:50 PM

···And you still haven't responded to:
"Virtually all the examples Keith has shephered together on this thread are subjective opinions based on extremely limited experiences; we have no idea how subjective and how limited because he has chosen to keep it that way by refusing to say whether he believes the deplorable picture he paints of Paskistani life in Britain is local, town-based, city-based or national."
Or given a satisfactory explanation why it was necessary to tamper with your 'evidence'
Or answered any of Don's questions.···   
Jim Carroll ==
,,,,,,
& you, Jim, have not responded to any of the points I made at 04.48 PM, pointing out the foolishness of your expecting me to demonstrate a negative ~ a challenge to show where Keith wasn't being racist, of all concepts unworthy of your intelligence ~, and demanding a demonstration of where he was: I can't, I fear, fault his assertion on the Koran Burning thread ~ please be more explicit as to what you find wrong with it ~ or have you never heard of BinLaden & alQaeda, who do indeed have the habit of responding to such 'insults' with fatal results; or did Rushdie's Japanese publisher die of old age, e.g.? He has also reiterated my point that his comments on this thread [which just happens to be where we are] are directed only to the small but significant number of specific instances with which we are concerned; & neither you nor Don has responded to point out where I am mistaken in saying that it is you, not he, who are counterproductively widening the topic we are discussing.

It is still a worrying manifestation, in particular, in being so thoroughly A-TYPICAL of Pakistani law-abiding and societally responsible practice in general, & as such gives cause for concern & need for explanation. Can you guys really not see this? Or that some aspects of their very idiosyncratic-to-themselves customs & expectations with regard to marriage might at least be worth contemplating in the search for this. Please note that I have sedulously avoided using the word "culture" here, as inappropriate and emotionally loaded; so oblige me by not attempting to use it as a stick to beat me with.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 09:26 PM

"I can't, I fear, fault his assertion on the Koran Burning thread"
You can't find fault with the statement that they (Muslims) will kill people - oh dear.
In that case, so will Christians - especially those who carry out legally sanctioned operations on women who wish to terminate pregnancies.
Some Christain fundamentalist fanatics will, as will some fundamentalist Muslim fanatics, but put in the terms he has persistentlt done throughoutthis thread makes all Christians and Muslims - especially British Pakistanis, potential fanatical killers, paedophiles and racists (including our local chemist, Mr Patel and my friend from Conway Hall, Ali Reza - whew - didn't I have a close call spending time in their company!
As for Keith's racism - I have answered it and you have failed to respond - his selecting (editing) and posting to the extent he haspaints a picture of a debased and corrupt community - your 'praising him with faint damns', particularly in relation to his tampered evidence, puts you in the same bracket I'm afraid.
"I have painted no deplorable picture."
Yes you have Keith - I scanned down five pages worth.
"as far as we know in just these Northern towns and cities."
An answer at last - having taken so long to respond, can we now assume it to be a climbdown?   
I'll leave you both to your cess pit and head for the clean air of Dublin for a few days.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 10:28 PM

999,
"'Anecdotally, as far back as the mid-90s, local agencies have been aware of the participation of ethnic minority men in some cases of serial abuse."

This would be the anecdotes of many hundreds of groomed and raped children describing their rapists.

"But what has not emerged is any consistent evidence to suggest that Pakistani Muslim men are uniquely and disproportionately involved in these crimes,"

There could never be such evidence! What could it be?
There could only be evidence that they were NOT disproportionately involved.
No one has yet produced evidence of significant numbers of non BPs doing it.

""This is not just about Pakistani men, and not just about Asian men. And it is happening all over the country."' "

If this is true, when is anyone going to provide some examples?

Until then I am going to believe the actual child victims of this wicked crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 10:37 PM

Jim,
"You have single handedly turned a thread that was about Muslim prejudice into an open attack on British Pakistanis;"

Not true. I stuck with the original topic for two days longer than Lox.

"you have distorted your 'evidence' by tampering with it and you have persistently tried to prove that Muslims/British Pakistanis should be treated with distrust and are deserving of prejudice."

I have refuted and rebutted that.
It is a lie.

You want 'obsession' - count your own postings - a man with a mission, if I ever saw one.

As I said, I joined in RESPONSE to Lox and others.
Every time you people denied that there was an issue, I responded with more evidence.
Responsive not proactive.
It was the denials that were obsessive.
IT CAN'T BE TRUE. IT JUST CAN'T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 10:55 PM

Burning Korans thread.
Me, 10th Sept. 2010
Do not pretend to believe I meant that all moslems will kill.
I assert that some will, as they did over cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 12:10 AM

Keith,

My last post was a quotation from a newspaper in England. You'd best write the Times and tell them their investigation doesn't jibe with your conclusions. Remember, when the only tool ya have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 01:33 AM

Since, Jim, your perceived "thrusts" of arguments are, as you have previously asserted, enough for you to base animadversions and denunciations on, I will simply respond to your recent posts in contradiction of me and others, that I perceive their "thrust" to be evasive and/or nonsensical, and quite peculiarly unconvincing.

Just read back over them. Do you even find any true conviction in their "thrust" yourself? Do you truly feel I should find my arguments in any way demolished by their "thrust"?

A bit *desperate* is the adjective I would choose myself, if asked to summarise their "thrust" in one word.

Leaving out all those [you all know who they are] who have been associated with Jim's comments in recent posts ~~ how does anyone else perceive the "thrust" of Jim's arguments, I wonder? In particular, isn't the "thrust" of his evocation of Xtian Fundamentalism as also leading sometimes to assassination an example of that invariably pathetic "well then what about ..." argument, which is inevitably demonstrably more evasive than persuasive in its "thrust", in that it simply confirms the allegation that has been made and thinks to refute it by simply providing further examples of the abuse being adversely criticised?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 02:21 AM

999, The Times published the Dando study into the convictions.
Your quote is from the dear old LeftLib Guardian.
Straw, Cryer, Wilmer, and the senior police officers all agree that it has been going on for about 12 years and all separately say it is just BPs doing it.

Even if true that only BPs do it, there can never be evidence of that, just an absence of evidence of others doing it.
There is a total lack of that so far, but I am prepared to be convinced if it ever happens.

Narey speaks for Barnados who run care homes.
Many of the victims were in care, no doubt in his care.

When he said, "'Anecdotally, as far back as the mid-90s, local agencies have been aware of the participation of ethnic minority men in some cases of serial abuse. " that included Barnados.

He is one of the PC brigade who refused to listen to the child rape victims for more than a decade, and did nothing about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 02:44 AM

Link to Guardian piece quoted by 999
Reaf it all, and remember the bits not in quotes are not quotes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/07/grooming-racialising-crime-tradition

I find no source for the 80% figure attributed to Engage.
Leeds Telegraph says,"Voluntary organisation CROP teamed up with Operation Engage team as it works to end the sexual exploitation of children and young people by pimps and traffickers.

Vulnerable parents are helped by the group once a referral has been made to the Engage team."

CROP is Wilmer's group.
All perpetrators BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 03:52 AM

Mike
Really not got time for this as we're off in an hour or so.
Up to the point where you indicated it a few posts ago "I must add that, with my racial origins of which you are quite aware, " I really was not aware of your racial origins.
It seems to me that the events of the 20th century, especially those which happened (just) within my lifetime, should have taught us the lesson that if you take a lie, a rumour, an isolated occurence, and repeat it again and again and again and again..... pretty soon it will stick, will grow and will attach itself to all around, until it becomes not just a Notting Hill incident, or Brixton, or London's East End.... or wherever, but a nigger, or Jewish, or Pakie one.
This is exactly what Keith has done here.
Nobody is denying that there are criminals and perverts in the British Pakistani communities, as there are in any other British community (a fact you have chosen not to comment on in your attempts to debunk my 'thrusts' suggestion).
Keith has finally said, after much pressure, "as far as we know in just these Northern towns and cities", but in the meantime he has made this one of the biggest threads on this forum, containing all the racist bile (5 pages of it) I gathered together (we still don't know whether he claims they are all the (unspecified) cities or just small districts within those cities). In the intervening period he has attempted to implicate not just those few involved in the incidents but the British Pakistani population and their culture as a job lot.
Keith has more than proved his sectarian pedigree in the past with his enthusiastic support for violent and abusive demonstrations of force in Northern Ireland (see the Have a Good 12th of July thread), and here continues his theme, this time with Pakistanis, and, as with Northern Ireland, using selective and distorted evidence.
Anyway, must be off - good luck with your appeal for support, "how does anyone else perceive the "thrust" of Jim's arguments, I wonder?"
Sorry I won't be here during the next couple of days give you mine (or not, as the case may be).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 06:11 AM

Unbelievable Keith.


Barnardos is the single most respected and important INDEPENDENT child protection organization in the country, who exist solely to identify threats to children and protect them.


They have more front line experience of dealing with child abuse on a daily basis than all other organizations put together and are without a doubt the best informed people in Britain when it comes to who abuses children and where, because they get called to investigate it, help prosecute it and rehabilitate abused children everywhere that it occurs.


But in Keiths mind, the views of two politicians and a journalist are agenda free, while Barnardos are motivated by an ideological (PC) bias.


He says:

"Until then I am going to believe the actual child victims of this wicked crime."

OK - so you intend to deliberately ignore the growing mountain of evidence that flatly contradicts you and rely solely on the testimony of abused children to establish the truth .... well thats fine ...

... but so far you've only posted testimony from ONE child keith.

And her abuser is in Jail.

Where is the testimony of your ALLEGED Hundreds ...

... Helen Wilmer merely Reported allegations ...

Well I suppose in the absence of testtimony, allegations will have to do.


... But hang on ... where are you hundreds of allegations keith?


Haven't you found that evidence yet?


So it only exists in your mind?


Blimey ... isn't it amazing how Keiths imaginary evidence stands up so much better than the combined testimony of Britains biggest child protection charity and the authors of the only academic study into the subject, both of whom FLATLY and EXPLICITLY contradict him.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 06:11 AM

From Keith's link.


"Thus no official data exists on the ethnic or religious background of perpetrators of this form of child abuse, and local charities have stated publicly that they do not consider it a race issue. But it is worth noting that, when asked by the Times to collate its recent work according to ethnicity, Engage – based in Blackburn and one of the largest multi-agency organisations working on this issue – found that in the past year that 80% of offenders were white."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 06:25 AM

Some comments from the new head of Barnardos - Anne Marie Carrie.

(Confirming all the other evidence that flatly contradicts Keith)

"Barnardo's knows that sexual exploitation is going on in every town and city in the UK and child victims continue to go unidentified as tell-tale signs are overlooked due to a lack of awareness that stretches from frontline children's services to the corridors of Whitehall."

Also:

"Although I thoroughly welcome the recent attention around the issue, the children at the heart of this crime have been forgotten as discussion has focused on the ethnicity of perpetrators in high-profile cases,"

And from the same Article:

"Barnardo's worked with more than 1,000 sexually exploited girls and boys last year, but that number was "likely to be the tip of the iceberg", the charity said."

The Article

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 06:40 AM

"Sheila Taylor runs Safe and Sound Derby, a group that was instrumental in persuading girls to give evidence against Siddique and Liaqat."

""This model of street-grooming is going on in many places. It is just that the recent spate of prosecutions against Asian men in the north of England and Midlands makes it look like it is concentrated in these communities," she said."

bbc

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 06:46 AM

Child abuse is ubiquitous.
On-street grooming by gangs has not yet been shown to be.
That is the crime I have been discussing.
Let us just consider one crime at a time.

Engage deals with all types of abuse.
Their biggest case as of last October was a dance teacher abusing his pupils.
They also deal with familial abuse, internet grooming and solitary playground prowling perverts.
That is where the irrelevant 80% comes from.
The only evidence so far produced on street grooming by groups is from the Midlands and the North, and is all BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 06:58 AM

You are a rubbish reader ...

here it is again ...

"Sheila Taylor runs Safe and Sound Derby, a group that was instrumental in persuading girls to give evidence against Siddique and Liaqat."

""This model of street-grooming is going on in many places. It is just that the recent spate of prosecutions against Asian men in the north of England and Midlands makes it look like it is concentrated in these communities," she said."


Besides which, Street Grooming is not a seperate crime type, it is just the means by which these child abusers trapped their victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 07:05 AM

From Lox's link.
And there is one controversial factor that many of the experts in the field are often not happy to discuss freely. The race of the abusers.

The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim.

Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth organisation, became the first community leader to speak out in a BBC interview two years ago.

He is not afraid of raising the issue.

"Although there have been some cases of white men being involved in this sexual exploitation of young girls, most of the perpetrators are Muslim.

He stresses these are not religiously-motivated offences but crimes carried out by men for "their own depraved sexual gratification".

"These people think that white girls have fewer morals and are less valuable than our girls."

Another commentator, Manzoor Moghul, chairman of the Muslim Forum, agrees.

"Offenders are under the misapprehension white girls are easy prey. The way they dress, their culture, makes them easy pickings," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 07:07 AM

I take it you couldn't find any links to your "hundreds" of imaginary "testimonies" eh keith?


Well try and wrap your head around this.


Some murderers use poison, others use a gun.

Those are merely the MEANS by which they commit a horrendous crime.

Some Paedophiles groom their victims online, others do it on the street.

The horrendous crime is paedophilia.

To suggest that how they are grooomed is somehow a comparable crime to the actual rapes is farcical in the extreme.

Keiths position is not just unsubstantiated, it is insulting to the children he claims to care so very much about.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 07:26 AM

Mohammed Shafiq is referring to the 50 out of 56 men convicted for trafficking and rape.

As he has done no research on street grooming, he couldn't have known that 50 out of 56 was only a select snapshot.

We know this because "the dando institute", "barnardos" and "Safe and Sound Derby", have clarified this specific point and they are the best informed and most authouritative voices on this issue.

Shafiqs comments reveal nothing more than his personal reaction to the Times allegations.

Being a Pakistani does not qualify him to make generalized psychological diagnoses any more than being British qualifies you to make general psychological diagnosses about British people.


But this is all still a red herring as the evidence you have stated you are relying on only exists in your imagination as you have never seen it so you have No idea what it is ... and all of the actual authouritative evidence flatly contradicts you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 08:17 AM

It would be great to know everything.
What we have got is the testimony of the raped children as related to Wilmer, Cryer and Straw, the police, and to the Sikh and Hindu representatives.

We know Wilmer dealt with 400 families. We do not know how many for Straw and Cryer and the others, but sufficient to move them to speak out on this most sensitive subject.
That is why I have just referred to many hundreds.
I think that is a significant number of raped children.

In the news this week, the police are crowing about breaking an international paedophile ring.
They say it is the biggest in the world.
Just 260 abused kids worldwide.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 08:25 AM

If there is any truth to Darwinism and Natural Selection, I would suggest the death penalty for people involved in child slave trafficking. Bastards won't live long enough to pass on what they've learned to others.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 08:32 AM

The problem is Keith that you are sounding like someone who has it in for certain groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 08:35 AM

Please understand I am not calling you a racist. I am saying you sound like one. There's a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 08:51 AM

That troubles me 999.
I have listened to all those people, and agree with them that there is an issue.
But if I argue that there is an issue, I sound racist.
It is very tempting to keep quiet.
Especially if sounding racist could lose you your job.
That is why so many people have kept quiet over this issue for many years.
The result is rapists have got away with raping children.
It is a real dilemma.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 08:58 AM

999, presumably you have not been convinced by my case.
I would be interested to know what you doubt.
If it were possible to prove to your satisfaction, would it still sound racist?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 08:59 AM

I agree, Keith. The issue(s) has to be discussed in public. And I do NOT see you as racist. Fact is that these kinds of things are now built into our societies. Canada has a similar problem. Recall the internet crud where various sites were saying, "Pimp my profile" and then society wonders why kids think pimping is a good thing to do.

However, the issue is not confined to any given ethnic groups or races or religions.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 09:08 AM

Perhaps this issue is not confined to BPs, but we have yet to see evidence of that.
All we have overwhelmingly is evidence of BPs.

So what shall we say about it?
Can I report the observations of Straw, Wilmer, ................

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 09:14 AM

You can report what you choose to, Keith, but do so knowing some people will take it very personally and react to you from that perspective. I'm an equal opportunity guy; I don't like anybody very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 09:32 AM

Lox, there has been much discussion and concern in this country, in recent years, about knife crime.
There is no separate crime of stabbing, but knife crime is a well recognised and discussed type of crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 11:18 AM

Keith,

The reason you "sound like a racist" is very clear.

You are saying that British Pakistanis are closet Paedos.

You are basing this claim on imaginary evidence and sticking to it despite a mountain of expert testimony that flatly contradicts you.

You are defending a racist hypothesis (your hypothesis) whose premise has been shot to bits and for which there is no actual evidence.

You have been defending it for 2 months.

For example, (before the circle spins round agin and your alzheimers wipes your memory clear of the facts of this debate again).

"What we have got is the testimony of the raped children as related to Wilmer, Cryer and Straw, the police, and to the Sikh and Hindu representatives."

No Keith,

The "sikh and hindu representatives" of which you speak were only giving their opinions of what was being reported in the media.

I know because I checked their websites out.

In fact, the Hindu group you linked to were an extremist group that do not represent minstream hindus at all ... or even hindus in Britain, seeing as they were based in India - and their website had hundreds of articles about Moslems. Guess how many were complimentary ... none.


No evidence there of anything except anti islamic hindu extremism.

Cryer and Straw are politicians ... who gave their reaction to the Times reports in a "courageous" (ahem) way.

And the policemen were talking about their hunches.

They come from the same police force that is about 10 times more likely to stop and search a black man at random and about 5 times more likely to stop an asian man at random than they are to stop and search a white man at random.

They come from the sme police force that is more likely to prosecute young black and asian men and more likely to give white men a warning for the same crimes.

They gave their opinions, not evidence.

As for Wilmer, she stated that this issue has nothing to do with race so she is another who contradicts you. Besides, she is only REPORTING second hand what other people have ALLEGED.

So still no evidence.


All thats left is keith, stripped of his objective facade, sitting under the spotlight "looking like a racist"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 11:19 AM

"Lox, there has been much discussion and concern in this country, in recent years, about knife crime.
There is no separate crime of stabbing, but knife crime is a well recognised and discussed type of crime. "

Yes, and research that has been done has found that this is an issue and has made recommendations to deal with it.

Unlike the Dando institute report, whose authors have clarified that Sreet groooming is not a crime type.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 12:46 PM

These were the British Hindu and Sikh groups in my quote.
UK's Hindu and Sikh organizations have also come in open and accused some Pakistani men of specifically targeting Hindu and Sikh girls. "This has been a serious concern for the last decade," said Hardeep Singh of Network of Sikh Organizations (NSO) while talking to TOI on Monday.

Sikhs and Hindus are annoyed that Straw had shown concern for White girls and not the Hindu and the Sikh teenage girls who have been coaxed by some Pakistani men for sex and religious conversion.

"Straw does other communities a disservice by suggesting that only white girls were targets of this predatory behaviour. We raised the issue of our girls with the previous government and the police on several occasions over the last decade. This phenomenon has been there because a minority of Islamic extremists view all 'non believers' as legitimate targets," said director NSO Inderjit Singh.

Targeted sexual offences and forced conversions of Hindu and Sikh girls was not a new phenomenon in the UK, said Ashish Joshio from Media Monitoring group.

"This has been going on for decades in the UK . Young Muslim men have been boasting about seducing the Kaffir (unbeliever) women. The Hindu and the Sikh communities must be commended for showing both restraint and maturity under such provocation," he added.

Hardeep said that in 2007, The Hindu Forum of Britain claimed that hundreds of Hindu and Sikh girls had been first romantically coaxed and later intimidated and converted by Muslim men.

Inderjit said," We are heartened by the swift condemnation of this behaviour by the Prime Minister David Cameron and his government. However, we urge the government to be firm in dealing with this criminal behaviour to protect the vulnerable girls, and, importantly protect the good name of the majority law abiding members of the Muslim community."

Source: Economic Times


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 03:41 PM

I haven't been following this thread very well, but I note a number of references to 'Muslim paedophiles' or 'Pakistani Paedophiles'? While some of the methodology used to ensnare victims may mimic those of classic child abusers, my understanding is that the crimes under discussion here are not being treated as paedophilia as such by those investigating them. In other words the girls may be underage as far as law is concerned, but they are not being treated as typical paedophile crimes. I believe one of the pieces I read referred to the girls "maleability" rather than their age, as being the primary attraction for their abusers (of course for classic paedophilia, the age of the child is the attraction itself.) I'm sure someone can point me to where this was mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 04:13 PM

"This phenomenon has been there because a minority of Islamic extremists view all 'non believers' as legitimate targets," said director NSO Inderjit Singh."

Keith, I find myself confused here. I have read of Islamic extremists and the so-called "Love Jihad" of conversion by romantic seduction of non-Muslim Asian girls, but are these two issues not distinct?

I can see where there may be some perceived crossover, but my understanding is that there is no distinct religious purpose involved in the abuse of vulnerable girls/teens we have been discussing on this thread, and that the abusers themselves are not so much "extremist Islamists" as lapsed Muslim criminal youths?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 04:19 PM

Sorry, Jim. I just assumed most Catters would have come across my origins in various posts. I have never hidden my original Jewishness, mentioned several times on threads where relevant: tho now of course I am a lapsed-Anglican atheist.

I must just nevertheless say again, even despite your non-awareness of this, that your citing of the emotive (&, historically, intensively specific in its application) phrase "final solution" with all its overtones of Himmler & Eichmann and Göbbells and the Wannsee Conference, together with accusations of his wanting mass deportations, which you admitted, when I asked where you had found them in anything Keith had written, that you hadn't, is resulting in your really coming across, to me at least, with a degree of hysteria which seems to me to undermine whatever case you may have. This is an honest opinion, please believe, and not intended as a mere debating point.

Hope you have safely survived the Rocky Road To Dublin [which, btw, I use as ringtone for my mobile]!

Wack-falal-dee-dah.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 04:27 PM

Lively, I agree about it not being necessarily paedophilia.
I have no opinion about what Indergit Singh said.

Lox, TOI is the Times Of India.
Why do you say those two organisations are foreign based, and racist?
Why do you say they got the crime details from the media and not from the victims?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 04:44 PM

Some rationality from a non racist.
When Straw spoke, I had no reason to doubt him.
Subsequently there has been evidence that it was not just white girls, but nothing to contradict him about BPs.
Why should I not believe he really has had that experience?
No racism.
Then the survey.
Not proof, but certainly evidence.
No reason to dismiss it out of hand.
Ann Cryer said she had the same experience in her constituency.
Again, no reason offered to doubt what she said, and a pattern emerges.
Racist?
Hilary Wilmer. Why should this impeccable woman be doubted, with her hundreds of cases all BPs.
She corroborates all the previous.
Shafiq, Allibhai-Brown and Ahmed tell the same story from BP perspective, and it corroborates all that has gone before.

After all this time, still no convincing evidence of significant non BP involvement.

I find that convincing.
Why would an unprejudiced person refuse to believe any of it?
You don't have to be racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 05:05 PM

"After all this time, still no convincing evidence of significant non BP involvement."

this is illogical bollocks.


A for the rst of it - is it Alzheimers or Autism that prevents keith from acknowledging the total refutation of his alleged "evidence".


As it is a racist hypothesis, I suggest neither - just downright disingenuous slander.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 06:22 PM

I am sorry if I missed it Lox.
Do you have convincing evidence of non BP involvement?
Why is it "illogical bollocks"?

Has what Straw said been refuted Lox?
Cryer?
Wilmer?
Allibhai-Brown, Shafiq, Ahmed, Hardeep Singh, Joshio, Inderjeep Singh?

None of them have withdrawn, have they?

Why is it racist to take note of all that?
How do you know that none of is is true?
How could you be so certain from the start and all the way through?
HOW DO YOU KNOW IT IS NOT TRUE?
Convince me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 06:31 PM

Lox, if you do not accept there is any such thing as on street grooming by groups, we have nothing to say to each other, but remember, that was THE SUBJECT of the Dando report and is the subject of on going studies by CEOP and BBC.

If you can show non BP involvement on a significant scale, I have no case and will have to reconsider my position.
Can you Lox?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 08:03 PM

"If you can show non BP involvement on a significant scale, I have no case and will have to reconsider my position."


Well both barnardos and safe and sound derby are saying that it is a nationwide phenomenon.

They are the only ones with actual front line experience, unlike All your witnesses, who are all merely reporting second hand allegations or their own personal uncorroborated opinions.

Barnardos are the primary independant child protection agency in Britain and Safe and Sound Derby are the ones who dealt directly with the cases that were prosecuted and which were investigated by the Dando institute.

Of all the alleged witnesses posted by you and I, theirs is the only reliable testimony as they are the only ones with actual experience of this issue on the ground.

And the only non frontline perspective with any credibility is the dando report as it is the only one that has conducted peer reviewed research.

So unless you are saying that they are lying, in which case you need to take it up with them not me, then by your criteria, you will have to reconsider your position.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 08:08 PM

Keith,

Because something is Alleged and Investigated that des not make it real.

If the investigation finds that it is real, then that is a different matter.

In this case the investigators conclude that these criminals are not committing a new crime type.

This could be because they, like the law, view grooming as merely the means of entrapment, or it could be because it exists elsewhere too, as has been claimed by Barnardos and by Derby Safe and Sound.

Either way, it isn't a new crime type and both those organzations state that Pakistanis are not overrepresented.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 08:22 PM

Knife crime and Gun crime do not just concern murder.

Carrying a gun, or a knife in public are both crimes regardless of murder.

Chatting up girls on the street is not grooming unless the intent is to entrap them and rape them as it then becomes the means by which the rape is enabled.

So while gun crime and knife crime can exist independantly of murder, street grooming cannot exist independantly of rape, whether statutory or other.

It would be an unprosecutable law as it woud be impossible to determine a players motives until after the fact.

Giving lifts and chatting to girls in shopping centres etc are not crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Mar 11 - 08:32 PM

Hey, Lox, wanna go off and ride bikes? Coming, Jim? Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 02:08 AM

Barnados and the Derby group were only quoted yesterday.
I will explain my reservations about them, but you somehow just knew that all those other people, plus senior police serving and retired (I forgot to list them) were all wrong.
How?
Internet grooming is not a separate crime, but it is a well recognised, discussed and studied crime type just as on street grooming is.
You just want to ignore it because of who is doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 02:38 AM

From 999s piece.
While Narey acknowledges that "in the Midlands and north of England there does seem to be an over-representation of minority ethnic men in [offending] groups",

That corroborates what all my list of people said, and what you and Jim have been denying.
Game over?

He goes on to say it happens in other places, and not just by BPs, but no details and the journo. then tells us there is no data anyway.

From your Independent piece.
Anne Marie Carrie, who takes over as Barnardo's chief executive today, said the children at the heart of the issue "have been forgotten as discussion has focused on the ethnicity of perpetrators in high-profile cases".

Not challenging the ethnicity of perpetrators notice.
In the whole article, the allegation that it is mainly a crime of BPs is NEVER challenged.

In your BBC piece, that allegation is never once challenged either.
Your Derby group agrees that the recent prosecutions make it look as though BPs are mainly responsible, but never refers to all the other evidence about the perpetrators.
It says "The Derby Safeguarding Children Board has told the BBC it will formally request the Home Office carry out research into the backgrounds of those involved in sexual exploitation."

They must at least suspect there is an issue.

In all the above, nothing refutes anything my list of people say.
And, my people are reporting actual testimony to them from victims.
I can't help but believe them, and ask again why you do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 05:44 AM

No - "your" people are reporting "allegations"

"My" people clarify that the crime is nationwide, not just limited to the concentrated area featured by the times.

They also state that it is not a crime limited to British Pakistanis.

"But what has not emerged is any consistent evidence to suggest that Pakistani Muslim men are uniquely and disproportionately involved in these crimes"

It is very clear to anyone with even the most basic grasp of English comprehension that these organizations are all lining up to challenge the racist hypothesis that you and the BNP are peddling.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 06:13 AM

Lox, you forgot to say why you said the Sikh and Hindu organisations were foreign based, racist, and not listening to their own girls.

My listed people are indeed reporting allegations, but the allegations are the actual testimonies of the victims related to them in their roles as police officers, MPs, and support workers.
So why should those victims not be believed?
They are raped children Lox.

NO-ONE has stated that it is not mainly a crime of BPs in the Midlands and North.
Not one, and no evidence of significant numbers of non BPs doing it.

I think there is one sentence in all the downloads that suggest that elsewhere maybe non BPs are involved.

Can we agree it is an issue in the North?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 08:40 AM

Steve, I'd like to come please.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 02:06 PM

We can agree that Pakistanis are the majority offenders in pakistani gangs.

I was only referring to tha hindu website you linked us too which I then explored, only to find a dearth of anti moslem articles.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 02:27 PM

"only to find a dearth of anti moslem articles."

I presume you mean an abundance rather than a dearth?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 02:35 PM

PS I wasn't trying to be petty there. I think your meaning was clear, but I was just clarifying.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 03:11 PM

Yes Lively - thankyou - sloppy hurried typing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 03:13 PM

Lox,
"We can agree that Pakistanis are the majority offenders in pakistani gangs."

We have shed loads of evidence that BP gangs are grooming and raping children in those Northern towns and cities.
Many hundreds of children.

Have you yet found even the slightest scrap of evidence suggesting that anyone except BPs are doing it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 03:17 PM

....at least in those towns and cities?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 03:26 PM

"We have shed loads of evidence that BP gangs are grooming and raping children in those Northern towns and cities.
Many hundreds of children."

No - we have REPORTS of ALLEGATIONS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 04:12 PM

Made by the child victims of the rapists.
I beleive the children.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 06:03 PM

I believe the raped children.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Mar 11 - 10:25 PM

"Made by the child victims of the rapists."

It is reported that children have made allegations.

You have not see these allegations.

You don't know what they are or how many there are.

You know nothing about them.



"I believe the raped children."

You use evidence that you haven't seen, that you do not even know exists, as the premise of your argument.

In other words, you do not even have evidence that your evidence exists.

Yet you claim to know what that evidence is and that it is reliable.


So you don't know for sure that this "testimony" exists, and you don't know what it is or who gave it, but if it does exist and the people who gave it are children and if they have been raped, then it must be true, and therefore it qualifies as firm evidence to support your hypothesis .....


...... your powres of self deception are legendary.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 02:13 AM

How can you deny such a truth?
You would rather make liars of the young victims than admit you are wrong.
Lively and I have both given you separate accounts by Ann Cryer of how the anguished families had been coming to her for years, to tell her that the police would not help them because of racial sensitivity.
Straw, the other MP, says the same.
Hillary Wilmer, the volunteer given a national award for all her work, who also works to support asylum seekers, is not going to lie about the plight and abuse of the hundreds who turned to her.

I believe those people.
I believe the raped children who turned to them for help.
You shut your ears to their cries to preserve your worthless ideology and dogma.

And you dare to claim moral superiority.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 04:36 AM

Here is my report about the response of British Sikhs and Hindus, told this time by The Times Of India, with the exact same quotes.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/Not-just-White-girls-Pak-Muslim-men-sexually-target-Hindu-and-Sikh-girls-as-we

Now withdraw your claim that The Network of Sikh Organizations, and The Hindu Forum of Britain are racist, bigoted and foreign.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 04:38 AM

The link does not work.
Google times of india jack straw

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 04:47 AM

This link works.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-10/pakistan/28365413_1_sikh-communities-hindu-and-sikh-white-girls

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 05:55 AM

"How can you deny such a truth?
You would rather make liars of the young victims than admit you are wrong."

No Keith,

It would be meaningless to comment on whether someone is a liar or telling the truth if I have no idea who they are or what they have said.

The same applies to you.

You say you are relying on the testimony of the victims.

But you have never seen any of this testimony and you have no idea who gave it.

Which makes you a fantasist.

Your case is based on who you imagine the allegers to be and what you imagine their allegations to be.

And this is all based on a second hand report.

You you have no idea who made these allegations or why. It could be parents, or it could even be non parent adults with an axe to grind.

But that kind of speculation is irrelevant because YOU DON'T KNOW because YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ANY EVIDENCE.

The only actual testimony provided here is from a victim of the 56 convicted gang members. No new cases or epidemic there, just the same crime as we started out with, involving a Pakistani Gang, in which (for a pakistani gang) white people seem to be overrepresented.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 06:17 AM

So rather than admit you are wrong, you claim that all those people and the families of hundreds of raped children separately concocted a massive conspiracy of lies.

Ludicrous Lox!

When Straw spoke, you had no reason to doubt him.
Subsequently there has been evidence that it was not just white girls, but nothing to contradict him about BPs.
Why do not believe he really has had that experience?

Then the survey.
Not proof, but certainly evidence.
You dismiss it out of hand.
Ann Cryer said she had the same experience in her constituency.
Again, no reason offered to doubt what she said.
Hilary Wilmer. Why should this impeccable woman be doubted, with her hundreds of cases all BPs.
She corroborates all the previous.
Senior police officers, serving and retired, all part of the lying conspiracy?
Shafiq, Allibhai-Brown and Ahmed tell the same story from BP perspective, and it corroborates all that has gone before.

After all this time, still no evidence of significant non BP involvement.

So how do you JUST KNOW, with such CERTAINTY that it is all a massive and elaborate construction of lies?

Your mindless adherence to a dogmatic ideology in the face of copious cross corroborated evidence makes you a figure of ridicule and contempt.

Now, take back your slanders against those respectable Sikh and Hindu organisations.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 07:21 AM

"So rather than admit you are wrong, you claim that all those people and the families of hundreds of raped children separately concocted a massive conspiracy of lies."

No keith,

I'm saying ... (shall I say it again) ... that your hypothesis about Pakistanis being closet paedos, is based on evidence you have never seen from people you have no knowledge of.

You may filibuster as mucgh as you like, but the fact is that you cannot provide the evidence to support your case.

Just the politically motivated opinion, an unqualified psychobabble of some politicians.


The only reliable evidence here is from Barnardos, The Dando institute and "Safe and sound Derby" and they allflatly and specifically contradict you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 07:47 AM

At the moment we are discussing if street grooming in those towns and cities is mainly a crime of BPs.

Narey (Barnados) acknowledges that "in the Midlands and north of England there does seem to be an over-representation of minority ethnic men in [offending] groups",

The Dando group did the research that found, in their limited sample, 95% perpetrators BPs

The Derby safe and sound, nothing to contradict that it is mainly a crime of BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 08:20 AM

Safe & Sound Derby recognises that recently there has
been a number of prosecutions in the UK highlighting
the 'street-cruising party style' model of grooming for
child sexual exploitation and internal trafficking.
As awareness is raised around this particular model,
police forces are better able to identify cases. This
encourages investigations which in turn lead to more
prosecutions. However, many other forms of child
sexual exploitation are carried out by perpetrators from
a range of backgrounds,

OTHER FORMS of child
sexual exploitation are carried out by perpetrators from
a range of backgrounds,

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 08:33 AM

"At the moment we are discussing if street grooming in those towns and cities is mainly a crime of BPs."

Nonsense - the whole point of establishing if there is an overrepresentation is to establish if Pakistanis are closet paedos or not.

First, it isn't a crime type.

Second, the crimes we are discussing are a snapshot.

Third, you have no evidence to support your claim.


Are all brits racist? ...

No - well how about the special racism type of Mudcat internet racism ...

no - well how about those in hertford?

Well there does seem to be an overrepresentation of racist mudcat contributors from there ...

but there are so many other people living in hertford that we don't know about that we can't draw any conclusion.

... well how about those in Keiths living room ...

Aha ... mudcat subscribers who believe Pakistanis are Paedos are definitely overrepresented in keiths living room ...

... so what?

So nothing!


50 out of 56 men in a Pakistani sex trafficking gang were pakistani.

Thats it.

A lot of hot air has been blown since then ... mainly by Keith.

No evidence of anything else.

Just bullshit, filibuster and imaginary testimony.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 08:38 AM

"First, it isn't a crime type."

It is, according to Dando Institute, CEOP, BBC, etc., etc.

"Second, the crimes we are discussing are a snapshot."

A snapshot lasting more than ten years with many hundreds of victims!

"Third, you have no evidence to support your claim."

!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 09:45 AM

The alzhainers again eh keith?

Ceop haven't done their report yet.

Dando investigated it and concluded that it isnt a crime type.

Just because an allegation is investigated that does not make it true.

It is what the investigation concludes that matters.


"!" ... indeed - your evidence is imaginary chidrens imaginary testimony (imaginary because you have never seen it or even know who provided it if at all)

Apart from that it is the psyvchological opinions of non psychologists and politicians with an agenda, and reports that people have made allegations

i.e. ... no evidence.

No evidence that Pakistanis are closet Paedos.

No evidence that there were hundreds of victims.

No evidence that there is a seperate crime type of Street grooming.


Just tenuous convoluted arguments, hot air and 2 months of loyalty to a racist smear.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 11:50 AM

Lox, if you want to claim that on-street grooming by groups does not exist, and there are no victims, I am happy to leave you looking a twat, but that is what we have been discussing since 23rd Jan.

Evidence that in those towns and cities it is mainly done by BPs.

Jack Straw spoke about his own personal experience and contact with victims.
The Dando Institue report on On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that has resulted in at least two follow up studies of On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that found 95% BP perpetrators.
Ann Cryer said she had the same experience in her constituency.
Hilary Wilmer with her hundreds of cases, all BPs.
She corroborates all the previous.
Senior police officers, serving and retired.
Shafiq, Allibhai-Brown and Ahmed all tell the same story from BP perspective, and it corroborates all that has gone before.
Hindu and Sikh organisation who report hundreds of their girls have been victims too.
Perpetrators, all BPs

Your evidence of non BP involvement.
Er,......NONE.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 01:56 PM

"When Straw spoke, I had no reason to doubt him."
Except, of course, that you edited out the bit about the issue not being about race, then went ahead and made it such
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 03:09 PM

He said it was just BPs doing it.
I just LEFT out the bit where he said they did it because their own girls are off limits.

You don't make a lie true by retelling it Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 03:39 PM

It's pretty challenging to read up on this topic without stumbling into swathes of far right-wing sites, not too surprising no doubt, I've passed over them as far as possible but this umm 'commentary' offered by one poster on a Daily Mail piece made me think wryly "I must admit, he has a point there.."

Hmmmm I get it, they go noncing because theyve been forced to marry their cousins?

Actually, that's the entire text of his commentary, and the link isn't really worth clicking. However, the brevity of the dismissal of the "Pakistani culture/girls off limits" argument being posited here and elsewhere, rather made me smile.

Meanwhile: 1507 posts here, and counting..

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 04:09 PM

That piece is by Abul Taher, a muslim journalist who has also written for The Times and The Guardian.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 04:19 PM

---However, the brevity of the dismissal of the "Pakistani culture/girls off limits" argument being posited here and elsewhere, rather made me smile.---

Not quite sure how you interpret the article to which this refs as a "dismissal" exactly, Lively. Would you care to expound?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 04:22 PM

"You don't make a lie true by retelling it Jim. "
And you don't make it any more true by continuing to deny it Keith, especially as your (present and last-minute) expanation has convinced nobody, as evidenced by your total failure to get any support for your appeal that you are not a conniving racist, apart from the other two musketeers, that is, and one of them seems to have gone awol. Difficult not to notice that both of them have remained remarkably silent, either in support or condemnation, of your forgery, apart from one suggesting that because others do it, it's ok.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 04:40 PM

Most of your lot have fallen silent too, haven't they, Jim?, apart from you and ObnoxiousLoxious. Steve has explicitly announced his departure on his bicycle. So as far as that goes things seem equalised out to me, and not nearly as knockdown as you would have it appear.

"Forgery" now, is it?, to go with "Final·Solutions" and [self-admittedly unmentioned except by you] "Deportations".

Did you read the note I sent you just before you went, about my race & present affiliations? &, in particular, about the hysterical tendency I am increasingly feeling concern about in your posts: of which "forgery", tho maybe not quite up there with Heydrich & Gas Chambers & cattle-trucks, is on the verge.

Wack-fa-lalal &c

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 04:50 PM

Sure. To be clear, I'm not commenting on the piece's author, or indeed the source. But considering the context of the comment, I did find some irony in the implicit summary dismissal of the argument being made in that piece, when compared to the length of this discussion.

I'm unsure how many posters here are debating the precise nature / volume of the alleged crimes currently under discussion? Though it's clear that some posters do so, and in no uncertain terms.
For my part I have read and heard enough to conclude that there appears to be a serious issue in need of addressing. And that the subject is certainly worth discussing. To be clear, hundreds of reports of allegations, is sufficient for me to form that conclusion.

Without a basic agreement among contributors that there is indeed a subject to discuss and what the nature of that subject is, it would seem that there can be no further discussion on the topic!

I don't go as far as accepting some of the arguments being posited here regards the 'causes' within Pakistani culture. And in particular, I find the fashion of Keith's presentation of those arguments, too reductive to render them credible. However, I don't consider myself suitably knowledgeable concerning the multiple possible contributing factors, to determine alternative 'causes'.

I find it an insurmountable leap, to move smoothly from "There appears to be a serious problem worth discussing here." to the conclusion that "Pakistani culture causes child rape."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 05:00 PM

Thanks, Lively. I have several times said that I dislike & mistrust the use of the term "culture" here, as being both too broad and too emotive; and would prefer the references to be specifically to possible connections with marriage customs and expectations; which are indeed, in a broad sense, subsumed under, and a part of, "culture", but both more specific and less emotionally loaded.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 05:03 PM

"Not quite sure how you interpret the article to which this refs as a "dismissal" exactly, Lively. Would you care to expound?"

M - sorry, my point was the irony of a far right-wing blogger so succinctly dismissing the argument that in some some way marrying one's cousin naturally turns one into a child rapist.

In other words the poster's comment of: "Hmmmm I get it", translates as "What crap!"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 05:06 PM

Sorry for cross posting there.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 05:53 PM

BTW, Jim ~~ re your designation of us as "Musketeers", I take it you realise that will make you one of the Cardinal's men.

From what you have posted recently on the ongoing Religion thread, I cannot feel this implication can be precisely what you intended!

Hunt the hare & turn her ~~

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 06:02 PM

"apart from the other two musketeers, that is, and one of them seems to have gone awol. Difficult not to notice that both of them have remained remarkably silent, either in support or condemnation, of your forgery,"

I loathe this kind of petty "my gangs bigger than your gang" bullshit, whatever direction it comes from.

Instead of braying about how many supporters are waving your flag, how about just arguing your own personal corner, all by yourself alone?

I believe you have the clout to do that Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 07:23 PM

"Sure. To be clear, I'm not commenting on the piece's author, or indeed the source. But considering the context of the comment,"

Lively, I'm afraid this comment is wasted on Keith.

Actual content is not relevant in his eyes.

He is all about the social status and/or race of the commentator, not about the content of their comments.

Consequently, in his view, Straw Cryer ahmed etc are all qualified to form psychological diagnoses, without any kind of diagnostic procedure, of people they do not know EN MASSE.

Their qualifications are either being Moslem or being Prominent public figures.

Its a wonder we bother employing psychologists and psychiatrists at all when we have these intuitive mind readers to diagnose whole communities for us.


"And that the subject is certainly worth discussing. To be clear, hundreds of reports of allegations, is sufficient for me to form that conclusion."

Indeed - these are extremely serious and controversial allegations and therefore it is essential that they be fully and properly investigated.

Thankfully, the Dando institute has begun that process, and consequently we have more information than just reports of allegations.

Amongst other things, the authors concluded that street grooming is not a new crime type, and that we can deduce nothing about race.

There is also a second investigation being carried out by Ceop.


So yes, it is important that serious allegations should be properly discussed and investigated.

And it is also essential that the conclusions of the investigators are not ignored as keith is doing.

To draw conclusions based on the fact that Allegations have been made, while ignoring the investigation that they sparked, indicates rejection of its findings.


PS - It doesn't matter how many people say that they have heard that allegations have been made, that does not constitute an accumulation of circumstantial evidence.

If we had an accumulation of actual witness testimony, actual first hand allegations, that would be different.

But we don't.

We don't even have one example.

Keith can't provide ANY.

We just have estimates, guesses, projected psychological profiles and slander.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 08:29 PM

Only a blinkered fool would deny that there is a real issue here.
Lox and Jim both deny it.
There is copious evidence of BPs grooming and raping children, but no one can produce any evidence of anyone else doing it.
Certainly not in those towns and cities of the Midlands and the North.
Right Jim?
Right Lox?

As to why they do it.
You have all read the suggestion provided by Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Saffiq and Allibhai-Brown.
They have convinced me, but anyway no other suggestion has been provided.
Has it Jim?
Has it Lox?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Mar 11 - 08:32 PM

"Only a blinkered fool would deny that there is a real issue here."

Not that you would have a clue what people think, or what the issues are, or indeed what work has actually been done on the subject as youdon't readpeoples posts, you ignore inconvenient arguments, and you ignore the only actual available evidence.

You just say the same stuff over and over again until everyone gets bored and you get the last word.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 02:38 AM

"youdon't readpeoples posts"

Wrong yet AGAIN Lox.
I have been assiduously scrutinising every one, hoping to see,
1. Any evidence of a non BP gang doing this, and,

2. Any better explanation for why only BP gangs are doing it.

We have been waiting two months now.
Will it be coming anytime soon?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 05:11 AM

===You just say the same stuff over and over again until everyone gets bored and you get the last word.=== Lox
,,,,
If any foreigner or whatever asked for a definition or exemplar of the concept of "POTS'N'KETTLES", could anyone ever do better?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 05:13 AM

"Certainly not in those towns and cities of the Midlands and the North."
Are you seriously claiming that these events are to be fitted into city or town contexts like Leeds or Birmingham or Bradford? Absolute distorted rubbish; the 'facts' you have presented so far come from people working in small communites - there are no such city-wide organisations in existence and certainly no documantary evidence - if there is, point it out. The only person who could possibly have commented on such a scale is former Home Secretary, Jack Straw who has stated unequivocally that there is no racial conclusion to be reached in all this (but you edited that out as being unimportant, and in doing so, tainted your own evidence!)
He also suggested that the perpetrators were young men fizzing and popping with testosterone - but you edited that out too, also on the basis of it being unimportant.
His only cultural conclusion is that Pakistani culture imposes such a high standard on its people that their young men do what all young men do in similar situations, no matter what their racial origins - go elsewhere for their pleasures and perversions. I asked once before and never received a reply - what would you have them do - lower those standards in order to keep 'our white girls' safe?
You have suggested that the crimes of British Pakistanis you have presented here (five pages of slimeslide to prove that British Pakistanis are culturally prone to paedophelia) have a cultural basis.
Taking your 'reasoning to it's logical conclusion, the only religious body in these islands that can be claimed as being culturally prone to paedophelia is a Christian one - the church that has provided the world with serial paedophiles and has aided and abbetted them in their crimes for decades, and possibly centuries.
Rather bizarrely, you suggested that "Catholic priests can be regarded as an ethnic group with a culture and customs of their own", thus making it racist to criticise them for indulging in and covering up serial paedophelia!!
These crimes were known about and covered up by both the churh heirarchy and the Irish establishment - doesn't this make Catholic Ireland a depraved culture, as you would have us believe the British Pakistanis are?
"but no one can produce any evidence of anyone else doing it."
Bollocks - the grooming and raping of children has gone on throughout history and is well documentad as having done so - it was a part of English life in Elizabethan times and is well documented as being rife in Victorian times - it is as old as sex itself. I suggest you read the works of Fernando Henriques. Nowadays it seems to be the domain of Eastern European gangs who sprang into existence following the fall of communism.
Once more you are manipulating facts in order to prove the depravity of British Pakistanis.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 05:41 AM

That is an extraordinary distortion of Straw's words!
Straw said that this IS a crime of BPs.
Deny that Jim.
His explanation was that they did it, not because of their race, but because their own girls are off limits.
Deny that Jim.

I refer to the Midland and Northern towns because that is all we have evidence for.

There is a lot of evidence of BPs raping hundreds of children by this method.
Deny that Jim.
There is no evidence of non BPs doing it.
Deny that Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 05:41 AM

---Pakistani culture imposes such a high standard on its people that their young men do what all young men do in similar situations, no matter what their racial origins - go elsewhere for their pleasures and perversions. I asked once before and never received a reply - what would you have them do - lower those standards in order to keep 'our white girls' safe?---

I must differ, Jim, about the "height" of these standards, and object again to your use of the over-wide & overdefined term "CULTURE" HERE, WHEN YOU MEAN "CUSTOMS", WHICH ARE ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE OVERALL CONCEPT OF "CULTURE" [bugger this obtrusive shiftlock: sorry, not shouting really!], which is both an emotive and a far too non-specific word to be used in this connection.

They are not "high" standards: they are different ones, alien to the way of proceeding in regard to marriage which is traditional in this country. I have never thought it in any way "racist" to evoke the fine old principle of "When in Rome", and suggest that those who opt to come and share our facilities with us because they prefer them to those of their own original environment can be reasonably expected to adjust their expectations to a rational degree to the expectations they find when they arrive. It is surely at least arguable that the failure of the older generation to do so, and their insistence on imposing their imported expectations on to their younger generation, who can see all around them the signs of a less exigent set of expectations, could be at least a contributory factor to the phenomenon we are discussing on this forum.

So the answer to your question is that their changing their expectations to be more concordant with those of the community in whose midst they have chosen to come and participate would be a welcome *alteration* of their standards, rather than in any way a "lowering".

In summary, I do not perceive their standards as "high", they are rather, IMO, unreasonable and incongruous with their adoptive lifestyle.

You seem to me to be obstinate & unreasonable, Jim, in not even agreeing to consider such a possibility as I suggested in the para before last, and in persisting in immoderately and offensively impugning the motives of others more rationally inquiring with shrill and hysterical cries of "racism".

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 05:47 AM

Jack Straw.
"But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men ... who target vulnerable young white girls.


"We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way."


Straw called on the British Pakistani community to be "more open" about the issue. "These young men are in a western society, in any event, they 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 and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically," he said.


"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.


"And because they're vulnerable they ply them with gifts, they give them drugs, and then of course they're trapped."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 05:52 AM

More of Straw.
However, speaking on the BBC's Newsnight programme after the case, Mr Straw said vulnerable white girls were at risk of being targeted by some Asian men.



"The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim."

He said his own constituency was one of the areas where it was a problem and called on the Pakistani community to be "more open" about the abuse.

He said: "Pakistanis, let's be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders' wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders.

"But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men... who target vulnerable young white girls.

"We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way."

Mr Straw added: "These young men are in a western society, in any event, they 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 and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically," he said.

"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.

"Because they're vulnerable they ply them with gifts, they give them drugs, and then of course they're trapped."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 06:51 AM

"Straw said that this IS a crime of BPs."
No Keith - he said some British Pakistanis commit this crime, but there is no racial inference to be taken from that fact. Perhaps you forgot to read it when you edited it.
"Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale "
All with high Asian populations - what's your point? Nobody apart yourself has suggested that these are exclusively Pakistani crimes
"He said: "Pakistanis, let's be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders' wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders."
Which you edited out of your posting - why, and why are you trying to give the impression that you didn't?
"Mr Straw added: "These young men are in a western society, in any event, they 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 and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically," he said."
Most of which you edited out of your quote - why?
"But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men... who target vulnerable young white girls"
Would you like to give us a run down on what those 'specific problems@ are?
"are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan,"
As many Jewish, Catholic, Northern Protestant.... are expected to marry within their faith - what's your point?
"Because they're vulnerable they ply them with gifts, they give them drugs, and then of course they're trapped"
As happens outside the Pakistani communities, including the indigenous one - what's your point?
More later
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 07:11 AM

Those areas have a high BP population, but it is still a minority group.
They should be a minority of any offending group, if not over represented.

In this area, for this crime, only BP gangs are involved.
There is indeed "a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men" as Straw said.

Your explanation Jim??

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 07:24 AM

"There is indeed "a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men" as Straw said."
What is that 'specific problem' - I asked first?
And once again - why areyou now quoting Straw's statement in full and trying to give the impression that you didn't edit it.
And why are you continuing to ignore Straw's point that
THERE IS NO RACIAL INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM THESE EVENTS?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 07:27 AM

And why are you continuing to ignore the challenge that your 'city-size' problem is a gross overtatement in order to make a racist point?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 07:38 AM

Jim,
"And why are you continuing to ignore Straw's point that
THERE IS NO RACIAL INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM THESE EVENTS?"

I am not ignoring it.
I agree with it.
I just posted,"His explanation was that they did it, not because of their race, but because their own girls are off limits."

I do not know if the problem is confined to the Midlands and North of England.
That is just where the evidence has all come from.

17 court prosecutions since 1997, 14 of them in the past three years, involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men.
The victims came from 13 towns and cities and in each case two or more men were convicted of offences.

Also the testimonies of MPs, support workers, police, etc., etc., etc.,.....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 08:40 AM

Round we go ...

Straw said

"But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men... who target vulnerable young white girls."

To which the Dando institute responded that this is not evidentially supported.

The process went as follows:

Step 1 - allegation.

Step 2 - Investigation.

Step 3 - conclusion (flatly contradicting Keith).


Keith shoose tpo ignore steps 2 and 3 as they contradict his racist hypothesis.

For keith, the process goes as follows

Step 1 - allegation.

step 3 - straight to conclusion.

For keith, the content of the inveatigation is irrelevant.

For keith, the existence of the investigation is evidence that the allegations are true, regardless of what the investigation finds.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 08:54 AM

"I agree with it."
Then why do you continue to insist that it is an aspect of British Pakistani culture and why did you edit any references to it not being a racial issue out of Straw's statement?
"but because their own girls are off limits."
Are you suggesting that they are placed 'on limits'?
"I do not know if the problem is confined to the Midlands and North of England."
You don't even acknowledge how significant it is in the North or in the Midlands (or if you do, you haven't told us), yet you continue to make it an issue by exaggerating its size - IT IS NOT A CITY-WIDE ISSUE, NORTH, SOUTH, EAST OR WEST AS FAR AS WE KNOW BUT YOU CONTINUE TO PRETEND IT IS.
"17 court prosecutions since 1997, 14 of them in the past three years, involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men."
To repeat, the grooming, seduction, and rape of young women is as old as sex and has been happenning as far back as written history - stop making it a British Pakistan problem - that's racist.
"Also the testimonies of MPs, support workers, police, etc., etc., etc.,"
Support workers have warned against people like yourself making it a racist issue and police and judges have specifically said that there is no racial connection - yet you have consistently attempted to make it one by the sheer size of your slimy postings. Try reading them all in one go, it will save you forking out for an emetic (or maybe in your case, it won't)!
The people who commit these crimes are criminals; attempting to single them out ar Asian or Pakistani or coloured or foreign is evil - it's what scum like the BNP thrive on.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 09:00 AM

Lox,
""But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men... who target vulnerable young white girls."

To which the Dando institute responded that this is not evidentially supported."


In a briefing paper, researchers at University College London's Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science concurred that victims were typically white girls while 'most central offenders are Pakistani'.
The offenders were not viewed as paedophiles but had picked the girls 'because of their malleability'.
The report concluded that 'race is a delicate issue' that should be 'handled sensitively but not brushed under the carpet'.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 09:09 AM

Jim,
"Are you suggesting that they are placed 'on limits'?"

No Jim,I am offering no ways of solving the problem, only reporting Straw's explanation of it.
If you have a better one, I will consider it.
But you don't.
Right Jim?

"Then why do you continue to insist that it is an aspect of British Pakistani culture (IT IS STRAW WHO INSISTS, BECAUSE THEIR GIRLS ARE OFF LIMITS)and why did you edit any references to it not being a racial issue out of Straw's statement?"
EXACTLY! I HAD NO REASON TO EDIT IT OUT, AND I DID NOT.
IT WAS JUST NOT WORTH POSTING!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 09:10 AM

"If we had an accumulation of actual witness testimony, actual first hand allegations, that would be different.
But we don't.
We don't even have one example."

Lox, here is one first hand witness testimony by way of an Independent article back in end January: "They Like Us Niave"

With particular reference to some of the points being made here: "Emma believes, on the basis of her own experience, that there was something in the culture of second- and third-generation men from the Indian sub-continent that drew them into such activities. "White girls are classed as lower," she says. "These men class women as lower anyway, but white women are lower still. And in their tradition, girls become women at 12, so perhaps they didn't think they were doing wrong with me."

I wouldn't personally draw any conclusions from her statement (and I'm not offering it as "evidence" in support of any arguments being made here either), other than that is her opinion based on her experience, but her statement raises questions for me about the problems of discussing sensitive issues surrounding race and culture at all. If for example, Emma was to make that statement here on Mudcat, would she be hounded off the forum by a group of angry liberals crying "racist!"?

I think there was a video interview conducted by the BNP of another victim. No doubt the fact that the interview was conducted by the BNP will render the testimony not credible in the eyes of most posters here (and of course I understand why) but I may try to find it, as it brings another important issue into the discussion. And that is the perception among some that (to put it approximately in the words of one victim's father) "No-body except the BNP gives a damn about this going on."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 09:13 AM

Sorry, link failure. If interested follow this Google search instead (first result):

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%27They+like+us+naive%27%3A+How+teenage+girls+are+groomed+for+a+life+of+prostitution+by+UK+gang

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 10:10 AM

Thanks Lively.

Now lets examine her words.

First, lets distinguish between her opinion and her testimony.

She is not a psychologist, so at the age of 20, in light of her recent trauma and the damage done by these guys to her, it would be deeply misleading to present her assessment of their psychology as anything more than her opinion.

We did learn this though.

"those friends she sought out so assiduously at 13 in the local shopping centre near her home in Yorkshire turned out not to be friends at all, but a well-organised gang of criminals, using teenage boys as bait to enable them to groom young, naïve girls like Emma for a life of prostitution."

So - as I have said all along - "organized criminals" - and in addition "using boys as bait"

That doesn't sound like repressed boys getting it elsewhere, it sounds like young boys being used as bait by organized crime gangs.

Unless we are alleging that British Pakistanis have a predisposition to organized crime as well, then we have to acept that these guys are not representative of British Pakistani culture but of criminal culture.

Their crimes are no different to other traffickers who also groom young and old girls.

There is nithing in her statement (not sworn under oath I might add) to suggest that Pakistanis are closet Paedos.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 10:15 AM

The gangs are BPs as well as the boys Lox.
You yourself have acknowledged that the gangs are BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 10:21 AM

Keith, instead of responding to the post you imagine I have posted, why not try actually reading it and digesting it so that you can compose at the very least a relevant response if not an intelligent one.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 10:26 AM

Jack Straw was talking about young boys fizzing and popping with testosterone.

This reported allegation states that the young boys were being used as bait.

If this highly organized crime cell represents Pakistanis, then the Mafia represents Italians and the Krays represent Londoners etc etc.

All bullshit.

These were not ordinary Pakistani citizens.

They were Mafiosi dealing in prostitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 10:27 AM

".....only reporting Straw's explanation of it."
Straw is not 'explaining' anything of the sort; he is 'suggesting' that there 'might' be a connection - it is you who is making definitive statements on the issue.
Until we can examine the suggestion in context of the situation as a whole we have no way of knowing if it is a valid one.
You continue to make claims out of context and you continue to exaggerate the racial side of the situation by overstating the size of the problem.
We have no idea what other factors there might be; all we know is that the British Pakistani involvement is miniscule on the national scale and to overstate it is acting against the advice of Straw and others that there are no racial implications to be drawn from the information in hand - so stop drawing them.
"IT WAS JUST NOT WORTH POSTING!"
Absolute bollocks - it contradicts your whole argument that there is a racial connection between the crimes and the culture - and the fact that you continue to deny this gives your whole approach a racist agenda.
You really shouldn't do this sort of thing in public; it makes you appear a bigger fool than you acually are, if that were possible, especially now you now appear to be admitting something that you have been denying for over a week.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 10:31 AM

I know Lox.
They were criminal gangs of street groomers, pimps and child rapists who happen to all come from the BP community.
But that must not be said.
Right Lox

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 10:40 AM

From the same article:

"There is an accumulation of evidence pointing to a growing problem with the sexual exploitation for criminal purposes of teenagers, both girls and boys. Barnardo's has recently produced a report, "Whose Child Now?", which warns that children as young as 10 are being "brainwashed" and then sexually exploited by gangs in much the same fashion as Emma. It estimates, on the basis of work done by the charity in London, that 1,000 children in the capital alone are at risk of sexual exploitation in this way."

That is the same Barnardos who flatly contradict your opinion Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 10:41 AM

Jim,
"Straw is not 'explaining' anything of the sort; he is 'suggesting' that there 'might' be a connection -"
READ AGAIN JIM. NO SUGGESTION OR MIGHT! IT IS HIS EXPLANATION

Mr Straw added: "These young men are in a western society, in any event, they 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 and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically," he said.

"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.

Jim, "all we know is that the British Pakistani involvement is miniscule on the national scale "
EVIDENCE JIM????

I have NEVER, NEVER, EVER said it was to do with race.
As I have already posted TWICE TODAY,
"His explanation was that they did it, not because of their race, but because their own girls are off limits."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 10:42 AM

Lox,

Narey (Barnados) acknowledges that "in the Midlands and north of England there does seem to be an over-representation of minority ethnic men in [offending] groups",

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 10:44 AM

No keith.

You cabn say what you want.

You do say what you want.

You say British Pakistanis are closet Paedos.

There is no evidence to support that.

ALL the research contradicts your view SPECIFICALLY.

The only reported allegation that we have seen supports MY view which is that what race the criminals are is IRRELEVANT.


Oh look its Alzheimers O'Clock .... time for keith to repost an already discredited argument as if the responses to it never happened and as if the evidence that contradicted it doesn't exist ...

... go on keith ... your predictable move ....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 10:55 AM

I do not say they are closet paedos.
I do say they are over-represented in this type of grooming/rape, at least in Midlands and North of England.

What research there is corroborates that.
95% of convicted offenders were BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 11:05 AM

ok - you dont say they are closet paedos, you say they are culturally predisposed to raping teenagers.

You say they need to to get sex.

This hypothesis has no relevance to any of the actual evidence posted.

(and is no difference to saying they are closet paedos.)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 11:07 AM

Oh yes - I forgot - you say that while most are able to overcome this predisposition, these few found their cultural predisposition to rape too much to handle.

You think that is a plausible suggestion.

You are not prepared to examine it and when it was examined and torn to shreds you stuck by it through thick and thin, which makes it your firm view really doesn't it ... yes it does.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 11:10 AM

Lox said of Emma's story,

"There is nithing in her statement (not sworn under oath I might add) to suggest that..."

So you don't really believe her, do you Lox!

IT CAN'T BE TRUE.
IT JUST CAN'T.
RACIST. BIGOT. LIAR.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 11:16 AM

Lox, you ask, "You think that is a plausible suggestion."

It is the only one we have. You have no explanation for the over-representation, do you Lox?
DO YOU LOX?

That explanation was produced, separately and independently, by Cryer (in 2003!), Straw, Shafiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown.
How can you blame me for coming to accept it.
How do you just know that it is wrong, especially as you have no alternative theory

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 12:13 PM

"READ AGAIN JIM. NO SUGGESTION OR MIGHT! IT IS HIS EXPLANATION"
Nobody, Jack Straw nor anybody else apart from you, is suggesting that the culture of those concerned has anything to do with the acquiring of underage girls. He is saying that they are unable to get what they want in their own community so they are going elsewhere. He is not claiming, as you appear to be, that the urge to have underage sex stems from their being British Pakistanis. On the contrary, in the bit you edited out he made the point that these young Pakistani men were ACTING NO DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHER YOUNG MEN IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS FROM ANY OTHER CULTURAL OR RACIAL GROUP - YOU REMOVED THAT BIT BECAUSE IT DID NOT SUPPORT YOUR CASE THAT PAEDOPHILIA WAS A PAKISTANI THING.
You now appear to have dropped the line that "no one can produce any evidence of anyone else doing it" - can we assume that this is gone for good?
"all we know is that the British Pakistani involvement is miniscule on the national scale - EVIDENCE"
I, nor anybody, needs to produce evidence for a charge that has not been laid against the British Pakistani population except by you and your ilk and the BNP.
If you are claiming that paedophilia is rife within the BP population, it is your responsibility to prove it is - is that what you are now suggesting? It certainly seems to be what you have suggested throughout your postings, without actually having the courage to put it into those words.
So far all we have are a small number of hearsay examples from small undefined areas in Northern and Midland Britain - even your sole supporter has admitted that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 12:55 PM

Some time ago I suggested that you had no original thoughts on the subject we were discussing (Ireland) and that an analysis that you offered as 'all your own work' had been cut-n-pasted and adapted to make it appear that it was all yours - you went somewhat ballistic and accused me of lying.
It is difficult not to notice that virtually all of your input to this thread has been cut-n-pasted from the net and whenever it has been challenged you have scurried behind your cut-n-paste sources with anguished cries of "don't blame me; I'm only the messengers".
You have already admitted that "I have no knowledge or experience of my own to offer" so I ask again, are you not capable of thinking for yourself or is the sum total of your knowledge and opinions made up of what you are able to cut-n-paste from the net?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 12:55 PM

Paedophilia is not the charge Jim.
It is suggested they go for children because they are easy meat.

And Straw linked that behaviour to their own girls being off limits.
Just read it.

Jim, you say, "what we know is that the British Pakistani involvement is miniscule on the national scale"

I say they are massively over represented and am willing to cite all my evidence again.
You have no evidence at all that "the British Pakistani involvement is miniscule on the national scale" because it is not true.
Prove me wrong why don't you!

In the vast area of The Midlands, Greater Manchester, Yorkshire and Lancashire, many hundreds of children like poor Emma have been groomed and raped by gangs mainly of BPs.

Or do you have evidence of large numbers of non BPs doing it?
Do You?
No.
We would have seen it by now.
You have nothing but blind, prejudiced refusal to listen the the victims.
Emma was not under oath after all.
She could be part of my vast conspiracy of lies!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 01:02 PM

Jim, I went ballistic because you claimed to have found a post of mine on the internet, when it was my own.
I detest lies and liars.

On this subject I claim no expertise.
I think it responsible to take my arguments from experienced experts.
Also it makes your ignorant, blinkered dogma look as worthless as it is, and reduces you to personal smearing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 01:48 PM

"There is nithing in her statement (not sworn under oath I might add) to suggest that Pakistanis are closet Paedos."

No, but her statement would no doubt be controversial here nonetheless. She is saying that she thinks the culture of (2nd and 3rd generation) Pakistani's is misogynistic. And that this culturally informed misogyny helps to "draw them into" crimes against women. Now whether she is correct or not in her opinion isn't what I'm interested in, what I'm questioning is whether or not she could express such an opinion in an environment such as this for example (ie: in a predominantly left-wing context), without being abused for being a racist. What I'm saying is that it's a difficult subject to discuss without encroaching into potentially taboo areas. And when people (and most especially the victims of abuse) are nervous of breaking taboo's, they will stay silent.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 02:34 PM

"There is nithing in her statement (not sworn under oath I might add) to suggest that..."

So you don't really believe her, do you Lox!"

Actually, I think Lox was referring to my somewhat misleading use of legal terminology. Instead of "witness testimony" I should have referred to a "first-hand account" (or some-such).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 02:38 PM

Though as an aside to the veracity or otherwise of her account, its worth noting that Emma campaigns as a spokesperson for Crop (Coalition for the removal of pimping).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 07:14 AM

Jim has been busy posting elsewhere today.
It does not look as though we will see an alternative explanation offered, or evidence of other groups committing these crimes.

Jim, I doubt that Michael is the only person to have lost respect for you over your despicable conduct here.
You should count that loss as even greater than nail varnish.

I have been motivated only by the desire to establish the truth about a sensitive issue.
I am not a racist, or a bigot, and neither I nor the child victims are liars.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 07:41 AM

It depends whether or not you consider the forcible abduction and international trafficking of women and children, to be an identical phenomenon to these crimes involving the public grooming of girls from within the UK. As I put it earlier it would seem that there are areas of overlap between the crimes being discussed here with those key characteristics which both typify international trafficking *and* paedophile grooming for the sexual exploitation of minors.

An important distinction between these crimes under discussion and other similar forms of abuse however, is that these crimes have not been taking place covertly, but in highly public spaces. The success of the methodology of on-street grooming being employed by these gangs, arguably says something about our culture's apathy towards these kinds of crimes and the lack of protection offered by police in those areas where it's happening to young teenage girls at risk of being groomed into prostitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 08:44 AM

"Jim, I doubt that Michael is the only person to have lost respect for you over your despicable conduct here."
This is all a game for you - racial abuse, send the Irish back home, homomosexuality = race - all about winning or losing, no matter whose lives if fucks up.
I'm actually not posting anywhere today, I was curious to see which particular twist your mind had taken today - it was bound to be you opened this cess-pit of a thread up to see if you could get any takers for your not being a racist - nothing so far!
I'm sure Mike is as delighted to see that you're in there representing his opinion as I was to find your behind-the-backs snide attacks on Lox and I on a thread we weren't involved in.
Slimeball just about covers it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 09:25 AM

"racial abuse,"

I have never made any Jim.
You lie again.

"send the Irish back home"

I would never say such a thing.
You know it is a lie because I have had to confront you about it several times now.

"snide attacks on Lox and I on a thread we weren't involved in."

Untrue.
Lox was one of the main protagonists on that thread (Death penalty for homosexuality), and you made many posts to it.

Despicable post Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 09:29 AM

I missed a significant lie.

I have never equated or even made a connection between homosexuality and race.
I do not believe that there is one.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 01:11 PM

Still no takers?
Nope, I thought not.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 02:47 PM

Jim, you have been shown to be wrong about everything you have argued.
Wrong about the massive over-representation.
Wrong about the explanation for it.

As usual when your arguments fail, you resort to a personal offensive against me.
You try to make me the subject of discussion.

There have already been some takers Jim.
People who have said I am not racist include Joe, Michael, 999, and Lively who rightly objects to such abuse being flung around at all.

Got anything else Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 03:38 PM

"I have never made any Jim."
See this thread.
"send the Irish back home"
Been through this - it's on record.
"Lox was one of the main protagonists on that thread (Death penalty for homosexuality), and you made many posts to it."
On the thread in question, Lox's last contribution was 27th Feb; mine was 13th Jan 2010 - as I said, behind our backs.
"I have never equated or even made a connection between homosexuality and race."
From the very first one, your first dozen postings to the above thread contain fifteen (15) references to Africans and immigrants as being aids carriers, including your questioning whether the latter should receive treatment in the host country.
"Wrong..... Wrong....."
You really should try to learn the difference between proof and denial
"You try to make me the subject of discussion."
No Keith, you try to make it about you, in spite of the (self admitted) fact that you know nothing about the subject you took over and made into a racist diatribe.
Any more for the Skylark?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 06:11 PM

"I have never made any Jim."
See this thread.
THERE IS NO RACIST ABUSE IN THIS THREAD JIM.

"send the Irish back home"
Been through this - it's on record.

IT IS AN OLD LIE, AND IT IS STILL A LIE.
PUT UP THE OFFENDING QUOTES, BUT BE SURE TO PUT UP THE POST THEY REPLY TO.
WE WILL SEE IF I AM A BIGOT, OR YOU A LIAR.
BRING IT ON JIM.
"Lox was one of the main protagonists on that thread (Death penalty for homosexuality), and you made many posts to it."
On the thread in question, Lox's last contribution was 27th Feb; mine was 13th Jan 2010 - as I said, behind our backs.


YOU SAID "on a thread we weren't involved in."
NOT TRUE WAS IT JIM!

"I have never equated or even made a connection between homosexuality and race."
From the very first one, your first dozen postings to the above thread contain fifteen (15) references to Africans and immigrants as being aids carriers, including your questioning whether the latter should receive treatment in the host country.

THAT WAS THE SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION JIM, AND I HAVE NEVER MADE A BIGOTED REMARK ON MUDCAT OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

Any thing on the over-representation, or explanations for it Jim?
Or do you just want to talk abour me?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 05:11 AM

Keith;
Put these two threads together and what have we got?
Muslim prejudice:
A long concerted effort to imply and actually state that paedophelic rape is attributable to British Pakistani culture (even going to the extent of doctoring your own evidence to make the point).
Death penalty for homosexuality:
An immediate leap from the topic in hand to aids, Africans and disease-carrying immigrants - topped off with the hint that they - the immigrants who contact aids - should be refused medical assistance - and what - left to die unassisted, sent back to where they came from where they are unlikely to be able to get treatment?
It would be interesting to see what your four named sponsors think of your approach to this - but it seems a little unfair to involve them, as you have chosen to do by naming them as your supporters.
This is the kind of garbage I have been listening to all my life: from the Keep Britain White Campaign, from the National Front, from scum like Enoch Powell and his "Rivers of Blood", and latterly from the BNP, who have actually toned their line down a little recently in order to appear 'respectable' and win seats in elections.
It appears to me as classic racism
I haven't yet looked into threads on immigration, or possible connections between Muslim terrorism and British Asian communities (I have no doubt you have had something to say), but now you've opened this particular can of worms, I certainly will do so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 05:40 AM

Jim, I joined the AIDS debate, but I did not start it.
As in this thread, my input was just finding and supplying expert evidence on the subject.
You will find no bigoted posts there or anywhere else.
Not being a bigot, I do not make them.

Nothing to say about the over-representation, or an explanation for it then.
Just more stuff about me.
You are obsessed.
It is not healthy Jim. You should talk to someone.
Not on line. Actual talking.

You have such knowledge of our music.
No one wants to see you like this.
Talk to someone Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 06:57 AM

"Jim, I joined the AIDS debate, but I did not start it."
Whoever started it, you used it to attack immigrants, describing them as disease carriers; - that was the use you put it to and that was the point I made.
The rest of your posting is evasive guff - try addressing some of the other points I made.
And by the way, neither Lox nor I were involved in the thread you used for your sneaky bit of back-stabbing. Lox had been gone a month, me for over a year.
Stop wriggling - it makes you appear as dishonest as you are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 06:59 AM

PS It was not an AIDS debate - it was a discussion on the persecution of homosexuals by threatening them with the death penalty.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 07:12 AM

I assumed, rightly, that you would look at a reopened thread you had contributed to.
Lox also.

PS, thread drift happens Jim.
It was not by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 07:52 AM

Jim,
"Lox had been gone a month, me for over a year."

You had been gone 2 months before previous last post.
Large error Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 08:00 AM

"I assumed, rightly, that you would look at a reopened thread you had contributed to."
You assummed nothing of the sort; both of us were off the thread - me for over a year.
You addressed your comment to others, using another thread to do so - a cowrdly, if typical trait of yours. The only reason I knewabout it was a guest/friend who has been following this farcial saga contacted me to say what an unpleasant piece of work you were.
Now stop trying to wriggle of the hook - you depicted immigrants as disease carriers who should be left to fend for themselves - what kind of person does that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 08:10 AM

Could the moderators please edit the thread title to "Everything you're not interested in about some bloke called Keith" please.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 08:16 AM

Jim,
"You assummed nothing of the sort; both of us were off the thread - me for over a year."

You for 2 months Jim.


"you depicted immigrants as disease carriers who should be left to fend for themselves - what kind of person does that?"

Don't know Jim.
Not me certainly.

Now, enough about me, any more thoughts on the over-representation, or explanations for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 08:21 AM

You really are a piece of work - and it's all on record for future reference
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 08:35 AM

Of course it is Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 08:49 AM

"any more thoughts on the over-representation, or explanations for it?"

It's a difficult question, not one I'm qualified to 'explain'. Clearly British Pakistani criminal gangs are not over-represented in human trafficking per se, nor are they over-represented in the grooming of minors for sexual exploitation, but what they do seem to have successfully cornered the market in, is the highly public method of "on-street" grooming.

What interests me more than "why?" is "how?"

As I put it earlier, while white paedophile networks work covertly here, it is unlikely to be through choice rather than necessity. By contrast however, Western paedophiles are able to operate more publicly in places like Thailand where they are less likely to be confronted by the authorities. Similarly paedophile Catholic Priests were free to abuse minors for many decades in Catholic countries like Ireland, where they were also unlikely to be challenged by (secular) authorities.

What are the factors which enable particular individuals and groups to pursue their organised campaigns of abuse in full view (or at best lightly veiled), and in such a fashion that despite the fact that it is 'common knowledge' to the communities in which it occurs, the authorities fail to take appropriate action to end it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 09:21 AM

The grooming in public places would not look suspicious, especially if teenage boys were used as bait.
The pimping and raping was done behind closed doors.

We have heard the techniques used to discourage the girls from talking, and how difficult it was to get them to stand up in court.

The really worrying part is that the police were said to be unwilling to investigate, for fear of accusations of racism.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 03:25 PM

Well it appears that Lively differs from one Keith in one very important respect.

Lively took the time to read my post and understand it.

Consequently any reply he/she makes to it, whether to agree or disagree, will be relevant.

Keith meanwhile continues to make shit up.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 03:32 PM

"any more thoughts on the over-representation, or explanations for it?"

The Dando report gave a clear reason.

This has been posted more than once.

The reason is because these events occurred within a limited specific area.

The new Ceop report will be studying similar data to the dando report on a national level.

The dando report rejects the idea that street grooming is a crime.

This is because it is nonsensical to see it as a crime in its own right.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 04:04 PM

"The reason is because these events occurred within a limited specific area."

Yes. 13 towns and cities in a 14 year period.
Not insignificant Lox.

"The dando report rejects the idea that street grooming is a crime."
No Lox, the Dando report was ABOUT "On-street grooming by groups."

"The new Ceop report will be studying similar data to the dando report on a national level."
Yes Lox. It is also studying "On-street grooming by groups."
They must think it exists too!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 05:42 PM

"The dando report rejects the idea that street grooming is a crime."
No Lox, the Dando report was ABOUT "On-street grooming by groups."

So it investigated it, and it concluded that there is no new crime type of on street grooming.


Lets have a look at this Parallel to help keith with his lack of comprehension.

Fiona Adams was investigated for the murder of two children.

According to Keith, as the investigation was into the murder of her two children, therefore they were murdered.

The fact that the investigation found that there was no murder would be of no concern to Keith.

He would say - "No Lox, the incestigation was into the murder of the two children, and there wil now be an other independent enquiry, therefore there was a murder"

Keith does not understand what an investigation is or what its purpose is.

The Street Grooming investigators concluyded that there was no evidence of a new crime type.

But Keith says "Duh ... but if there was an investigation then therefore it is true rtegardless of the results"

And in the process Keith marks himself out as being unfathomably thick.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 06:41 PM

"Now whether she is correct or not in her opinion isn't what I'm interested in, what I'm questioning is whether or not she could express such an opinion in an environment such as this for example (ie: in a predominantly left-wing context), without being abused for being a racist."

The important thing is to be sure what evidence she has provided.

Her opinions on the subject of the collective culture of Pakistanis is all very interesting, but it is not evidence, it is just her opinion.

This is because 1. Her experience of British Pakistanis is limited to organized criminals and 2. because she isn't a psychologist and is therefore simply unequipped to make such diagnoses.

The actual evidence of her allegations is her statement of what she experienced.

If she were to develop a fear or loathing of Pakistanis onthe basis of her experiences, I would not call her racist as I would understand that shhe would find it hard to dissociate her particular abusers race from the traumas she endured.

When someone like keith comes along however, and puts words in her mouth, and invents imaginary bullshit that she never said, in order to bolster his racist hypothesis, which he has been fighting for despite a total lack of any actual evidence, then that is where we see actual cold ideological racism rearing its ugly head.

He does not have an excuse, he merely has an unsupportable racist hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 01:31 AM

Lox, you said this about Emma, one of the victims of BP groom and rape gangs.
"When someone like keith comes along however, and puts words in her mouth, and invents imaginary bullshit that she never said, in order to bolster his racist hypothesis, "

To say that I exploited this victim is such a wicked lie that I must ask you to withdraw it at once.
It is only a couple of days ago.
Go back, check that you got it wrong and then take it back because it is a disgusting lie and a smear against me.

If you refuse, then at least have the decency to put up my "offending" quotes.

Grooming was only made a crime in recent years.
All forms of grooming children for sex are now criminal.
On-street grooming is one Lox.
It is an extraordinarily successful form of grooming children for sex.
The recent news of the "biggest in the world" online paedophile ring abused 260 children worldwide.
We have many hundreds in just a few English counties.

What is the point of you saying it is not a separate crime when it is still going on and destroying hundreds of young lives?
Dando did not say that there was no such thing, they studied it.
They found in their limited study that it was so serious that a further two studies were set up to study it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 01:40 AM

If I had any fu#kin' hair left I'd pull it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 05:08 AM

"Dando did not say that there was no such thing, they studied it."

... *sigh* ... yes they did ... they said it misrepresents the data to say there is a new crime type.

Do I have to paste it again?

Its very literal and specific ... ie ... no room for keiths creative and tenuous reinterpretation.

As for you absurd outrage ... don't feel embarrassed.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 05:24 AM

It is "absurd" to say that on-street grooming, reulting in the violent gang raping of many hundreds of children, does not exist.

It is not "absurd" to demand you justify your loathsome lie Lox.

Lox's loathsome lie.
"When someone like keith comes along however, and puts words in her mouth, and invents imaginary bullshit that she never said, in order to bolster his racist hypothesis, "

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 05:38 AM

"puts words in her mouth, and invents imaginary bullshit that she never said"

WHAT IMAGINARY BULLSHIT?
WHAT WORDS IN HER MOUTH?
QUOTE THEM!
SHE WAS A CHILD VICTIM OF RAPE.
GROUNDLESS ACCUSATIONS LIKE THIS ARE DESPICABLE.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999--sorry for the 6,790th time this year.
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 05:48 AM

Gentlemen, both of you, if there is common ground, PLEASE find it. I'm going bald.

Kendall (Morse) said at one point while discussing a situation that he'd had the same axe for most of his life. It had had two new heads and four new handles.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 06:04 AM

999, Jim and Lox lie about me to stand up the slander that I am some racist.
What would you have me do Bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 06:10 AM

Keith, if it were up to me, which it isn't, I would have you both come to a pub--we call 'em bars in canada--and drink a few beers, because you two are just fighting now and not communicating. You are not a racist; Lox is not an unreasonable man. It's just that in the heat of argument, you two guys can push each other's buttons. That's the way I see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 06:16 AM

Well keith, I suggest you start reading the evidence you post.

None of it supports yur hypothesis and most of it explicitly contradicts it ...

... that is of course unless you wilfully misrepresent it.


You're only angry because you aren't used to having your position so convincingly torn to pieces.

In this case it is especially embarrassing as the methodical stripping away of your 'reasonable' facade has revealed an obsession for slandering pakistanis.

Getting grumpy won't change that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:08 AM

No Lox.
I am angry because you told blatant lies about me to make me look racist.
That would make anyone angry.

My "position" is that there is an over-representation of BPs in on-street grooming by gangs.
That position has hardly been torn to shreds.
You denials have.
That does not make me angry.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:14 AM

No Keith - That is merely an assertyion you have made to support an earlier position; that while most pakistanis are able to overcome their cultural predisposition to rape, some are just too weak - hence these crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:26 AM

No Lox, that is an explanation for the over-representation.
No explanation has been offered other than the one I reported.
(It is not from me.)

Now what were the words I put in her mouth, and the bs I made up?
It was just a lie, right?
A lie to discredit.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:55 AM

I detest lies and liars Lox.
My position is just that there is an over-representation, and there is copious evidence for that.

You have been unable to produce any evidence against the over-representation.
All you can do is make up lies about me and slander me.
That is all you have.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 08:59 AM

"I detest lies and liars Lox."
Don't be so hard on yourself Keith!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 10:49 AM

What a cheap comment, especially from you Jim.

If I were the worlds greatest liar, I would not need to stray from the truth to show that there is an over-representation.

But you have no truthful way to deny it.

You still do, just because it offends your prejudice and preconceptions to accept the fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 11:37 AM

Keith,
You appear to reserve the right to call others 'liar' yet throw your rattle out of the pram when the compliment is returned.
You continue to paint a revoltingly distorted picture of British Pakistanis, hiding behind an unanswerable out-of-context question in order to do so, as has been pointed out to you from early in this debate.
You distort your own evidence to make it appear to back up your revolting image.
On a thread dealing with the persecution of homosexuals you have described Africans and immigrants as disease carriers, and questioned that the latter receive medical attention, should they need it - then totally deny you have suggested it, even though the evidence is freely available in your first dozen postings on the 'death for homosexuality' thread.
Having had a quick peep through past threads of yours, particularly the 'Are there too many immgarants" one you started, it is plain that you have an agenda.
You have lied and distorted and appear not to possess the intelligence to cover your own tracks.
Head between the knees - deep breaths....
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 01:24 PM

I don't give monkeys if Keith calls me a Liar.

He still hasn't grasped the concept that the one who provides the hypothesis bears the responsibility of providing evidence.

If he can't provide the evidence then his hypothesis is groundless.

If, in addition to this, there is unbviased evidence that contradicts his hypothesis, then he looks like he is either biased himself or a moron.

There is plenty of evidence to support both hypotheses.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 02:35 PM

Lox and Jim.
Your position was that there is NO over-representation.
You have found no evidence to support you, because there is none.
A mountain of evidence has been supplied that there is an over-representation.

BUT YOU STILL THINK YOU ARE RIGHT!
WHY?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 03:00 PM

Jim there has never been a thread with the title you put in quotes.
Mistake or another lie Jim.

I did start one "UK immigration too high"

here is my OP.

Back on the BNP thread there was talk of dicussing immigration rather than just BNP.

I think we all know what BNP stand for, so let's leave them out of it.

Let's ignore trolling guests who will try to cause friction.

I think that immigration levels in recent years give cause for legitimate concerns. Does anyone else have any concerns (excluding, please, racial ones)?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 03:03 PM

"Your position was that there is NO over-representation."
No it wasn't, the point was nobody here is in the position to judge what and why without details we have not been given - which you don't have or you would have produced them long ago.
Your point was that grooming and raping was an exclusively Pakistani crime seems to have galloped off into the sunset - can we now accept that this is a load of bollocks?
Your 'city and town wide' now seems to have been reduced to 'town' only - can we also accept that this was a fabrication on your part?
Also mysteriously disapeared is you hurt "how dare you call me a liar sir" tone - has that been submerged by the backwash of your own porkies?
You have used your 'women as meat' phrase around fifteen times on this thread; despite the fact that this attittude to women is deeply ingrained in British society and can be encountered daily in our tabloid press, strip joints, the internet... wherever the male animal lurks - yet you insist on making it a Pakistani crime - perhaps because they are not as we?
So far your 'mountain of evidence' has been found to be riddled with man-made caverns.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 04:13 PM

I can think of around a dozen derogatory terms in the English language for a promiscuous woman - slag, slapper, whore, boot, knocking piece, snail.... etc, yet I can't think of one for her male counterpart - can anyone help?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 04:21 PM

You call me liar, but you can not put up a single lie.
What does that make you?
I can put up your lies, the latest being Lox who said I put words into Emma's mouth and made up things she did not say.
Lies.

It has not been said that women were easy meat.
It has been said that children were easy meat, compared to women.

I think there is an over representation of BPs, in on-street grooming by groups, at least in the towns and cities of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Greater Manchester and the Midlands.

You deny it.

Evidence that in those towns and cities it is mainly done by BPs.

Jack Straw spoke about his own personal experience and contact with victims.
The Dando Institue report on On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that has resulted in at least two follow up studies of On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that found 95% BP perpetrators.
Ann Cryer said she had the same experience in her constituency.
Hilary Wilmer with her hundreds of cases, all BPs.
She corroborates all the previous.
Senior police officers, serving and retired.
Shafiq, Allibhai-Brown and Ahmed all tell the same story from BP perspective, and it corroborates all that has gone before.
Hindu and Sikh organisation who report hundreds of their girls have been victims too.
Perpetrators, all BPs

Your evidence of non BP involvement.
Er,......NONE.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 05:07 PM

What the **** are these
Edited text, false identity, refuting the black-and-white fact that you think emigrants are disease carriers who should be deprived of medical treatment - Plain to everybody but you.
"Evidence that in those towns and cities it is mainly done by BPs."
Back to Towns and cities now - we've laid that one to bed ages ago WE HAVE NO IDEA OF THE AREA COVERED AND THE NUMBERS INVOLVED - you me Jack Straw (in his edited or unedited text)
Piss off Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 05:19 PM

I think there is an over representation of BPs, in on-street grooming by groups, at least in the towns and cities of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Greater Manchester and the Midlands.

You deny it.

There is a mountain of evidence FOR an over-representaion.
There is non against it.

What is your case?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 05:27 PM

When I entered this bare-knuckle fight, it was with anxiety. I persisted with anxiety, because I think it matters that people notice the stories of these girls currently being abused.

I'm still unconvinced that the political left are less interested in the abuse of these young women, than they are in an ideological position in opposition to racism.

Jim, Lox etc. I think you are good people, but I'm going to have to step out of this discussion for personal reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 05:45 PM

Duh ...

Yeah thats right Keith ...

... I saw the data and I thought I'd form a hypothesis concerning which specific demographic ISN'T represented.

What a ridiculous notion!

You don't need a satirist to lampoon you, you are your own parody.

YOUR hypothesis is unsupported. It is based on perceived cultural distinctions, in turn based on race.

Are you ready to spend aanother month defending it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 01:12 AM

No I am not Lox.
There is overwhelming evidence for an over-representation.
Against it there is none, but you still deny.

That is not rational, just ideological, and I leave you to it.

I have reported an explanation for the over-representation.
It has nothing to do with me, and no other has emerged.

Why do you keep on about it?
You claim there is nothing to explain!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 04:26 AM

"I think it matters that people notice the stories of these girls currently being abused."
I could not agree more Lively, but I think it totally unacceptable that anybody should cynically use the fate of these girls to let forth a torrent of bilious hate against an immigrant community that is largely regarded as law-abiding, innoffensive and industrious, even to the extent of presenting distorted 'facts'.
Keith has a track record on race - which he continues to lie about, despite the fact that it is there for all to see.
That he is not the sharpest knife in the box is beyond question; he was even stupid enough to plant a snide attack on people opposing his line on a thread containing one of his more disgusting racist suggestions.
It does not help these girls, the communities under attack or Britain's reputation as a whole, to make racist points on the backs of raped children - that is as low as I've ever seen anyone sink.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 04:34 AM

There has been no "bilious hate" from anyone on this thread.
All you have is lies.
No evidence.

There is an over-representation.
I have provided overwhelming evidence.
Your response is a knee jerk denial, backed up only by lies.
Not a scrap of evidence.

You would rather put out your own eyes than see the evidence that you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 05:18 AM

I started a thread about child slavery recently as I was curious to find out where I could buy fair trade clothing from developing countries and do something about it.

Guess who showed interest and who didn't .....


Keith, Ake etc have not suggested one possible solution to the problems of child abuse or the trafficking of minors and non minors.

Ake came on here to make some irrelevant crowing point about the human rights act, and keith jumped in to suppport him.

Their concern is not with children or other victims of sex slavery, but with Moslems and other minorities.


The thread title is not about child exploitation, but about moslem prejudice.

In the context of that subject, Keith is trying to prove that Pakistanis are predisposed to rape and only restrain themselves from committing it with great willpower.


If he were serious about the kids, he would be talking about solutions to that probllem and wouldn't have spent the last two months trying to prove his racist hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 05:42 AM

Jim Carroll did not show up on your thread Lox.
Neither did Cobra, or Steve, or Stringsinger.
999 did though.

My partner's daughter worked with Muslim street children in Senegal.
She maintains contact with the school, and we all support it through her.

The street grooming story was a major news event.
It got picked up here, as you would expect.
I got drawn in, after you did Lox.

There is an over-representation.
I have provided overwhelming evidence.
Your response is a knee jerk denial, backed up only by lies.
Not a scrap of evidence.

You would rather put out your own eyes than see the evidence that you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 05:58 AM

"All you have is lies."
All I have is the evidence of my eyes which I have brought to your attention and you continue to ignore.
This is a little like dealing with a retarded child - sorry, I'm not qualified for this.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 06:32 AM

Yeah Keith,

I got drawn in by the title which was about Moslemn Prejudice.

I anticipated that the subject would be Moslem Prejudice.

Guess what - it was about Moslem Prejudice.


Various excuses were given to justify Moslem Prejudice.


I decided to scrutinize them.


You were drawn into the same thread with the same title with the same subject.


You came on to support more than one of the excuses for moslem prejudice.

Your particular favourite is the view that Pakistanis are closet Paedos

You have been fighting your corner to defend this idea for two months.


If your concern was child welfare, you would be involved on child welfare threads.


Jim, etc are not on here selling lies about Moslems or Pakistanis.

They have exposed problems with these lies though.

But you don't care.

You are the main champion of Moslem prejudice on this thread.

Hurray for Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 06:36 AM

How do your eyes make you so certain that there is no over-representation?
Do you see large numbers of others engaged in on-street grooming?

No, it is your prejudice and preconceptions that stop you seeing the truth.

IT CAN'T BE TRUE.
IT JUST CAN'T!
AND YOU MUST BE A RACIST!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 07:00 AM

uh oh ...

... keiths turned into a malfunctioning stepford wife!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 07:01 AM

Lox, you started discussing street grooming two days before I switched from the original discussion.
How does that make me a bad person?

Me being a bad person is the start and finish of your case.

There is an over-representation.
I have provided overwhelming evidence.
Your response is a knee jerk denial, backed up only by lies.
Not a scrap of evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 07:05 AM

"Lox, you started discussing street grooming two days before I switched from the original discussion."

What are you on about?

We both got drawn into the same discussion.


I got involved because it is racist slander.

You got involved to prop up that racial slander.


The person who initiated it is sitting on the special bus waving his little flag for his hero (you).


You joined this topic to support it.

Your choice ...

... still .... for two months!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 07:20 AM

Because the over-representation is true Lox.
That is not my fault.
I wish it were not true.
There is an over-representation and denying it will not make it go away.
Neither will calling me racist, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 08:11 AM

"There is an over-representation and denying it will not make it go away."

There might be, but then there might also be brussels sprouts growing in the queens ears.

You and I have no evidence of either.

You just have more allegations than me.

If you went to an edl meting you would find hundreds more allegations saying the same thing.

You could waalk the length and breadth of the land and you would find nobody saying "I allege that Pakistanis are not overrepresented in street grooming"

Because it would be an absurd thing to go round cclaiming something isn't true when no evidence has been presented to confirm the suggestion that it is true.


having more aallegations than me does not furnisgh you with a "mountain of evidence", just with a mountain of allegations.


Your hypothesis has no evidence to support it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 08:44 AM

Lox, this abuse has been going on for years.
If there were no over-representation, only a small minority of perpetrators would be BPs.

You can find no evidence of significant numbers of non BPs doing it.
There is none.
There are mountains of evidence that BPs are the overwhelming majority of offenders.

There is a massive over-representation.
Sorry if it offends you.
I do not like it either.
Why keep denying it?

IT CAN'T BE TRUE!
IT JUST CAN'T.
YOU MUST BE A RACIST!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 08:48 AM

"There are mountains of evidence that BPs are the overwhelming majority of offenders."


Where?

The opinions of politicians?

The hunches of police officers?

The reports from Helen Wilmer about allegations?


What else have you got Keith ... come on give us the evidence or shut up.


Bear in mind that Barnardos, the Dando instutute and Derby safe and sound all give evidence that Opposes your position explicitly.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 09:08 AM

This is a little like dealing with a retarded child -

No, its a LOT like it, a fact that has been obvious since about 21 January or thereabouts.

Yet there are 1600 posts since then.

In God's name, WHY???

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 09:11 AM

"Bear in mind that Barnardos, the Dando instutute and Derby safe and sound all give evidence that Opposes your position explicitly"

Not true Lox .
And, Narey of Barnados stated that there was an over-representation.

Evidence that in those towns and cities it is mainly done by BPs.

Jack Straw spoke about his own personal experience and contact with victims.
The Dando Institue report on On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that has resulted in at least two follow up studies of On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that found 95% BP perpetrators.
Ann Cryer said she had the same experience in her constituency.
Hilary Wilmer with her hundreds of cases, all BPs.
She corroborates all the previous.
Senior police officers, serving and retired.
Shafiq, Allibhai-Brown and Ahmed all tell the same story from BP perspective, and it corroborates all that has gone before.
Hindu and Sikh organisation who report hundreds of their girls have been victims too.
Perpetrators, all BPs

Your evidence of non BP involvement.
Er,......NONE.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 10:12 AM

Keith it isn't evidence.

It isn't even unsworn testimony.

It is reports of allegations.

The problem here is that you don't know the difference - or lie to yourself about it.

One or the other, it doesn't matter.

You still have no evidence.

You are like a Banker creating derivatives based on a sub prime security.

It all looks very goood as long as the security is real, but it isn't.

It looks real, but when the debt is called in, or in your case when the evidence is checked, it all falls down.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 12:44 PM

"Baroness Warsi, co-chairman of the Tory Party, will warn against dividing Muslims into moderates and extremists."

Why not also warn against dividing Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Name your religion here ___________into moderates and extremists?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 02:42 PM

Lox, it is evidence, however much you deny it.
Wilmer's victims for instance.
Hundreds of them, like Emma, telling what was done to them and by whom.
You tried to undermine Emma's testimony, and you refuse to accept what all these raped children say.
I call it evidence, not allegations.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 29 Mar 11 - 05:11 PM

"You tried to undermine Emma's testimony, and you refuse to accept what all these raped children say."

No keith,

I read it and actually paid attention to what she said. It was very illuminating.

It stands as an account of her experience and I find the things she went through shocking and upsetting.

Her experience is a piece of the jigsaw that will allow us to get a clearer picture of what has being going on.

Her cultural analysis of Pakistani psychology on the other hand is not evidence, it is the opinion of a non psychologist whose experience of Pakistanis is limited to trauma suffered att the hands of a violent organized trafficking and prostitution gang.


As for "all these raped children" - where is their testimony keith? When are you ging to provide it? ... you've heard it exists, but thats all. You have heard about it. You don't know what 'it' actually is, or even if it exists at all.

So your imagination is filling in the gaps.

So that you can support your racist hypothesis.


How much longer Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 01:07 AM

Hilary Wilmer says of her hundreds of victims, that all the perpetrators are BPs.
"Reading the terrible accounts given to CROP by parents and daughters..."

The stories brought to CROP by heartbroken parents are individual, but certain generalisations can be made. "What parents tend to notice at first is that their child is acting differently â€" she becomes secretive, aggressive, rebellious, staying out late or disappearing overnight.




"At the beginning we worked on the assumption that girls were groomed by individual pimps, but later discovered widespread pimping networks, much like international people trafficking gangs. Shopping malls, games arcades, places around takeaways and parks are common meeting places.




"The girl (who's typically aged between 13 and 16, but can be only 11 or 12) may meet the man alone, or be introduced by a friend who already knows him. He is usually quite a lot older and good looking, well-dressed and may well have a fast car. He'll meet her regularly, shower her with gifts, give her drink and maybe also drugs, take her for rides, tell her how special she is. He may have sex with her, but not at first, and he will discourage her from telling her parents about him because "they wouldn't understand".




"At some point further down the line he will take her to a flat or down an alley and tell her that in return for all the things he has done for her, it's payback time and she has to do something for him. She will then probably be gang raped. She will be confused, weak, think she's in love with the pimp, but also feel ashamed and guilty. She goes home and takes it out on her family and also drops out of education."




The story of an individual girl's ordeal comes to light either after she has some sort of breakdown or her parents find enough clues to piece some of the story together, confront their child and go to the police. Girls' reluctance to turn to their families earlier on in this desperate chain of events is commonly attributed to fear â€" threats of serious harm to parents, siblings and home (as well as drug or alcohol dependence) are used to keep the girl in line.




Reading the terrible accounts given to CROP by parents and daughters, it's clear that the men involved brainwash girls who are still


physically, psychologically and legally children into believing they have no choice but to go on being regularly and systematically raped by men who pay her "boyfriend".




After the truth comes to light, difficulty in providing evidence is why so few men have been convicted of rape or sexual exploitation. Usually a man will either flatly deny sex happened, or say "she agreed to it, and told me she was 17".




CROP hosts twice-yearly networking days, where parents can meet and share their experiences. A common tale is that social workers and other agencies assume that these crimes only happen with children from dysfunctional families. "Not true," says Hilary. "I've seen it happen in every kind of family you can think of."




Securing a prosecution is a near-impossible task, it seems, and some police forces spend little effort on time-consuming specialist sexual exploitation investigations. But successes for CROP include the tightening of legislation to make grooming an offence carrying a sentence of up to 14 years.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/features/hilary_s_drive_to_protect_young_people_1_2583232?action=logout

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 01:12 AM

I need drugs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 01:16 AM

Research by the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping (CROP) found girls are drawn in with flattery and the promise of excitement before later being exposed to drugs, alcohol and criminal acts.


Sometimes it is boys of a similar age, even in the same class at school, who are used to make the initial approach with the victim believing they have genuine romantic intentions.


But as the girls become more entangled in the criminal world their control is gradually passed to senior members of the network.


CROP chairwoman Hilary Willmer said: "In some cases this can be a family business, whether that is immediate family or extended family. The girl is approached by a younger member then introduced to an older cousin or brother, then it's payback time.


"If you come out of school and are picked up in a flashy car and given a mobile phone that's glamorous. They are isolated from family and friends until they are completely under the influence of this person who they think is wonderful.


"People always believe it couldn't happen to them but the families we work with are normal and come from right across the spectrum."


The research was unveiled at a CROP conference held in Leeds yesterday attended by victims' parents, police and a Government Minister.


It suggests parents often do not realise the danger until too late while police and social services find it difficult to distinguish between the early stages of grooming and normal teenage courtship behaviour.


The group called for an end to presumptions that things like this only happened to dysfunctional families and argued more specialist police officers were needed to deal with these cases.


One of the victims' mothers, who asked not to be named, said her daughter was 13 when she was first picked up by an older man outside her school. She soon began truanting and going missing for increasingly long periods of time.


The girl started shoplifting and experimenting with a variety of illegal drugs, eventually overdosing. At the age of 16, she left home and ended up living in a flat in London being used as a prostitute.


Her mother said: "These men are still around and doing the same thing. I have seen them where I shop buying cigarettes for kids. That is the thing that really riles me."
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/yorkshire_schoolgirls_at_risk_from_pimping_gangs_1_2589953

And your case rests on all these young and very young (11years old!) victims of violent gang rape over and over, ARE LYING!

I BELIEVE THEM.
HOW CAN A DECENT PERSON NOT HEAR THEIR CRIES?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 01:35 AM

999, Again you express exasperation after one of my posts.
I was replying to this.
"As for "all these raped children" - where is their testimony keith? When are you ging to provide it? ... you've heard it exists, but thats all. You have heard about it. You don't know what 'it' actually is, or even if it exists at all."

No one has to read this stuff.
It is unpleasant to think about children being raped.
When someone like Lox denies it is even happening, I feel it is right to provide the evidence that it is.

Why is that so wrong 999?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 02:05 AM

My apologies, Keith. Please write it off to a lack of drugs. I was just being a wise-ass, and the variant juxtapositions of my posts and yours is simply a factor of chance. If it becomes more than six out of six, I'll go wear sack cloth and when it reaches seven out of seven, ashes.

When next I do show up to say something as senseless as most of the last five million six hundred thousand three hundred and twenty nine written testaments to both the endurance of people with patience and people who are gonna go off their fucking rockers if you two guys keep saying the same thing not realizing that Churchill was correct in his observation that 'a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject', then and only then will I relent and admit to a dislike of you. I do NOT dislike you at all. Nor do I dislike Lox. I need drugs. If you were me, having read this whole fucking thread, you'd need 'em too.

No offense to both of you. And neither of you either.

I just read what I wrote, and as humour I'd give it 7 on 10. As a prayer, it's priceless, jus' like Master Card. Don't leave home without it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 02:46 AM

I wish to say one--maybe two or three last things. Keith has been maliciously attacked on this thread and I don't agree with the attacks. I know him, and he's a good person. I refuse to win an argument at all costs.

There is a perspective we all are missing, imo. IF we are the kind of people we want to be or pretend to be, we must see what we have done to a man whose opinion differs from our own. It brings no one honour to win a gang fight. I feel sordid about my role in this.

Keith, let's quit the thread. There are no winners left here. I am ashamed of myself, and I hope you'll find it in yourself to forgive me.

I have attempted to make humour of a serious situation. Fact is it ain't funny. I no longer know who is right or wrong in the argument. I DO know I ain't right in what I've done. Even if Keith is wrong, or Lox is wrong, I know I am not right. I can be an asshole at times, and I have proven it true on this thread.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 03:31 AM

And here is the continuing saga of the Thoughts of Chairman Keith, with his picture of everyday British Pakistani life.
Not sure how long I am going to be able to continue doing this; the sheer size (or maybe the nature of the content) is beginning to freeze up my screen.
Jim Carroll

Chapter 6
I have not made my case on statistics, but on the testimony of reputable people whose work brings them into contact with this crime and its pitiful victims. They all say the perpetrators are BPs
The misuse of young childrens' lives by subjecting them to multiple rape.
These people especially target children in the care system.
They are more susceptible to the lure of faked affection.
Orphans. The easiest of easy meat.
hundreds of children, in a large area of Northern England, raped by members of a minority group,
Those who claim that this is mainly a crime of BPs, are the hundreds of children who have been violently gang raped by them.
A large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.
It is just that we happened to be discussing this crime, i.e. on-street grooming of children by groups.
A large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.
Grooming involves getting close to them.
Many don't, and those in care have no families anyway.
"the tip of the iceberg."
hundreds of families who turned to her, ALL the abusers were BPs.
large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.
Hundreds of children alleged they had been groomed and raped by BPs,
those convicted of this (non existent) crime were nearly all BPs.
having their young lives devastated
"on-street grooming", where young girls, spotted outside, including at the school gates, have become targets,....
This would be the anecdotes of many hundreds of groomed and raped children describing their rapists.
Many of the victims were in care,
The only evidence so far produced on street grooming by groups is from the Midlands and the North, and is all BPs
The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim.
the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men.
victims were typically white girls while 'most central offenders are Pakistani'.
They were criminal gangs of street groomers, pimps and child rapists who happen to all come from the BP community.
The offenders were not viewed as paedophiles but had picked the girls 'because of their malleability'.
It is suggested they go for children because they are easy meat.
The grooming in public places would not look suspicious, especially if teenage boys were used as bait.
The pimping and raping was done behind closed doors.
We have heard the techniques used to discourage the girls from talking, and how difficult it was to get them to stand up in court.
SHE WAS A CHILD VICTIM OF RAPE.
A mountain of evidence has been supplied that there is an over-representation.
I think there is an over representation of BPs, in on-street grooming by groups, at least in the towns and cities of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, Greater Manchester and the Midlands.
There is a mountain of evidence FOR an over-representaion. There is non against it.
this abuse has been going on for years.
"What parents tend to notice at first is that their child is acting differently " she becomes secretive, aggressive, rebellious, staying out late or disappearing overnight.
"At the beginning we worked on the assumption that girls were groomed by individual pimps, but later discovered widespread pimping networks, much like international people trafficking gangs. Shopping malls, games arcades, places around takeaways and parks are common meeting places.
"The girl (who's typically aged between 13 and 16, but can be only 11 or 12) may meet the man alone, or be introduced by a friend who already knows him. He is usually quite a lot older and good looking, well-dressed and may well have a fast car. He'll meet her regularly, shower her with gifts, give her drink and maybe also drugs, take her for rides, tell her how special she is. He may have sex with her, but not at first, and he will discourage her from telling her parents about him because "they wouldn't understand".
"At some point further down the line he will take her to a flat or down an alley and tell her that in return for all the things he has done for her, it's payback time and she has to do something for him. She will then probably be gang raped. She will be confused, weak, think she's in love with the pimp, but also feel ashamed and guilty. She goes home and takes it out on her family and also drops out of education."
The story of an individual girl's ordeal comes to light either after she has some sort of breakdown or her parents find enough clues to piece some of the story together, confront their child and go to the police. Girls' reluctance to turn to their families earlier on in this desperate chain of events is commonly attributed to fear" threats of serious harm to parents, siblings and home (as well as drug or alcohol dependence) are used to keep the girl in line.
Reading the terrible accounts given to CROP by parents and daughters, it's clear that the men involved brainwash girls who are still
physically, psychologically and legally children into believing they have no choice but to go on being regularly and systematically raped by men who pay her "boyfriend".
After the truth comes to light, difficulty in providing evidence is why so few men have been convicted of rape or sexual exploitation. Usually a man will either flatly deny sex happened, or say "she agreed to it, and told me she was 17".
CROP hosts twice-yearly networking days, where parents can meet and share their experiences. A common tale is that social workers and other agencies assume that these crimes only happen with children from dysfunctional families. "Not true," says Hilary. "I've seen it happen in every kind of family you can think of."
Securing a prosecution is a near-impossible task, it seems, and some police forces spend little effort on time-consuming specialist sexual exploitation investigations. But successes for CROP include the tightening of legislation to make grooming an offence carrying a sentence of up to 14 years.
found girls are drawn in with flattery and the promise of excitement before later being exposed to drugs, alcohol and criminal acts.
Sometimes it is boys of a similar age, even in the same class at school, who are used to make the initial approach with the victim believing they have genuine romantic intentions.
But as the girls become more entangled in the criminal world their control is gradually passed to senior members of the network.
CROP chairwoman Hilary Willmer said: "In some cases this can be a family business, whether that is immediate family or extended family. The girl is approached by a younger member then introduced to an older cousin or brother, then it's payback time.
"If you come out of school and are picked up in a flashy car and given a mobile phone that's glamorous. They are isolated from family and friends until they are completely under the influence of this person who they think is wonderful.
"People always believe it couldn't happen to them but the families we work with are normal and come from right across the spectrum."
It suggests parents often do not realise the danger until too late while police and social services find it difficult to distinguish between the early stages of grooming and normal teenage courtship behaviour.
The group called for an end to presumptions that things like this only happened to dysfunctional families and argued more specialist police officers were needed to deal with these cases.
One of the victims' mothers, who asked not to be named, said her daughter was 13 when she was first picked up by an older man outside her school. She soon began truanting and going missing for increasingly long periods of time.
The girl started shoplifting and experimenting with a variety of illegal drugs, eventually overdosing. At the age of 16, she left home and ended up living in a flat in London being used as a prostitute.
Her mother said: "These men are still around and doing the same thing. I have seen them where I shop buying cigarettes for kids. That is the thing that really riles me."

And not forgetting
I HAVE PAINTED NO DEPLORABLE PICTURE.
I HAVE NEVER, NEVER, EVER SAID IT WAS TO DO WITH RACE.
THERE HAS BEEN NO "BILIOUS HATE" FROM ANYONE ON THIS THREAD.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 03:49 AM

That does not excuse us us--well, it doesn't excuse me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 03:53 AM

"Keith has been maliciously attacked on this thread and I don't agree with the attacks."
This posting bears remarkable similarities to Keith's forged post of yesteryear.
I would not suggest in a million years that even Keith would be so stupid as to repeat his forgery stunt, but I do find such a 'Road to Damascus' conversion extremely suspicious, especially in the light of:
"I know him, and he's a good person."
To me it reads as a rather crude 'dirty tricks campaign' designed to help Keith let go of the tiger's tail.
Of course - it alters nothing - Keith's racist 'War and Peace' stands as a monument to his views on British Pakistani life and culture, and past threads set out his general view on immigrants generally, pretty clearly.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Smedley
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 04:08 AM

This thread is about important topics. Their importance has sadly become secondary to an attritional sniping war. The chances of one 'side' convincing the other are as likely as elephants learning to ice skate. And so many of the posts are so looooooooooooooooooong - I have no idea of how you lot can bear to type such lengthy chunks of text.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 04:08 AM

Jim,

You have an opinion. I would guess the Road to Damascus remark is a reference to JC. I am, however, not in debt to the way you feel. I AM in debt to my own conscience. With that, I must say goodnight. It's 4:04 am here, and I'm not inspired enough or pissed off enough to argue with you at this early (late) hour.

Gang rape is NOT a minor social deviation, and I do not care what the reasons are for it. I just know that even if the rapee is wrong, it ain't right to exact a revenge such as this.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 04:11 AM

Can I just add that personally I find this intervention extremely welcome if it helps close down this vile thread which, had it not been on an internet forum, would have been closed right at the beginning on legal grounds as an incitement to racial hatred.
Good riddance - and perhaps forum organisers and adjudicators can take note for future reference.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 04:32 AM

This exact debate was also had in the national and international media in the days and weeks after Straw and Dando.

The ethnicity of the child rapists is irrelevant.
Race mattered not at all to Wilmer.
She just treated it as a criminal issue and did not think it worth mentioning that all the perpetrators in her hundreds of cases happened to be BPs.

Straw made it an issue, by declaring it and offering an explanation.
The over-representation is a fact.
Perhaps it was not worth challenging those who have to deny it for their ideological agendas.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 05:17 AM

"This exact debate was also had in the national and international media in the days and weeks after Straw and Dando."
It most certainly was not - if you can indicate the texts of ANY DEBATE THAT PRODUCED THIS AMOUNT OF ABUSIVE AND UNFOUNDED FILTH, AIMED AT ANY RACIAL OR CULTURAL GROUP IN BRITAIN to the extent you have produced it here, please feel free to do so.
This is the stuff British National Party meetings - safely closeted behind closed doors - are made of.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 07:46 AM

"ABUSIVE AND UNFOUNDED FILTH, AIMED AT ANY RACIAL OR CULTURAL GROUP IN BRITAIN "

No one has posted such.
You must be deranged.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 07:56 AM

Read your own posts - perhaps you can use them as notes next time you address one of your rallys
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 08:03 AM

I have posted nothing "ABUSIVE" and nothing "UNFOUNDED" and no "FILTH"

You have been abusive, and you have posted things that are untrue.
Two out of three Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 12:14 PM

"Can I just add that personally I find this intervention extremely welcome if it helps close down this vile thread"

I have to say that's pretty rich coming, as it does, from one of those mostly responsible for keeping it going. If The Gang Of Three - Keith, Lox and Jim - had stopped repeating their personal dogmas over and over and over again, and accepted that we don't all think the same, it wouldn't have needed "closing down" - it would have died a natural death two months ago.

And some of the abusive language ('Racist', 'Bigot', 'Liar',), ageist abuse of elderly members, and vile, disgusting comments which are offensive to sufferers of life-threatening bowel disease, might have been avoided.

It's not just abuse of Muslims that's wrong. Abuse in any form is equally wrong, and as much of the abuse on this thread has come from the Holier-Than-Thou-Moral-High-Ground-Takers as from those being accused of Racism, Bigotry and Lies.

Sorry Jim, I don't side with anyone in this sorry excuse for a thread and I wouldn't deign to express an opinion on the subject-matter, but whilst I have respect for your you and your opinions, I find your comment above rather akin to someone who lives in a glasshouse throwing bricks about.

But I agree, it is a vile thread. Lets hope this is the final post (though I somehow doubt it will be).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 12:51 PM

Sorry Backwoodsman - can't think of any other way to respond to racicism - not when it comes in this size and form.
As I said, if it had happened anywhere else other than the internet, the culprit/s would be facing incitement to race hatred charges.
You can decide for yourself who and who has not overstated their case, but racism is a subject I refuse to be neutral about.
I'm gone!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 02:08 PM

I understand your hatred of racism Jim, I support you in that and I respect you for standing against it. But this wasn't a discussion, there was no attempt to listen, to understand or reconcile, it was just a shit-slinging contest, and the main contributors have not covered themselves in glory, just the faecal matter that they've tried to smear on their opponents.

And that's borne out by the marked absence of other posters - who in their right mind would want to join any thread where expression of an opinion that differs from that of a small minority lays one open to some of the foul things that have been written on here (many by people who claim to be "better" than that)?

An argument against abuse cannot be won by abuse.

My final words. Good health Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 02:35 PM

There has been much talk of differing opinions.
I have not been expressing opinions.
The over-representation is a matter of fact.
When that was denied, I supplied evidence for it, not opinions.

Had there been convincing evidence against, as a rational person I would have accepted it, but there was none.

Perhaps I should have let it go, but why can't it be discussed without abuse?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 02:38 PM

I'm outta here, too, pretty much for the reasons stated by Backwoodsman-and I mean no offense to ANYone.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 03:04 PM

""There are mountains of evidence that BPs are the overwhelming majority of offenders.""

In a moderate sized area centred on South Yorks, Derbyshire and the Midlands, and involving less than half the total number of British Pakistanis.

The remainder of that ethnic group show no such tendencies, particularly the 29 percent of the total number who live in Southern towns and cities.

Yet you feel justified in libelling the whole British Pakistani culture by your insistence that their culture predisposes them to Paedophilia a and Sex Trafficking.

You simply cannot justify that conclusion, unless you ignore more than half of all British Pakistanis.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 03:40 PM

"My final words. Good health Jim."
And my final words and likewise - good health B.
I have appealed a number of times that this thread be closed, to the accompaniment of Keith's sneers that we had "run out of ideas".
He persisted.
I was relieved when it disappeared off the rader.
He revived it and has continued to milk this particular cow as dry as the Sahara.
A personal word.
Following an incident in this town on St Patrick's Day we may or may not have just escaped the dire results of yet another "Let's get rid of all the 'nackers' (Traveller equivalent of 'niggers')" campaign. If this were to happen it will affect a number of people we know and like, including a considerable number of young children.
The townspeople have had their meeting (we were away) and we are at present waiting for the other shoe to hit the floor to learn the outcome.
The last time this happened here, a Traveller family burned out by a caravan fire, was driven out of a temporarily allocated house by townspeople chanting "Travellers out, residents in". The crunch came when one of the family was informed that if they insisted on hanging around they would soon be needing the assistance of the Fire Department again. The family spent their Christmas in a borrowed holiday touring caravan and makeshift tents on the Atlantic seafront; the youngest celebrated her first birthday in those surroundings.
For some people these little tete-a-tetes are more than after-dinner discussions where we express our disapproval by throwing our napkins across the table.
I can't remember offhand how much shorter the relative life-spans are between Taveller and buffer (settled person), but it is considerable in favour of the latter - a direct result of stereotyping and bigotry.
I apologise if I have overstated my case, but I can't promise it won't happen again.
Best to you all (or most of you)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 04:05 PM

"I apologise if I have overstated my case,"

S'OK Jim, I understand the anger behind it. It is true to say that racism is an ongoing problem in our culture. I would go so far as to say that racism is endemic in our culture, and even moreso, that casual racism is particularly commonplace in white working-class Britain, where a general undercurrent of racism is the norm.. Oopsy daisy, did I just do some racial profiling there? I think so, but somehow I doubt my friends (as I consider them, being a lefty myself) in the political left would expend much energy contending my opinion on that matter, despite the fact that I'm not a psychologist.

In any event, personally, and particularly in instances such as this where there are strong indications (strong enough for me, though that might make me a racist) of a distinct racial component in a particular pattern of criminal activity, I find any position which focuses it's efforts in setting itself against racism, perversely guilty of an equivalent prejudice. One which I feel, disregards the victims of such crime, in it's focus on a different perceived ideological enemy to the actual perpetrators of the crimes under discussion.

I guess I'm one of those Grolies of limited intelligence who care more about feely touchy nonsense than matters of Gradgrind style hard fact. This does not mean that I support the half dozen or so completely unsupported *opinions* cited by Keith as evidence for a hypothis that "in some magic way marrying ones cousin turns one into a compulsive nonce" (as you may have noticed, I thought the irony of one far right-wing blogger's summary dismissal of such a hypothesis, sufficiently amusing to post it here). However, as a supporter of freedom of speech, I feel it's his right to offer such a point of view, without discussion around it being (in my view) effectively suppressed through intimidating tactics of abuse.

In fact I think it's imperative if the far-right are not to gain far more propaganda victories out of this phenomena, than they already have.

Best wishes and adieu, yours of the limited intelligence

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 05:16 PM

Don,
"Yet you feel justified in libelling the whole British Pakistani culture by your insistence that their culture predisposes them to Paedophilia a and Sex Trafficking."

No I do not.
I just reported what others had proposed.
I said I had been convinced because of the stature of those people, and because no other explanation had emerged.
I will consider any alternative with an open mind.
Why does the explanation matter if you think there is nothing to explain?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 05:30 PM

An alternative view which in part echoes the opinion of "Emma" regards the possible role of culturally and religiously informed misogyny:

Independent on Sunday: Gender inequality, not race, fosters abuse

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 05:49 PM

""I said I had been convinced because of the stature of those people, and because no other explanation had emerged.""

Every time you are asked a question which you can't, or don't want to answer, you try to offload your oft repeated theories onto your "sources" so-called, all of whom have actually remained well short of reaching the same conclusion.

Answer the question! How do you justify a conclusion about a culture, based solely on cherry picking a minority of that culture, and ignoring the majority, which destroys your theory?

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 06:05 PM

PS my apologies for impotent moments of "Exeunt token grolie"
However, I get the impression that more than a couple of us have been subject to such fits of the vapours on this thread..

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 06:18 PM

Well done Keith,

You managed to cut and paste what Wilmer said.

I wonder if one day you will take the time to read it.

None of the stuff you have posted supports your hypothesis.

She realized after a while that these were not isolated cases (as you might expect if it were a cutlural problem, with Pakistani individuals succumbing to temptation as you claim)

No she states that they were organized pimping gangs, who were similar in nature to international trafficking gangs.

(yes we've been here before)

So not different in any way to gangs from other nationalities, but similar to international gangs.


The only person lying is Keith - he is lying about what the evidence is - let alone what can be deduced from it.

Still nothing to support your hypothesis keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 30 Mar 11 - 06:29 PM

How Keith Argues:

_____________________________________________________________


Here is evidence that the man in the moon is real.

Neil Armstrong says:

"Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon. July 1969 AD. We came in peace for all mankind."

If you disagree that this evidence proves my case, then it follows that you accuse him of LYING.

_____________________________________________________________


It doesn't concern Keith that the bit in quotes never addresses the matter of the Man in the Mooon at all - It has no bearing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 12:03 AM

Lox, Wilmer said that the gangs were all BPs.
She said that in january 2011 and was widely reported, including by The Guardian.
How am I responsible?

Don I keep saying it because it is the truth.
It has not changed.

That explanation was proposed by national figures, and people who are themselves BPs (Mohamed Shafiq) and among those some world famous anti racists. (Jasmin Allibhai-Brown and Lord Ahmed. Look them up.)

They were reported by the entire national media, but when I reported it here, I was excoriated as the devil incarnate for doing it.

It was blatant and groundless character assassination.
Shame on those who joined in with it.
Shame on those who read it and said nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 04:59 AM

No Keith - you really must do something abpout that alzheimers.

You didn't "just report it".

You waded in to support a racist hypothesis and you tthen added to that hypothesis by saying that Pakistanis are culturally predisposed to rape and only manage to avoid raping people through a great effort of will.

That isn't reporting, that is taking sides and statiing a subjective position.

Your later non evidentially supported claims aboout "hundreds" of girls is all merely an attempt to establish a solid foundation for your premise.

Unfortunately, all you have done is provide the opinions of people who agree with you, and some expert testimony that flatly contradicts you.

The only account from someone with experience provides no information about over or under representation and contains no information about pakistani culture.

Its all there in the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 05:10 AM

Lox,
Even in those northern counties, BPs are a minority.
Unless they are a minority in an offending group, they are over-represented.
Wilmer' hundreds of cases, all involving BPs, are sufficient alone to show an over-representation.
I regard that as proof, not just strong evidence.
You would have to claim she was lying.

Lox, before all this I knew nothing of BP culture.
I read that Straw, Cryer, Shafiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown all blame the culture for the over-representation.
Lively's latest link says the same.
Culture not race.
Why should that not be considered in this discussion?
What did I do wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 06:45 AM

"Lively's latest link says the same."

To be specific, this is what Joan Smith has to say in conclusion to her piece in the Independent:

"What these trials have exposed is a particularly nasty development in the commercial sex industry. Dozens of foreign sex-traffickers are serving sentences in British prisons for crimes against women from Eastern Europe, South-east Asia and Africa, and the spotlight on their crimes has diverted attention from internal traffickers. Now their activities have been exposed and the common factor is a misogyny that dehumanises women and very young girls.
Despite the protestations yesterday of Keith Vaz, chair of the home affairs select committee, cultural factors are hugely significant in such cases. Gender inequality facilitates abuse and that's what we need to focus on, not the irrelevant matter of race."

Of course it's worth making it clear that this is just one opinion piece by one feminist journalist, and as such it doesn't represent a sufficiently rigorous analysis of the subject matter, to be used in the defense of any concrete conclusions concerning the potential causes of this phenomenon.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 07:01 AM

Indeed Lively.
There could never be concrete conclusions.
It is a hypothesis, but one put forward independently by a number of people with knowledge of the culture, and from within that culture.
No alternative has yet been offered.
It is worthy of consideration.
(Unless you do not believe that anything needs explaining!)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 07:44 AM

Jim, prejudice seems to get targeted at communities and people who are misunderstood or mysterious and I bet if little green aliens did land here it wouldn't be long before someone came up with something derrogatory or nasty to cause friction.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 07:50 AM

"(Unless you do not believe that anything needs explaining!)"

I'm not denying that phenomena may require explaining, but I wouldn't presume that a personal opinion formed by me - or anyone else - on the basis of a handful of Google searches, was sufficient to usefully "explain" anything.

I believe that you, I or anyone else here should feel comfortable discussing difficult topics, expressing opinions on those topics, and offering their reasons for forming their opinions on those topics, but that's not quite the same as believing that any of us are in a sufficiently knowledgeable position to argue anything above or beyond "this is my opinion, and this is why I hold that opinion".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 07:53 AM

And if the green aliens themselves acknowledged that there was an issue?
This is not made up Patsy.
Hundreds of children really have been subjected to brutal gang rape, with all the consequences to their young lives that implies.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 09:41 AM

"prejudice seems to get targeted at communities and people who are misunderstood or mysterious"
That is very true Patsy; that is why society is forced to pass laws to pass laws to protect itself against igrorance and irrational hatred being used to attack 'strangers in our midst', pretty well as is happening here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 10:08 AM

Irrational hatred?
Nowhere on this thread Jim?
Only yours against me I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 11:19 AM

Congratulations Keith,
You have now reached your 535 posting to this thread (far, far in excess of any other contributor) on a subject you have admitted to knowing and possessing no experience about, and have offered not a single iota of analysis of your own - that has to be worthy of an entry in the Guinness Book of Records, surely!
Your entire input to this marathon thread has been a handful of cut-n-pastes, unanalysed by you and unjudgeable by the rest of us because we are not presented with the social context nor the background detail to which they refer. Any information that might have been helpful in reaching a conclusion (such as - that in the opinion of an ex Home Secretary, these crimes could in no way be linked to the race of the criminals and were rather the result of the behaviour of virile young men who could easily belong to any race or culture), were edited out by you in order not to get in the way of your own particular agenda.
We are presented, in the form of six pages of accusations and innuendo aimed directly at British Pakistanis and their way of life, with an hugely overstated picture of a genuine problem and asked to accept that the crimes we are presented are not the outcome of criminal behaviour but of a corrupt and debauched culture. I have no doubt that this will elicit yet another denial from you, but it really doesn't matter as the six pages are on view for all to see.
Whenever your (non)analysis has been challenged you have scurried behind your cut-n-pastes in an attempted to absolve yourself from your own projected agenda.
That is irrational hatred as far as I'm concerned; personally, I don't find hatred of racism in any way irrational.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 11:56 AM

Irrational Jim.
Not being at all racist, I have never made a racist post.
Nice to see you back though.
Have you noticed many changes since you left?
Nearly 24 hours.
(irrational)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 12:49 PM

Didn't think I'd get an answer to any of my points - but that might - just have required a little bit of analysis, wouldn't it.
How about a try - just for me!
"Have you noticed many changes since you left?"
Nope - you still appear to be in the minority of one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 12:57 PM

There was only one point, and I answered it.
I hate racism too.
I am glad you used your brief absence wisely.
Counting my posts!
(535)
Do you not think that a bit irrationally obsessive Jim?
As was pasting up 6 pages of my completely innocuous posts.
Or counting how many times I mentioned Straw. (43)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 02:38 PM

""It was blatant and groundless character assassination.
Shame on those who joined in with it.
Shame on those who read it and said nothing.""

I have not accused you of anything other than drawing a conclusion by ignoring significant evidence to the contrary, which is what you have done, and continue to do.

Unless you base your conclusions on the whole culture they simply are invalid.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 03:00 PM

"There was only one point, and I answered it."
No there wasn't and you answered none of them - and I'm not counting the ones others have asked you throughout the thread which you have dodged.
We do seem to be reaching one point of agreement though, that you are incapable of thinking outside of your cut-'n-paste box.
"Counting my posts!"
Took me as long as it takes to count up to 168 and subtract it from your total postings from your first posting on the subject in hand (certainly less than 4 minutes) - if you think it took longer you really should learn to use your computer!
"Do you not think that a bit irrationally obsessive Jim?"
Nope - 535 postings on a subject you admit you know nothing about is obsessive, 4 minutes is just diligent
"As was pasting up 6 pages...."n
Again, a diligent use of the search engine and it was done in no time at all - and certainly well worth the effort; it's not often that you see that much naked hatred and contempt gathered together in six posts, is it - bit difficult on the stomach though!
".....of my completely innocuous posts."
Innocuous - matter of opinon - I found depicting the British Pakistani people as cultrual paedophiles fairly revolting really - takes all sorts I suppose!!
"Or counting how many times I mentioned Straw. (43)"
Again - search engine and around three minutes - and wasn't it well worth it to witness the panic when you couldn't decide what excuse for editing what he had to say to stick with - I counted at least three - and when he dropped from number one to number ten in your hit parade.....magic - you don't get that with Mastercard!!
Certainly none of these took me anything like as long as it took you to find Straw's quote, read it (you must have read that one to edit out the awkward bits), and remove the contradictions.
I can see we're not going to get anywhere in asking you to read, digest and qualify you cut-'n-pastes - maybe later; perhaps when you've slept on it.....?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 03:20 PM

Don,
"I have not accused you of anything other than drawing a conclusion by ignoring significant evidence to the contrary, which is what you have done, and continue to do."

I am not aware of having ignored any evidence.
Do you mean evidence of the over-representation?
There is no evidence of significant numbers of other groups in this particular crime.
There surely are others involved, but BPs are disproportionately represented.
Do you mean the explanation?
The only evidence for that is the stature of those proposing it, and the absence of an alternative.
No evidence to ignore Don.

"Unless you base your conclusions on the whole culture they simply are invalid."
I have made no conclusions at all about the culture.
I have left that to people familiar with it, or actually part of it Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 03:38 PM

Jim, you are worryingly obsessive about Straw.
I will make it as clear as I can for you.
He made his statements on the BBC.
Here is the quote form their site.
" "But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men... who target vulnerable young white girls.

"We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way." "

That is him saying there is an over-representation.
There is corroboration from many other sources.

He goes on to say that it is not to do with race.
He says it is to do with the culture, in particular their own girls being off limits.
That is the hypothesis we have discussed.

He said loads of other stuff that I did not bother to paste up.
I did not mind you posting it at all, because it all supported me.

I am happy for you that you know some clever, technical tricks to pursue your obsession in less time than I feared.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Mar 11 - 11:59 PM

IMO Keith continues to be victimised. He has simply repeated the same facts as before (whose accuracy, as I have pointed out more than once previously, nobody in any of the wider communities involved has questioned), because they have been consistently met by irrelevancies widening the argument to alleged assertions he has not made about the whole Pakistani community.

Where,for instance, Jim, in all your pages and pages of cuttings from his posts, do you find the assertion, which you have repititively claimed to observe there, that tendency to rape is an invariable characteristic of that race which they have to resist? Hi-lite that/those specific quote[s] , please ~~ if you can find it/them. I still think, Jim, for all our mutual respect and usual online cordiality even in disagreement, previously favourably commented on above by BWM e.g., that an inaccurately suspected whiff of potential racism fills your ears with wax so that you don't hear what is actually being said. Keith's putative records of comment on other threads I still think of no evidential relevance here.

Lox too goes on & on accusing Keith consistently of saying things he hasn't said, & seems to have an odd view that if he wasn't there in person to see offences committed, he can't trust anyone else's word and so has no right to comment. {Mind, if anyone wants to know what Lox's assertions are worth, look again at some of the offensive and acknowledgedly vindictive ones he made of me a way upthread in explicit return for some imagined slights to him on other threads. He really revealed himself as a foolish & malevolent person. [Nobody is all bad, however: let me say here how impressed I have been by some of Lox's rare above-line most knowledgeable musical comments, e.g. on the B# thread; and how moved by some accounts there of a delightful relationship with his daughter]: pity, though, I repeat, about those many lapses, both in rational argument and in aggressive personal attacks!}

I hadn't meant to return to this thread; and I know that, like all who have turned it into such an interminable pain, I am just repeating what has been said before. But I just have this inalienable love of justice, which, I say yet again, I do not see Keith getting here from some whom I should have expected to know better.

Do, please, at least try to consider again what I have said here, which I firmly & sincerely believe to be the truth.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 01:36 AM

Michael, you calm, reasoned and rational post is like a breath of mountain air in the fetid atmosphere of this thread.
Thank you.

I do not think that hatred of racism stops them seeing what I really say.
I believe it is a personal vendetta against me for challenging their hobby horses old threads.

Jim sought to use my posting history against me, but it is blameless.
So he made up a racist sounding thread name, PUT IT IN QUOTES, and ascribed it to me.
Why else would anyone do that?

Of Emma's testimony of her abuse, Lox stated that I made up sh*t and put words in her mouth.
Why else would he do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 05:06 AM

Michael,
"Do, please, at least try to consider again what I have said here, which I firmly & sincerely believe to be the truth."
I too had no intention of re-joining this thread; I did so to respond to a comment by somebody else.
If you can't see the effect of the sheer weight of Keith's posts aimed scattergun fashion, sometimes at 'British Pakistanis', sometimes at 'BPs in northern towns and cities', bandying terms like "BPs are the overwhelming majority of offenders.", or "There are mountains of evidence that BPs are the overwhelming majority of offenders.", or "We can agree that Pakistanis are the majority offenders in Pakistani gangs"; and asking loaded questions like "Is this as a crime carried out by the majority of the Pakistani population in Britain?".... when you haven't specified your terms of reference, then one of us needs to visit Specsavers. As far as I am concerned, they become direct attacks on the culture as a whole, more so when they are repeated over and over and over and over and over again and especially when the blame has been firmly at the door of that culture almost from the outset.
I suggest you read those six pages over a couple of times slowly and ask yourself what the motive of a writer of such statements could possibly be. Of course he is not saying directly that all British Pakistanis are paedophiles, he daren't – it doesn't work like that and it doesn't have to; it's the drip – drip – drip effect that does the damage; something that Keith excels in.
I have suspected in the past, and now am left with no doubt whatever that Keith is a racist; that is plain from his contributions to the 'Death for homosexuality' and 'immigration' and other similar threads, which he takes seriously enough to deny he has said some of the things that are set down in black and white.
Nor do I have any doubt that he is dishonest and is prepared to manipulate 'evidence' to support his stance – a fact you passed off as a misdemeanour and didn't refer to again, and which he proffered three (or four) different and conflicting explanations for - obviously something we disagree over the significance of.. For me, that indicated not only prejudice, but also purpose in that prejudice
And don't get me started over his 'friend's' hilarious and sudden "I only done it 'cos of the drugs m'lud" conversion - move over Elmer Gantry, you've been seriously upstaged!!! - certainly one of the lighter moments of this dire discussion.
If Keith is a 'victim' he has chosen to be such by dominating this thread the way he has chosen to and by his persistently keeping it alive (approaching 540 postings now). I feel no guilt in victimising him; as far as I am concerned he has attempted to victimise a whole culture and its people.
I have no doubt Keith will take some comfort from your support and, knowing him of old, I hope you don't find yourself playing Sinbad to his 'Old Man of the Sea'. I have no doubt of your sincerity, but I really am out of this sewer - life is far too short and there's far too little of it left.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 05:13 AM

"life is far too short and there's far too little of it left"

Amen to that, Jim. Never a truer word spoken! <> :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Smedley
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 05:20 AM

OK, you can all admit it now - APRIL FOOL !!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 05:35 AM

I am no racist, and have never made a racist post.
Not on the "Death penalty..." thread or any other.
Make a liar of me and produce one Jim.
Why don't you?

The "friend" who posts as Guest 999 is actually a long established member, and he is sincere in all his posts.
You should not try to ridicule a good man.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 05:44 AM

Keith has very clearly stated earlier in this thread that the reason more Pakistanis do not commit sex crimes is because they are able to overcome their cultural predisposition to rape.

Keiths position has been that a cultural predisposition is the only possible explanation for te overrepresentation of Pakistanis in this type of crime.

In fact, he hasn't posted any actual evidence to support his most basic premise.

His argument has been circular.

Jack Straw thinks x

Keith agrees with jack straw.

Keiths evidence to support his position is the testimony of Jack Straw...

...and some other people who also agree with him.

We have heard a REPORT that hundreds of ALLEGATIONS were made.

We have not seen evidence of these hundreds of allegations.

If they exist, we have no idea what they say, or who made them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 06:33 AM

Lox,
"Keiths position has been that a cultural predisposition is the only possible explanation for te overrepresentation of Pakistanis in this type of crime."

FALSE!
I said it is the only explanation that has emerged.
It still is Lox. Right?
Please remember that this explanation was produced by various reputable people, including BPs like Mohammed Shafiq, Jasmin Allibhai_Brown and Lord Ahmed.
I merely reported it.
Just be honest Lox, and stop making up lies to try and discredit me.

(You seem to be accepting the over-representation now.)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 07:13 AM

""There is no evidence of significant numbers of other groups in this particular crime.
There surely are others involved, but BPs are disproportionately represented.""

British Pakistanis are disproportionally represented in a sample of no statistical significance because it is too small to lead to firm conclusions.

And you simply cannot support any hypothesis about cultural predelections unless you include all the members of that culture.

More than half of British Pakistanis show no such tendencies, and of the minority whom you accuse of those tendencies, only a very tiny proportion succumb.

That number is WAY TOO SMALL TO SUPPORT ANY FIRM CONCLUSION.

That is why the hypothesis that these gangs are Traffickers and Paedophiles who just happen to be Pakistanis (mainly! not ALL, as you continually assert) because gangs tend to be composed of one ethnic group, whatever group that might be, should be considered.

And you have steadfastly refused to do that, making you even more guilty of bias than those (including myself) whom you accuse.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 07:16 AM

""I have made no conclusions at all about the culture.""

ANOTHER LIE!!

You have repeatedly stated that British Pakistanis are, by reason of their culture) predisposed to acts of Paedophilia, rape and sex trafficking.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 07:38 AM

Don, when this started I knew nothing about this culture.
I am in no position to make any conclusions about it.
A number of people have, and in the absence of any other explanation I think they might be right.
As I said to you earlier, I will consider any alternative idea with an open mind.
Do you have one Don?

Don, I do not lie, and I am no racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 08:19 AM

""I have made no conclusions at all about the culture.""
ANOTHER LIE!!
You have repeatedly stated that British Pakistanis are, by reason of their culture) predisposed to acts of Paedophilia, rape and sex trafficking.
Don
====
WHERE, Don? Just stop asserting, & copy&paste just ONE extract from one of Keith's posts where he sez that.

Go on ···

Hurry up; I'm waiting....

Or Jim; or Lox; or any of you smartarses who have made the same allegation. You've gone on&on&on&on&·tediously·ON saying it; but as for an actual quote ~ even one hi-lited in Jim's notorious 6 pages ~~

FUGGEDDIT!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 08:53 AM

Mike:
As with every other thread where I have come into contact with Keith, I inevitably come away with the feeling that I have just had a close encounter with one of Br'er Rabbit's Tar Babies.
He comes to these threads knowing nothing, he takes proprietorship of them, he takes it upon himself to personally answer every contributor, mostly in an extremely condescending manner - he makes them his own and conducts them as if they were his personal property.
I have summed up as best I can my feelings of his behaviour here on what I believe to be a very important and sensitive subject, and you, like he, have chosen to ignore the effect of what he has said and continue to remain silent on his dishonesty, while he just denies it.
I have no intention of falling out with you any more than I already have.
As you so aptly put it "FUGGEDDIT!"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 08:58 AM

This is a discussion from a forum for social care professionals that I read through some time ago. I think it makes interesting reading, with a variety of differing opinions being expressed there, as here: Carespace Forums

One of the posters flagged up this Times article from 2007 by Julie Bindel, discussing the reluctance of the authorities to get involved in the upsurge of crimes of oganised pimping gangs in the North:
Mothers of Prevention

She concludes her article thus:

"In all of these cities, victims such as Sally are facing an explosive mix of brutality and denial – from the authorities and the Pakistani community. It seems easier for many people to pretend it is not happening. The girls involved just don't have that choice."

It's worth noting that Julie Bindel is another feminist journalist, who is particularly involved in campaigns opposing violence against women from a feminist perspective. I have sympathy with this position. For those who would like to castigate me for sudden 'conversion', I don't believe I've ever disputed whether or not there is sufficient evidence to indicate a phenomenon involving pimping gangs of Pakistani heritage, grooming and trafficking young girls in the North and Midlands.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 10:19 AM

Lox, there a some heartbreaking victims' testimonies in the Mothers Of Despair link.
Not under oath though.
Filthy liars, right Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 10:23 AM

OK Brer Jim. Happy to fuggeddit.

All I axed for was ONE SINGLE SOLITARY EXAMPLE of Keith's saying something that all of you have repeatedly said he KEEPS SAYING

All I got back was yet another assertion that he was evasive

but no single·solitary·example as requested

So just please don't throw me into the briar patch, Brer Don, Brer Jim, Brer Lox...

~ anything but the briar patch!

Ha ha... Gotcha! ...bawn&bred in a briar patch, Brer Don,Brer Jim, Brer Lox...

... So happy to fuggeddit.


LotsaLuv from Brer ~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 12:02 PM

"For those who would like to castigate me for sudden 'conversion',"

I may have wrongly (paranoid, moi?) taken this comment as a swipe in my direction. Keith (whoever he is) is not my friend, either virtually or in real life. I do however find it problematic that I find myself in an arena where I feel alienated from those I would usually identify with, and instead occupying a space more commonly occupied by those of a rather different political stripe than my own.

That however is of course my issue. Meanwhile, here is another article by Julie Bindel from Dec. 2010 on the same topic (also flagged up by the same poster at Carespace) Gangs, Girls and Grooming, whose conclusion sums up some of my already expressed feelings on this matter:

"These gangs will be allowed to operate with impunity if we deny their existence in some sort of twisted attempt to be anti-racist and culturally sensitive. Some people, including many white liberals, are loath to admit what it is going on. If we do not tackle the problem head-on, and work together to combat this dreadful abuse of children, the only beneficiaries will be the extremists."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 12:19 PM

"but no single·solitary·example as requested"
Just to show we're still friends Mike - wouldn't do it for anybody!!
Jim Carroll

The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians.
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians.
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians
Girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men
Girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men
Girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men
Girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men
Girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men
Girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men
massive over representation
massive over representation
massive over representation
massive over representation
massive over representation
massive over representation
massive over representation
massive over representation
massive over representation
massive over representation
massive over representation
massive over representation

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 12:22 PM

PS
And there's more - but you'll have to wait till I stock up on my supply of Philosan
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 12:41 PM

Wouldn't reply to just anyone either, Jim; in same way. But must point out that these are not examples of the assertion I was asking for examples of: "You have repeatedly stated that British Pakistanis are, by reason of their culture) predisposed to acts of Paedophilia, rape and sex trafficking". That from Don but you have all said it. The repetitions you have cited on your last post all absolutely clearly refer to the worrying over-representations in a limited but significant # of incidents in certain towns, which we have all (incl you) expressed concern about and sought explanations, of street-grooming ~ & TO NOTHING ELSE. In no way related to your, & Don's, & Lox's, et al's, constantly reiterated allegations of K's "repeated" accusations of widespread or racially typical tendencies to "paedophilia, rape & sex-trafficking".

Sorry, Jim: "must try harder". Just show me one place where K has said that ~~ I think if it were there you would have found it to quote back at me by now, & it will turn out be like your allegations of his having called for repatriation: but when I asked you to point out where, it was, er, ahem, ah well, you were glad I had asked you that... remember?

Best

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 12:55 PM

"There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
This as been the overlying claim of Keith's imput to this thread.

Nor did I imply (or believe) that he called for repatriation, but I do believe that it is a recurrent call of people who share his views, just as believe that those views have led to horrific crimes of genocide in the past.
Please don't you start twisting my words and taking them out of context.
If it won't do, sorry - this friggin' farce has gone on long enough.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 01:04 PM

Indeed, Jim. I remarked a little earlier, quoting Will Shaxper on another thread, that you can always find the right words in his works somewhere ~~ so I now cry

Hold! Enough!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 01:24 PM

"...you can always find the right words in his works somewhere"
And that is a shameful cop-out - that is what he said, that is what he meant - and that is what I object to.
Here are some facts for you to cry over.
"British Pakistanis were eight times more likely to be victims of a racist attack than white people in 1996. The chances of a Pakistani being racially attacked in a year is more than 4 per cent - the highest rate in the country, along with British Bangladeshis - though this has come down from 8 per cent a year in 1996. The term "Paki" is often used as a racist slur to describe Pakistanis and can also be directed towards non-Pakistani South Asians. There have been some attempts by the youngest generation of British Pakistanis to reclaim the word and use it in a non-offensive way to refer to themselves, though this remains controversial."
And that is what Keith's, and his kind's shite feeds.
Enjoy your meal.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 01:51 PM

You have gone and come back enough times Jim.
Now stay and face the music.

No one can read Lively's links and deny the over-representation.
Given that it is a minority group, it IS a massive over-representation.

It is true that I have come to accept it is due to culture.
I have said where that idea came from, and no other has been produced.

You have no justification for accusing me of racism.
You have failed to offer a single instance of it.
I have certainly never used any derogatory expression to describe any group.

I would love Mudcat even more than I do, if it did not allow a member to be so wickedly slandered on its forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 02:14 PM

.you can always find the right words in his works somewhere"···

Sorry, Jim, you got this bit wrong!!!!!. Look again & you will see it was Will Shakespeare's words I was referring to, not Keith's! Hence my "Hold, enough" [Macbeth]

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 02:24 PM

Lively's links might not last.
From the first (2007)
"I was told by one police officer that he did not 'want to start a race riot' by arresting Pakistani men for sexual offences," Maureen said. During the six months that Jo was in the clutches of these men, they raped, beat and abused her to the point where, says her mother, she did not even know who she was any more. Eventually, after she was attacked by Hussain and Naveed with an iron bar, Jo somehow found the courage to report them to police, and they were arrested. The case took 16 months to come to court. In the meantime, other pimps, undeterred by the impending trial, continued to go about their business.

So what are the police doing? Lancashire police say that in the past few months they have sent letters to 70 men who were believed to be spending an unusual amount of time with young girls. The letters warn the men that the girls are underage; the men are required to sign the letter, confirming they have received and read it.
The details are left on file – but there is no guarantee that the police will take any further action if the grooming continues.

Blackburn, in common with many northern towns, is experiencing a huge upsurge in pimping, and it is an unpalatable truth for the authorities – and indeed the police – that many of the newest wave of pimps come from within the Asian community. Research, conducted in 2005 and involving 106 families seeking help from the Leeds-based campaigning organisation Coalition for the Removal of Pimping (Crop), found that in Yorkshire alone more than 30 girls were sexually exploited, with some being forced into prostitution, by what Crop says are predominantly Asian networks. As many as 200 families have gone to the organisation for advice.

Many affected parents are unhappy with the police response. As this piece goes to press, the families are meeting lawyers to discuss possible action against the police. This could result in the biggest civil action ever brought against police for failing to protect children from sexual predators.

Gemma cannot remember ever being happy, although her mother, Anni, says she was a contented child until she reached the age of 13. That was the day she fell out of puppy love. It was the day that Amir, her 24-year-old boyfriend, chose to brutally rape her.

Gemma had been introduced to Amir by a 15-year-old boy at her Blackburn school. A shy girl with little confidence, she was extremely flattered when she was charmed and actively pursued by the boy, who was thought of by many of the girls at her school as a "dish". When Gemma became enamoured of her new boyfriend, he introduced her to his 24-year-old "cousin", who began plying her with cannabis and alcohol. She initially enjoyed feeling "grown-up" and rebelling against her parents. Soon, Anni noticed dramatic changes in Gemma's behaviour and appearance.

The date Gemma was raped was important – Amir, a seasoned pimp, was well aware of the law. If anyone has sex with a girl under 13, there is a strong risk of being arrested for having sex with a minor. Once they reach 13, however, unless the victim makes a complaint to the police, nothing will happen. Recommendations following the Soham murders clearly state that police should arrest in cases where older males have sex with a child under the age of 16. However, police rarely take action unless the victim complains, thereby allowing the pimps and their customers to act with impunity

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 02:36 PM

2nd link Dec.2010

Rotherham, along with many other towns, cities and villages in northern England has become infected with the vile activities of criminal gangs using children as currency. While child sexual abuse occurs in every community and culture, what is happening in Rotherham and elsewhere in Yorkshire and Lancashire is organised pimping of girls by Asian gangs who trade their victims for cash and favours

Jane's daughter Sophie (not their real names) was a happy, ordinary 12-year-old until she met a group of adult males who would control every aspect of her life. Before she escaped, a year later, Sophie had been raped by the gang members as a way of "breaking her in" and then passed around various other men for sex.

The methods used by the pimps are sophisticated and sinister. First, the girls are identified in locations, such as parks, schools, leisure facilities and shopping malls after which boys of their age are sent to befriend them. After a friendship is established, the boys introduce their contacts to young men whom they often describe as cousins.

Then the grooming process gets really under way. The young man will take the girl out in his car, give her vodka, cigarette and cannabis, and take her to venues she would not normally experience until older.

Often giving the girl a mobile telephone as a "gift", the pimp is then able to track her every move by calls and texting, which eventually will be used by him to send instructions as to details of arrangements with punters. The men sell the girls on to contacts for around £200 a time or as currency for a business deal. "I was always asked why I kept going back to my pimp," says Sophie, "but they flatter you and make you think you are really loved. I thought he was my boyfriend until it was too late to get away." Another tactic of the pimp is getting the girl to despise and mistrust her own parents in order that he can achieve total control over her. The pimps routinely tell their victims that their parents are racist towards Asian people and that they disapprove of the relationships because the men are of Pakistani Muslim heritage, not because they are older. Some of the parents I met were racist, and some had developed almost a phobia against Asian men, fuelled by the misinformation and bigotry trotted out by racist groups in response to the pimping gangs.

In 2004, Channel 4 withdrew Edge of the City, its controversial documentary made by Annie Hall that depicted parents trying to stop groups of young Asian men grooming white girls as young as 11 for sex. It had been seized on by the BNP as a party political broadcast.

Colin Cramphorn, the then Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, joined groups such as Unite against Fascism in calling for the documentary to be withdrawn. Channel 4 complied, saying that the issue was not censorship but timing because of the proximity with the local and European elections. But many argued at the time that the delay in transmission had strengthened the case of the BNP.

After the film was withdrawn, one of the mothers sent Annie Hall a text message: "It's a real shame when votes come before young girls' lives."

Emma Jackson knows exactly how the pimping gangs operate in Rotherham because she was also a victim of one. When Emma was 12, she was befriended by Asian boys around her own age who soon introduced her to relatives in their twenties and thirties.

Emma had no idea she was being groomed and brainwashed until one day, totally out of the blue, she was taken to wasteland and raped by the gang leader. The attack was watched by laughing gang members and recorded on a number of mobile phones.

"People ask me why I kept going back to Tarik, even after he raped me," says Emma, "but he threatened to firebomb my home and rape my own mother if I tried to escape."

"The gangs want virgins and girls who are free of sexual diseases. Most of the men buying sex with the girls have Muslim wives and they don't want to risk infection. The younger you look, the more saleable you are."

One youth worker in south Yorkshire told me that because religious Muslims are being pressurised to marry virgins within their own extended family networks, it means that some are more likely to view white girls as easily available and "safer" than Pakistani girls.

When I first wrote about the issue of Asian grooming gangs in 2007, my name was included on the website Islamophobia Watch: Documenting anti-Muslim Bigotry. So was that of Ann Cryer, the former Labour MP for Keighley in Yorkshire, who had been at the forefront of attempting to tackle the problem, after receiving requests for help from some of the parents of children caught up with the gangs in her constituency.

According to some of the mothers, a fear of being branded racist makes many of the police and social services reluctant to investigate the crimes as organised and connected. One mother from Rotherham, whose 14-year-old daughter was groomed into prostitution and multiply raped during a 12-month period, told me that almost every man convicted of these crimes in the north of England is from Pakistan but that the authorities insist that it is not relevant.

There are, however, a growing number of individuals within the Muslim communities who are willing to speak out against the criminals. Mohammed Shafiq, the director of the Lancashire-based Ramadhan Foundation, a charity working for peaceful harmony between different ethnic communities, advocates better education about sexual exploitation to be disseminated through imams and other community leaders.

"I was one of the first within the Muslim community to speak out about this, four years ago," says Shafiq, "and at the time I received death threats from some black and Asian people. But what I said has been proved right — that if we didn't tackle it there would be more of these abusers and more girls getting harmed."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 03:25 PM

"Now stay and face the music."
Can we confirm that it is still your case that Pakistani paedophilia is a direct result of their culture?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 04:02 PM

The contention is that children are targeted because they are easy meat compared to older girls.
There is overwhelming evidence that BPs are massively over-represented in this specific crime.

Why do you care about an explanation when you deny the fact?

I make no case about the explanation, but I have reported the contention that culture is an issue.
I would not know, but the calibre, knowledge and background of those who make it leads me to believe it, in the absence of any other explanation.

Do you have anything to justify the disgusting things you have said about me on our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 04:14 PM

That quote of mine.
On 26th Jan I said this to Lox about it.

"I did say,"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

But, the only aspect of the culture I ever referred to was the absence of courtship activities, and you chose not to deny the truth of that yesterday.
There is nothing wrong with saying that.

I also said, "Under such a regime, some young men of any ethnic group would be tempted to go and get sex from where they can."

That is a perfectly reasonable and rational link to suggest."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 04:14 PM

Then you do believe that paedophelia is a direct result of Pakistani culture?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 04:44 PM

At the risk of becoming tarred as a Muslim hating racist I came across this article by Khaled Diab, a Brussels based Egyptian (I think) journalist who often contributes to that bastion of right wing hatred, The Guardian.

I found it interesting that the piece states quite clearly -

So, which Arabs have the most negative views of western women? Well, probably those from the most conservative societies. "From my personal experience, the worst Arab men I found were the ones from Saudi Arabia," a journalist with a leading Portuguese newspaper told me. "They think that all foreign women are prostitutes and they try to treat them like that."

Maybe this goes some way to expaining the over representation of certain people in this crime? Maybe it doesn't. Maybe just by saying that any group leans towards any sort of poor attitude I am showing my obviously right wing, racist attitudes. Or maybe I am just saying that some people have the wrong idea and need to be educated. How should I know? I am pretty sure reading most posters on this thread won't educate me...

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 04:49 PM

The only thing that has changed here is that you have finally put your position on the linee as far as British Pakistanis are concerned,
"I also said, "Under such a regime, some young men of any ethnic group would be tempted to go and get sex from where they can."
That is a perfectly reasonable and rational link to suggest."
It is neither reasonable nor rational to suggest such a thing - it is, as I have said RACIST.
Nothing you (rather Lively - you tend to ponce off other's input's) have put up here in any way backs up the claims you have continually made since you first turned this thread into a torrent of hatred for Pakistani culture. If it does, please point it out.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 05:07 PM

"any ethnic group" means no ethnic distinction.
That is the opposite of racism.
I am no racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 05:11 PM

"you first turned this thread into a torrent of hatred for Pakistani culture"
You must indeed be deranged.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 05:25 PM

No one really thinks you are racist Keith......"racist" is just a handy word to pin on ones opponent in debate, when ones argument has been well and truly shredded.

You have been factual and restrained in your presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
You have asked many times for an alternative explanation, to be met with either silence or abuse

These "liberal" opponents have been exposed as illiberal people who use bullying tactics in place of reason

"liberal" Fascism is alive and well!!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Apr 11 - 11:16 PM

Jim ~ answer urgently required to mine of 1 Apr 0214 pm,

which you have ignored & so gone on abusing me due to an absurd misapprehension of yr own ~~ see also my last post on the Non-Muslim Prej thread. Yr error has now been 2ce pointed out to you & you have no right to go on as you have been doing.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 02:46 AM

An observation on your behaviour here Keith.
Lively came up with evidence of further abuses and duely put up his reference for such.
You swooped on those like a vulture, cut-'n-pasted them in all their glory and put them on display in full view, like so many peices of meat on a butcher's slab, because "Lively's links might not last.".
You then squatted on your display of meat and crowed like a cock at your apparent triumph, daring us/me to come and view it.
You have done this throughout this thread; you have treated the individuals concerned, not as human victims of abuse, but as so many exhibits, pieces of evidence to your now openly stated case that Pakistani culture leads to paedophelia.
I think I can live comfortably with being described as deranged by such an individual who would sink as low as that to make such a case.
Mike:
"There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
Keith said this on Jan 24th 05.28pm. He has more or less confirmed it now - he has never withdrawn it.
As far as I am concerned this has been his case all along - it is a racist statement - or if not, why not?
Perhaps you would now like to comment on his dishonesty in editing Jack Straw's statement and removing the reference to these crimes having no racist connection, but rather criminal acts carried out by tesosterone filled young men who could have come from any background.
He also edited out "Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders."
If Keith's concern is merely 'over-representation, WHY REMOVE SOMETHING SO ESSENTIAL TO THE WHOLE QUESTION?
I have not commented on the claimed over-representation of young Pakistani men in these crimes; I have stated from the beginning that I believe we have nowhere near enough information to arrive at any firm conclusions. I do have opinions on the reason, but they are as ill-informed as any that have been made so far, hence my reluctance to put them forward.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 02:59 AM

Sorry Mike,
Just checked the other thread:
I did mistake what you were referring to; I did misunderstand what you said (my Shakespeare has always been uneven), and I did accuse you of something that you were in no way guilty of.
I, of course withdraw any unjust accusations I have made and apologise,
and will do so on the other thread.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 03:21 AM

Sorry - me again Mike,
Please do not bother answering my challenge/questions above should you not feel inclined. It was part of my misunderstanding and I would not have asked them otherwise.
Sorry again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 03:42 AM

Many thanks, Jim. Apology instantly accepted of course. Back, please to square 1!

Same to be posted on other thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 04:03 AM

Why would I edit out "criminal acts carried out by tesosterone filled young men who could have come from any background." when I said myself "Under such a regime, some young men of any ethnic group would be tempted to go and get sex from where they can." ???

I said that on 26thJan.It is the same!

Why would I edit out "Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders." when I have been acknowledging that, over and over again, from the start of this??

I do not need to resort to dishonesty.
That is what you do.
I have evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 04:37 AM

Then why do it - sorry, doesn't make sense - don't believe your explanation (this version or any other you have made)
And why not address you J. P. Barnum 'Roll up, roll up" attitude to rape victims.
Goulish behaviour if ever I saw it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 04:40 AM

Jim, i read the bindel pieces some time ago, and i found them compelling enough that they probably helped to inform some of my own thoughts on this subject. Perhaps i should have linked to them before as its not easy to wade through the mountains of results regurgitating identikit 'jack said' cut and pastes from the daily mail, but i did't consider it at the time and nor did i retain retain links. Perhaps to my credit however, it suddenly strikes me that i've unwittingly succeeded in reading around this topic without once reading anything printed therein! In any event, i suppose i need to confirm that my posting them now, was not for the purposes of supporting any 'hypothsis' being made here, more a general clarification of 'where i'm coming from' in this discussion after mistakingly assuming that your 'sudden conversion' comment was aimed my way.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 04:44 AM

I do not fill up my posts with irrelevant tosh.
If the over-representation was not constantly denied, I would not have had to keep producing evidence.
It is the blinkered denials that have kept this thread alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 05:20 AM

Not questioning your sincerity Lively, just the use your findings are being put to here; you seem to have put them forward responsibly and without an agenda.
Elswhere we might have been allowed to discuss them rationally; not here, I'm afraid.
"I do not fill up my posts with irrelevant tosh."
All of your postings are filled with irrelevant tosh - won't do Keith; why did it take four excuses before settling on this one.
"It is the blinkered denials that have kept this thread alive."
No, it is your irrelevant postings (around 540, now) that has kept this thread alive. Bit of a nerve accusing somebody else for keeping this thread alive.
And your excuse for your goulish use of raped children is......?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 07:58 AM

I have shown that I had nothing to gain by editing out stuff that I was saying anyway.
You decide why I left it out.
No one else cares.

My posts were all countering doctrinaire denials, or defending myself from all the malice.

I had to post about raped children because you and Lox keep denying their suffering.

Do you now accept the over-representation, or do I have to post even more evidence?
(There is yet another gang awaiting trial in Rochedale)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 08:52 AM

"I had to post about raped children....."
You pompous bastard!
No you didn't; lively had posted the information - you capitalised on it
Nobody had denied anything - you leeched off the suffering of children and peddled your ideas on their backs.
Nobody had denied anything here; we question how much we know about the events and their causes; certainly not enough to blame a whole culture. We are sickened by people like yourself who attempt to use the suffering of others to promote your twisted ideas
"There is yet another gang awaiting trial in Rochedale"
And I can see you look forward to exploiting the outcome with as much glee as you have shown with Lively's information
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 08:57 AM

I'm unsure if any cases of gang grooming and pimping in Bolton have been flagged up anywhere as yet? The article here concerns not a conviction for either grooming or sexual offences, but rather depicts the consequences of such activity. At least the judge and jury were lenient enough not to convict the teenage girl being tried for selling her pimps coke. Too many times the victims of crime end up becoming the ones criminalised:

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/8900946.Teenager_groomed_to_sell_drugs/

I would respectfully suggest that the entire contents of this article need not be cut and pasted onto this thread. The only thing I would add, is that unlike some of the other material being contended here, this girls statements were clearly made under oath.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 09:29 AM

Jim, how can you say, "Nobody had denied anything - you leeched off the suffering of children and peddled your ideas on their backs.
Nobody had denied anything here;" !!??

Straight question.
Do you accept that on-street grooming, by groups, for rape and pimping, is mainly a crime of BPs, at least in the towns and cities of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Greater Manchester?

Last time I asked you said YES OF COURSE but 24 hours later changed your mind and you and Lox denied it ever since!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 12:28 PM

Lively,
I think all these matters are worthy of discussion, but I don't believe it has been here, and I can't honestly see it happening in the future.
Should you ever wish to discuss it elsewhere out of range of the agenda zone, I would be more than happy to do so.
Best wishes,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 12:37 PM

Jim, straight question.
Do you accept that on-street grooming, by groups, for rape and pimping, is mainly a crime of BPs, at least in the towns and cities of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Greater Manchester?

Are you afraid to answer Jim?
Is it because you can't deny it any longer, but you can't admit it either, and you can't do another walk out?
Tricky situation.
Whatever you do you will look an arse.
You made this bed for yourself.
You must lie on it.
You are good at lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 01:35 PM

Thanks Jim, and I appreciate the difficulty of discussing sensitive subjects on a forum such as this, particularly as I walked right into the middle of an already heated disagreement.

I don't know how many people posting here had already been following some of these cases under discussion, but the phenomenona being described in some of these stories was news to me until I stumbled blindly into this thread, and it provoked me to start ploughing through other relevant discussions and articles on-line.

There has been some doubt expressed here around whether or not there is any substance to some of the claims being made about the volume of alleged victims by Cryer et al. And a particular point was made about the first story I flagged up by way of response ("Emma" in the Independent) that (approx) 'interesting as her story is, it was not made under oath.' The Bolton story linked to above was posted in particular response to that point. There may be further reports out there on the internet, which provide similar testimony, but I if I find them I won't link to any further stories here. I'm aware that while I may have added fuel to the fire, I hope some of my contributions to this thread have provided food for thought, and if so, then that is quite enough as I'm not here to fight any battles on behalf of anyone else. And it seems I may be in danger of doing just that, which was really not my intention.

Meanwhile, I am waxing thoroughly tired of this subject and as that's as much as I think it is useful for me to participate in this discussion (fingers and toes crossed) this really will be my last posting on this thread..

Exeunt

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 01:52 PM

Lively, it should not be about battles, and truthful hard evidence should not be seen as fuel for a fire.

We started out with just Straw, Cryer, and the Dando Institiute findings.
To me it seemed clear that there was an issue, but first Lox, then others and Jim all denied it.

Thus it became a debate, but their only case was that I was a racist, as if that stopped it being an issue anyway!

So I fed in more evidence and defended myself from the malicious allegations.
You proved better at finding stuff than me.
Why would you hesitate to supply it, whoever it favours?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 02:00 PM

Jim Lox and Don.
I told the childrens' stories because you denied them a hearing.
So now I am a ghoul!.

Whenever I spoke of them I spoke sympathetically of their plight and suffering.
I can not remember one of you making a sympathetic comment.

You just wished they would shut up.
They are an embarrassment to you.
Lox pointed out that Emma was not under oath and was not trained in psychology.
A lying, ignorant slut was your hidden message.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 02:44 PM

"This really will be my last posting on this thread.."
Yup = mine too - nobody left to talk with
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 02:48 PM

Before you run away and hide Jim, do you accept that on-street grooming, by groups, for rape and pimping, is mainly a crime of BPs, at least in the towns and cities of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Greater Manchester?

Surely people who have tried to follow your case are entitled to know your position!
Has it changed or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 03:19 PM

"Surely people who have tried to follow your case are entitled to know your position!"
No Keith - people are now bored out of their skulls with this thread, with the excepption of yourself, who still appears to believe, rather disgustingly, that there are still a few points to be scored out of the suffering of raped children
- please g.f.y. - with my blessing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Apr 11 - 03:56 PM

I would like to know if you have changed you position again Jim.
You appear to now accept the over rep.
You have been furiously denying it for weeks and saying only a racist could accept it.
There was a 24 hour period where you did accept it, but up to then you were again denying it furiously, and accusing me of lying, racism and bigotry for daring to believe.

After all that vehemence, how can you go without stating your latest position.
I am sure Lox would want to know if he is on his own.
I can not be the only person on Mudcat who wonders where you stand.
Tell us Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 06:11 AM

Jim,
"nobody left to talk with"

You were quite happy to talk here with me before the last avalanche of evidence from Lively that totally destroyed your case and vindicated everything I have been saying.

You could have avoided this humiliation.
As I said before to Lox, it is a noble thing to stand up for a minority who have suffered persecution in the past.
There was no disgrace in refusing to believe at once stories that showed some of them in a bad light.
If you had made that stance, and looked objectively at the evidence, and above all not resorted to vile abuse against anyone who saw things differently, you could have retained your dignity.

Instead you now have your huge ludicrous arse on public display.
Good result for me though.
Thanks Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 07:59 AM

IN SPACE - NO-ONE CAN HEAR YOU SCREAM

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 08:40 AM

Oh I see ...

... SO it isn't keiths hypothesis that Pakistanis are closet Paedos ... he is merely reporting it ... impartially ...

round and round we go again.

But no cigar keith.

That old sleight of hand was debunked about 1000 posts ago.

Your whole purpose has been to defend that hypothesis through thick and thin (gong on for 3 months now), you clearly stated that it was your hypothesis that Pakistani culture was responsible for these crimes.

Only you thought at that time that it forced young men to go and seek satisfaction elsewhere.

But the evidence is that young men were merely used as bait by HIGHLY organized traffickers of an international nature...

... so it isn't the fizzing popping testosterone and these crimes bear no recognizable Pakistani features.

As for the idea that there are no other explanations, that has also already been dealt with - the dando institute have given a plausible explanation that Keith refuses to acknowledge, that is not based on political opinion but on scientific likelihood.

Round and round - la la la - fighting to prove that Pakistanis are different.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 08:50 AM

I can hear YOU screaming Jim, and I'm bloody enjoying it.

Lox,
"But the evidence is that young men were merely used as bait by HIGHLY organized traffickers of an international nature..."

You are making that up Lox.
The evidence is that young BP boys were merely used as bait by HIGHLY organized traffickers of a BP nature.

You over estimate my knowledge Lox.
I knew nothing about the culture.
I got all my knowledge and the hypothesis from those listed authorities.
In the absence of any other hypothesis, and in view of their knowledge and experience, I am inclined to believe them.
List your objections to it and your alternatives Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 08:54 AM

Just been reading Livelys "avalanche" of evidence.

It all proves beyond doubt that Pakistanis are culturally predisposed to rape eh keith?

No.

It refers once again to organized gangs.

All of it.

I agree that these gangsters should be caught and prosecuted.

I hope they are.

None of that bears any relevance to keiths crusade against Pakistanis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 08:58 AM

"You are making that up Lox.
The evidence is that young BP boys were merely used as bait by HIGHLY organized traffickers of a BP nature."

No keith,

all the serious commentators have said that these gangs have been comparable to international trafficking gangs.

ie - they are not distinguishable from international trafficking gangs.

ie - there is nothing that marks pakistani gangs in the north of england from other gangs.

ie there is nothing to suggest that pakistani culture bears any responsibility for these crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 09:10 AM

But, the gangs are all BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 11:20 AM

I'm afraid Keith, that you are attempting to debate with madmen.

Why not let them stew in their juice, they equate to "flat earthers".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 11:31 AM

"I'm afraid Keith, that you are attempting to debate with madmen."
It appears to be Keith who is hearing the mysterious voices
"I can hear YOU screaming Jim, and I'm bloody enjoying it."
Maaaad I tell you maaaad - you're all maaaad!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 11:34 AM

I could leave them to stew Ake, but I have had some pretty unpleasant abuse from both of them.
If they are determined to make even bigger arses of themselves, I am here to help them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 12:18 PM

"But, the gangs are all BPs."

No - the Pakistani gangs that have been investigated have been predominantly Pakistani.

Despite being Pakistani Gangs, there have been non Pakistani members.


If there were a Pakistani cultural reason for these crimes, then we would be seeing features that were unique to Pakistani culture.

We aren't.

We are seeing features that are typical of international trafficking gangs.

Or so the experts say.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 12:20 PM

2 and a quarter months of your life trying to prove a racist hypothesis.

And you claim to be impartial.

Oh and thanks Ake for your dep and inspiring insight.

Keep waving the little flag ... "kee-eef kee-eef kee-eef ... dribble dribble"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 12:53 PM

I have always said "mainly a crime of BPs"
And I was right.
That is a massive over-representation for a minority group.
That requires an explanation.
One has been provided by people much more knowledgeable than you or me, which I have come to believe, in the absence of any other.

You say it is racist, but some of the proponents are famously anti racist BPs!
What is your non racist explanation Lox??

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 12:58 PM

The politicians you mention have given one explanation.

Those who have studied it and have the full facts reject that explanation and offere a different one.

The politicians you rely on merely give their opinion.

The researchers give the results of an impartial study.

The only witness testimony we have seen makes no mention of any of your points.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 01:24 PM

They are not all politicians Lox.
What is this "different" explanation from "those who have studied it"???
You have just made that up Lox.
Your arse is enlarging with every post!

And what "points" are not supported Lox??
Please, can you keep this up for another two months?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 01:33 PM

I'm not sure whether to be more concerned by Keiths fascination with my rear end or the alzheimers that is corrupting his top end.

Are the two related n some way?

Fortunately the internet allows a degree of seperation that should keep me immune from his attentions.

Is this what it is like to be groomed I wonder?

It must be a cultural thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 02:08 PM

Ok you do-badders. Off you go! You know who you are. :)

Those who want to demonize will find a way to do it.

It's so easy to place blame on a group, a nation, a religion, a...._____fill in the blank.

There are crazy people who join groups, gangs, corporations, armies to support their
insanity.

Wars are fought over generalizations. A is good. B is bad. Let's go to war.

Last time I looked, Pakistani was not a racial classification.

Paedophelia and white slavery jumps all national and religious fences.

A duffel bag of facts can be used to support all kinds of intolerance.

Criminal behavior is just that. Not racial, national, religious, or ____fill in the blank.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 02:20 PM

Very good Lox, but you avoided the serious bit.

What is this "different" explanation from "those who have studied it"???

And what "points" are not supported Lox??

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 03:05 PM

Stringsinger, I find nothing to disagree with in your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 03:44 PM

"That is a massive over-representation for a minority group."
There are an estimated 1.5 million Pakistanis living in Britain - how many people are being discussed here as being paedophiles?
Massive my arseum - please add up your figures before you make such racialy loaded statements!
This thread has not moved one single inch since it was hi-jacked and turned into a racist attack by Keith.
There is not one single shred of evidence to connect the crime of paedophilia with race or culture and Jack Straw's statement that there is no connection remains as true as it was when he made it (and Keith removed it).
The crimes described, far from being 'mainly Pakistani' are overwhelmingly those of the indigenous white population - Jack Straw said that as well - (again, just as surely as Keith removed it). A close second apparently are the European gangs appearing on the scene from the former communist countries.
Oh, and while I remember:
"Instead you now have your huge ludicrous arse on public display."
Just a reminder that you are still on your own here - with the occasional "up our side" from our homophobic dormouse friend, when he can stir himself out of his teapot for a few seconds.
Carry on chaps!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 03:57 PM

Welcome back Jim.
That was one of your briefest goodbye forevers so far!

Even in those Midland and Northern towns and cities, BPs are a minority group.
They should be a minority in any offending group.
They are the main offenders in this crime.
A massive over-representation.

Straw said it is a particular issue for BPs, but who cares? We know from many other sources that this is overwhelmingly a crime of BPs.
Straw blamed it on their girls being off limits, but who cares? We have cultural explanations from others including BPs themselves.

But why do you care about the explanation anyway Jim?
Is there anything to explain?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 04:43 PM

Jim,

"I have not commented on the claimed over-representation of young Pakistani men in these crimes; I have stated from the beginning that I believe we have nowhere near enough information to arrive at any firm conclusions. I do have opinions on the reason, but they are as ill-informed as any that have been made so far, hence my reluctance to put them forward."
"Nobody had denied anything here; we question how much we know about the events and their causes; certainly not enough to blame a whole culture"

I seem to have failed to note these comments. I suspect I've been too sidetracked by the ongoing polarisation of opinions being umm 'presented' here - which have appeared to me - to overlook the seriousness and indeed extent of the issue in the pursuit of a more personal war of attrition, to which I have succumbed to my own weariness.

While I naturally assume that the right, and far-right in particular, will quite obviously make play of such controversy as has been aroused by the cases being discussed here, what matters more to me, is that the left do not seek to diminish the seriousness of these cases (something which I believe has indeed happened in some posts here) either in order to be seen to "win" or because, they have a possible lurking disregard for 'white working class easy chavs' (who are all just ignorant racists anyway).

In particular I noted what I perceived to be a summary dismissal of "tip of the iceberg" type assertions made by those who have - despite disinterest from the authorities - been steadfastly working with, and as advocates for, victims of these crimes, as though such "mere anecdotes" are utterly meaningless and worthless.

My apologies if I have mischaracterised any of the participants in this discussion when stating that I felt myself to be alienated and occupying unfamiliar political turf more usually occupied by others of a different stripe. As I fear I may have done so.

Jim, you mat find I will contact you by other means (you know me by other means) as I think I'd like to take up your offer to discuss some of my concerns elsewhere.

Meanwhile.. Keith, I haven't really enjoyed watching you dropping your pants. It's been a bit icky..

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 05:07 PM

Lively, you have not had to deal with the unrelenting, vile personal abuse that has been heaped on me.
A whiff of it drove you away at one point.
They have denied that there is even an issue and never once showed any concern or sympathy for the victims.
I am enjoying their embarrassment.
Allow me that please.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 05:24 PM

Well keith, You've been posting here now for over two months.

Perhaps I am being over generous, but it seemed to me that you were making a series of points.

Well none of those points have been echoed in any of the testimony provided here.

(the alzheimers again eh? ... never mind)


As for the Dando reports explanation, I have posted it numerous times and you have attempted to redifine (as with all the other so called evidence you have provided) so that it fits your racist hypothesis.

I'm very sorry that your memory is so cruelly afflicted, but the good thing about the mudcat is that if you need to find out, you need only go back and find it.

whats that? you also suffer from myopia? oh dear. Never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 05:38 PM

never once showed any concern or sympathy for the victims.

Actually, quite the contrary. I've seen quite a few posts expressing sympathy for the victins of Keith's vile racist abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 05:47 PM

C'mon Keith - you're shifting ground,
Up to now you've shadowboxed with haymakers that take in the British Pakistani population a a whole (by implication, if not directly), now you appear to narrowing your field a little
There are explanations other than race or culture for any supposed over-representation in specific areas - and incidentally, why there appears to be no visible problem in the south of England. The picture you have painted hints at the population as a whole or at least the North and Midlands - it is people like you and the BNP who leap on the Paki-pervert bandwagon.
"A massive over-representation..."
Over-representation of what - one and a half million?
"We know from many other sources that this is overwhelmingly a crime of BPs."
We know no such thing; we know Pakistanis are involved but we still have no way of judging to what extent.
We know the procuring and rape of young people, far from being "overwhelmingly......" is as old as sex itself; it is part of our history, literature, our British culture, our entertainment even - didn't you ever follow The Bill or The Vice, or Waking the Dead, or Silent Witness......?.
A month or so ago there was a swoop on paedophile rings throughout Britain, with massive success; want to take money on how many of them were Pakistani - muslim - Africans (disease-ridden and not worthy of treatment, as you described them).
Now figures - I'll lay you one and a half million - what are you holding as being "overwhelmingly a crime of BPs."
And one more time - Straw rejected any connection with race, trial judges and police did likewise, your own 'witnesses' warned about making any racial connection..... it seems that this thread is not the only place you are on your own (save for the dormant dormouse in the teapot).
"Is there anything to explain? "
There have always been things to explain.
Why are paedophiles paedophiles - why are racists racists - why people attempt to win these arguments by hiding behind vaguaries and by adjusting facts to win arguments, why some people appear to take perverted satisfaction when another batch of raped children is discovered (a sort of paedophelia-by-proxy as far as I'm concerned) - personally I don't understand any of it.
Lively - know how you feel, but it saves paying out for emetics when reading the Thoughts of Chairman Keith does the same job.

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 01:09 AM

Lox, I only made 2 challenges to your post.

What is this "different" explanation from "those who have studied it"???

No answer because you made it up.

I asked you what points had not been supported, and you just said lots.

I have only ever made one point.
The over-representation. That has been confirmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 01:25 AM

Your usual tactic of desperation.
Long post loaded with irrelevance and lies.
"Africans (disease-ridden and not worthy of treatment, as you described them)."
Wicked lie! I never have and never would say such a vile thing.
Smear!

"Up to now you've shadowboxed with haymakers that take in the British Pakistani population a a whole (by implication, if not directly),"
Lie. I stated repeatedly so that there could be no mistake that only a "tiny minority" were involved.

"; we know Pakistanis are involved but we still have no way of judging to what extent."

False. All the victims say it was BPs.
None say it was not.

Other sex crimes?
Irrelevant. I always acknowledged they were under-represented in all other non terror crime including sex crime.

Finally you pretended not to understand that the explanation referred to the over-representation.
You don't accept it so why care?

Lies, pretence, smears, irrelevancies.
That is all you have.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 01:37 AM

Lively.
You have researched this extensively.
Are you in a position to answer the key question, is the crime of on-street grooming by groups mainly a crime of BPs, at least in the towns and cities of the Midlands, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire and Greater Manchester?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 03:54 AM

"........ loaded with irrelevance and lies."
And your usual tactic is to not read what people have said and to ignore the points they have made.
"Africans (disease-ridden and not worthy of treatment, as you described them)."
I defy you or anybody to read your to read your first dozen posts on the'Death penalty for homosexuals' thread and NOT come up with this picture - you first present Africans, then immigrants as aids carriers, then you ask 'who is going to pay for their medical treatment' - it's there for anybody to see - go and look.
Whatever I suggest here may be right or wrong - you are the one parading your infallibility while admitting your ignorance, but these matters certainly are not IRRELEVANT - if my suggestions are wrong - prove them so with facts and statistics - and stop denying what is down in black and white.
"False. All the victims say it was BPs."
STREET GROOMING TAKES PLACE IN ANY RED-LIGHT, VICE INFESTED AREA, NO MATTER WHO LIVES THERE AND WHATEVER NATIONALITY. THESE ARE RANDOM EXAMPLES TAKEN WHERE THERE ARE HIGH POPULATIONS OF PAKISTANIS - OF COURSE THERE WILL BE A HIGH PROPORTION OF PAKISTANI PIMPS AN CRIMINALS INVOLVED. GO TO ANY RUN-DOWN, POVERTY STRICKEN AREA AND YOU WILL BE PRESENTED WITH A CROSS-SECTION OF THAT AREA - WEST INDIAN, IRISH, EUROPEAN, INDIGINOUS BRIT.... WHATEVER - THE VICTIM/CRIMINAL SAMPLE WILL REFLECT THE CULTURAL MAKE-UP OF THAT AREA. THIS HAS BEEN THE CASE THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
And as Jack Straw, trial judges, police and social workers have all said, there are no racial conclusions to be drawn from this and it is highly dangerous and irresponsible for anybody to do so (perhaps you didn't read the bits you edited out?)
Apart from anything else, so far you have based your 'conclusions' almost entirely on press cuttings. The claims you have consistently made here need to be based on organised surveys, properly carried out by responsible and skilled experts (certainly not brain-deads who regard immigrants as disease-carriers who should be left to die) before they can be even taken seriously, let alone have cultural conclusions drawn. Such surveys have not been carried out and what little we do know is based entirely on hearsay reports gathered randomly and unscientifically, and quite often reaching us via newspapers with their own agendas (have you ever read the any of these local papers with anti-immigration agendas - The Daily Mail written by chimpanzees with typwriters)
'Long post......'
Once again you whine about the length of my (and others) posts.
These are complex questions involving race, culture, beliefs ethnology... They (should) involve the gathering of complex detailed information, and sifting and analysing that information carefully and thoughtfully.
How the **** are you going to understand that work using sound-bites?
Nobody here, apart from yourself, has put any definitive claims (British Pakstanis are culturally degenerate and inclined to paedophilia).
How dare you put forward such a dangerous and damaging suggestion if you are incapable ad obviously unwilling of reading anything consisting of more than half-a-dozen sentences?
Jim Carroll
PS And by the way - asking Lively such a profound and loaded question is yet again an attempt to gather ammunition for your racist case - is he or anybody in a position to make such a profound judgement?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 04:03 AM

This is a disgusting lie.
"Africans (disease-ridden and not worthy of treatment, as you described them)."
I defy you or anybody to read your to read your first dozen posts on the'Death penalty for homosexuals' thread and NOT come up with this picture - you first present Africans, then immigrants as aids carriers, then you ask 'who is going to pay for their medical treatment' - it's there for anybody to see - go and look.

Link to Homosexuality thread.
thread.cfm?threadid=125426&messages=2125
You should not be allowed to make groundless accusations like that.

I will reply to the rest when I can.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 04:50 AM

Have you not read the child vicims' accounts Jim?
It is not true that STREET GROOMING TAKES PLACE IN ANY RED-LIGHT, VICE INFESTED AREA,

These were children targeted and groomed outside school, or shopping malls or ordinary public spaces where kids go.

The children told who did it to them.
You should listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 04:58 AM

'who is going to pay for their medical treatment?"

We had discussed how Britain welcomes immigrants and asylum seekers whatever diseases, including AIDS, that they have.
We then give them the best treatment available free for life.
USA did not let AIDS sufferers in.

Obama announced that he would let in AIDS sufferers, and I asked if USA would treat them free for life, otherwise life would be short.
A good question.
No one knew the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 05:15 AM

keith,

your explanation for the apparent over-representation is that young Pakistani men are culturally predisposed to abuse of women due to the sexual restrictions placed on them.

The experts explanation is that the apparent over-representation is due to the sample being so limited.

The experts and those who have rovided actual testimony have said that the criminals aren't young men, but well organized criminals who use young men as bait.


Your point is that street grooming is a peculiarly pakistani crime type.

The experts state that it is not a new crime type.


Each point you have made has, in the actual evidence, been clearly and specifically refuted.


The only evidence that supports your view, is the psychological profiling by non psychologists of an entire group of people - something that even a trained psychologist would not dare do.

Just because you extrapolate and invent supporting arguments from the evidence, that does not mean hat the evidence actually supports your argument.


In this case, it doesn't and in fact the most reliable evidence specifically contradicts your view.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 05:52 AM

"A good question."
Everybody knows the answer - they will be paid for out of state funds, because it is what the welfare state is about and inhuman to do otherwise - always assuming that externally transmitted aids is the problem you suggest it is in the first place. Despite your claim that you had no opinion of a connection beween homosexuality and race, wirthin your first dozen postings are direct reference to the race of homosexuals and their being 'aids carriers' - well over a dozen times.
"outside school, or shopping malls or ordinary public spaces where kids go"
Within the communities in question - if it was Harrngay, say, it would be Greeks doing the pimping; elsewhere, West Indians, Irish, indigienous English - whatever.
These people are simply predatory criminals in high immigration ghettos - not MAINLY anything other than the predominant content of those areas, whatever that happens to be. Trying to claim they are predominantly of any particular race is RACIST.
Once again you ignore what I and others have said about the vindictive stupidity of basing conclusions on non-scientific, hearsay evidence ANSWER IT.
Lox makes the same point more articulately than I did: "The only evidence that supports your view, is the psychological profiling by non psychologists of an entire group of people - something that even a trained psychologist would not dare do." - ANSWER IT.
Jack Straw, judges, police, field workers - all say there is no connection between race and paedophilia and have continually warned of the dangers of making such a link - STOP DOING IT.
Every point you continue to make has been challenged and replied to over and over and over and over........ again by peopler who have answered your questions, have become exasperated with your repetitious evasions and have pissed off in depair.
YOU ALONE CONTINUE TO UPHOLD THE IDEA THAT PAKISTANIS ARE PERVERTS BY VIRTUE OF THEIR CULTURE. PROVE IT WITH STATISTICS AND PROPERLY GATHERED DATA, OTHERWISE YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A RANTING, TUB-THUMPING RACIST.
And please get over your aversion to literature and go and read a ******* book!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 06:01 AM

Jim: This thread has become so diffuse and repetitive that I am really so lost as to be unable to make any contribution that I should regard as useful - at least in its present situation.

But I return, yet again, just to point out to you that I have asked you at least 5 times, I should estimate - I do not propose to go right back & count, for a direct cut & paste from Keith where, as you persistently claim, he has made the following specific asseveration [or 'definitive claim', as you put it here on a post above]:

-definitive claims (British Pakstanis are culturally degenerate and inclined to paedophilia)-

& every time you reply with some evasive locution about it's being 'implied', or 'obviously what he thinks', or some such···

So, once more, please ~ a DIRECT CUT'N'PASTE QUOTE, please Jim, in which Keith has made this precise claim.

Coz I say he hasn't, & you have never yet shown where he has. You just go on & on making the accusation.

Best

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 06:04 AM

... and what's more, Jim, you made it again in your last post which was cross-posted with my last.

A direct cut'n'paste quote to confirm it, please, or stop saying it, for heavens sake...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 06:23 AM

Here you are Michael.

________________

"From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:27 PM

You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,"

Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment."

________________

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:19 AM

" "their culture inspires a slight predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls"

Can you confirm that that is your opinion of British Pakistanis?"

It is my opinion that it is a reasonable suggestion.
The over representation is a fact that requires an explanation.
Something is predisposing them, and it is more likely to be something sexual in the culture than your alternative list. (wild generalisations?)

If it did give rise to just a slight predisposition, then only a tiny minority would succumb.
And that is exactly what is found.
_________________

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 05:39 AM

Men are predisposed because there is no outlet for sexual relationships within the community, and no intimate relationship permitted outside.

But only a tiny minority, the weak and wicked, succumb.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 06:55 AM

Jim, USA has less health care provision than UK, that is why I asked who would pay (in USA).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 06:56 AM

"So, once more, please ~ a DIRECT CUT'N'PASTE QUOTE, please Jim, in which Keith has made this precise claim."
I have given you the quote where you linked these crimes with Pakistani culture over and over again - I have no intention whatever of repeating the exercise only for it to be ignored again and no doubt adding to your confusion - or starting yet another "I really meant" bout of denials.
Yours (slight) appears to be an adapttion of your original comment.
Personally I have no knowledge of what predisposition to anything from paedophelia to eating Rice Krispies is to be found in Pakistani culture - where did you get your 'predisposition' from?
NOW ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE ALL PUT TO YOU OVER AND OVER AGAIN - WHERE IS YOUR DATA - WHERE IS YOUR DOCUMENTED PROOF FOR ANY OF THIS AND HOW ARE YOU POSSIBLY GOING TO UNDERSTAND IT IF YOUR MIND CAN'T RETAIN MORE THAN SIX SENTENCES AT A TIME?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 06:57 AM

And please remember, I DID NOT MAKE THAT HYPOTHESIS.
I DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CULTURE.
It was made by people who do.
Sample too small Lox?
Wilmer, 400 cases, all BP.

(No time today)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:11 AM

Will just thank you for trying, Lox; & point out that Jim had tended to omit the 'slight' on which Keith had insisted; & that your citations completely omit the 'cultural degeneracy' component which seems to me of the essence of Jim's pertinacious accusations; & then withdraw again ~ at least for the moment; have learned better than to declare a permanent absence, or abstinence, from a thread!

-m-

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:17 AM

"point out that Jim had tended to omit the 'slight'"
No I didn't Mike - I cut and pasted Keith's quote directly each time - Keith has added it since he first made it - Don't start playing his game for him.
"Wilmer, 400 cases, all BP."
From a population of one and a half million British Pakistanis - predominant????
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:30 AM

Here I am back - woddid I tell you!

Still haven't found the 'cultural degeneracy' bit, Jim; which seems more vital to me. Cannot say, anyhow, that the quotes supplied by you & Lox quite cover the precise accusations of universal denunciation of which you accuse Keith.

But, woddid I tell you ~ I am getting confused again. Head beginning to swim. Eheu!

-m-

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:41 AM

"Wilmer, 400 cases, all BP."
From a population of one and a half million British Pakistanis - predominant????

Whatever the population, she shows that it is mainly a crime of BPs.
They are a minority group, they should be proportionately under represented.
They are massively over represented.
Binden found the same.

And that is the whole of my case on this thread.
Where are the children claiming to have been groomed, pimped and raped by other gangs?

The explanation is not mine. I just reported it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 08:14 AM

Mu=ike
When Keith's statement, slight or otherwise, is applied to paedophelia the cultural degenercy is implicit in the statement - what else could it be?
"Whatever the population, she shows that it is mainly a crime of BPs."
In the area she is working in only - no more; putting it in a 'cultural context smears every Pakistani with the same brush.
My point is still not addressed - what documentary evidence exists for you to make ANY REFERENCE WHATEVER to cultural traits?
"The explanation is not mine. I just reported it."
And stop hiding behind your cut-'n-pastes, justify your stance, not hers - it sounds too much like "we were only obeying orders".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 08:37 AM

"In the area she is working in only - no more;"

She covers the whole of the region I designated.
And also Binden.

The hypothesis about culture really is not mine.
How could I produce it in my position.

I have accepted it because knowledgeable people proposed it including BPs whose life has been devoted to defending their community from bigotry and prejudice.
You can not accuse me of racism for believing them.
Also their is no rival theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 09:00 AM

"I have accepted it because knowledgeable people "
These knowledgeable people have not made a racist connection and have warned against doing so - several of them have devoted their lives to fighting racism (one having been described by the Daily Telegraph as "the stupidest woman in Britain" for having done so - why have you consistently ignored their advice?
If you are "only obeying orders" why not obey all of them?
"Also their is no rival theory."
Of course thre are rival theories - some of them have been proffered here - only you haven't read them, or have ignored them because they don't fit your particular agenda (or perhhaps they contained more than half a dozen sentences and big words!.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 10:29 AM

Jim,
"Of course thre are rival theories "

Rival theories for something you don't believe in Jim!
No rival theory has been posted on this thread.
Quote some Jim, why don't you?

Allibhai_Brown is a highly respected writer.
One right wing twat may have once called her stupid.
Do you?

Not made a racist connection Jim?
Then neither have I, because I say only what they say and go no further.
I do not know enough about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 11:07 AM

"Rival theories for something you don't believe in Jim!"
Where have I ever said I don't believe that there is nothing to explain? PLEASE ANSWER THIS
My point from the beginning has been that we have no information as to the extent of the problem - if there is one; (all paedophelia, whether carried out by whites, blacks, navy blues - is to be deplored as a disease of society).
My objection is to your making it a Paki-bashing issue.
"Quote some Jim, why don't you?"
No, I ******* won't do your work for you. READ WHAT OTHERS WRITE FOR A CHANGE - BLOW YOUR OWN NOSE AND WIPE YOUR OWN ARSE!! They are here to be read - go and read them - or are you suggesting that every single person who has opposed you is appeasing paedophiles for idealogical reasons?
"One right wing twat may have once called her stupid."
NO - THE DAILY TELEGRAPH - THE SPOKESMAN FOR THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT, CALLED HER THE STUPIDEST PERSON IN BRITAIN
No - I have never called her stupid, and if you had read what I wrote at the time you would be aware of that. I admire her anti-racist stance and pointed it out to you as you had not bothered to quote her in context of what she stood for.
"....... because I say only what they say and go no further."
What a crass way of approaching any subject; the only honest statement you have made here is that you have no knowledge or experience of the subject, and if this is how you approach 'research' - no wonder!
THINK OUT OF YOUR CUT-'N-PASTE BOX FOR A CHANGE.
And address some of the points that have been made
RESEARCH INFORMATION - DO YOU HAVE ANY OR ARE YOU WAITING FOR SOME TO BE DONE SO YOU CAN CUT-'N-PASTE IT AND NOT BOTHER THINKING IT THROUGH.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 11:34 AM

The theory explains the over-representation in terms of culture.
You do not believe the over-representation today, or have I missed another conversion?

However much you bluster, no rival theory has been posted.
I had that argument with Lox before you came.
I scoured every post.
There is no rival theory

I am glad you admire Allibhai-Brown. She states that this issue is real and blames it on the culture.

If you believe me that I have no knowledge of the culture, why do you object to me learning from people who do?
Like Allibhai-Brown, Mohammed Shafiq and Lord Ahmed.
And how can you be so certain that they are wrong?
What is your special knowledge?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 11:39 AM

It was not The Daily Telegraph that called her stupid.
It was right wing twat Douglas Murray in a Telegraph blog.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100030524/is-yasmin-alibhai-brown-the-stupidest-woman-in-britain/

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 12:18 PM

Once again you are taking it on another of your circular Magical Mystery Tours - heading nowhere - we've dealt with all this and you're once again wasting my time - where is your evidence of a cultural connection.
Otherwise, don't call us, we'll call you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 01:50 PM

"And please remember, I DID NOT MAKE THAT HYPOTHESIS.
I DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CULTURE.
It was made by people who do."

Of course not keith.

You have just been (impartially of course) defending it to the hilt for nearly two and a half months.


but what is this ...


"From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 05:57 AM

My hypothesis is that the absence of girls available for sexual relationships in the BP culture may be linked to their young men being over represented in this type of crime."

________________________________________________

which is another way of saying this


"From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 05:39 AM

Men are predisposed because there is no outlet for sexual relationships within the community, and no intimate relationship permitted outside.

But only a tiny minority, the weak and wicked, succumb."


Except that you call it your hypothesis.


Your position is consistent throughout.


Wilmers 400 have still only been REPORTED to have made ALLEGATIONS.

Still not evidence to support the racist hypothesis to which you have pledged your loyalty.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 03:47 PM

I have no evidence of a cultural connection Jim.
I keep telling you, I got it from that list of people who know much more about it than we do.

Lox, I have said that I accepted that hypothesis, because of who proposed it and because no other has been proposed (has it Jim?)

"My hypothesis is that the absence of girls available for sexual relationships in the BP culture may be linked to their young men being over represented in this type of crime."

I got that from Straw and Cryer, and since then from Allibhai-Brown, Mohamed Shafiq and lord Ahmed.

Lox,
"Wilmers 400 have still only been REPORTED to have made ALLEGATIONS."

Yes Lox.
I believe Willmer is being honest.
I believe that her children were being honest.
Why do you doubt them?
Raped children telling their story to a support group.
You are a bastard to treat them as liars.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 04:53 PM

"lox, I have said that I accepted that hypothesis, because of who proposed it and because no other has been proposed"

Oh right - I forgot - the content of a hypothesis and its robustness when scritinized are not important factors.

What matters is that if one of our feudal lords pronounceth that the blackamooors have funny ways, we should doff our hats and ready our pitchforks.

That and a report that there may be allegations, of whose contents we cannot be sure, or indeed of who actually made them, or how many, is sufficient evidence upon which to deduce that Pakistanis are closet nonces.

All very reasonable and not even a little bit racist.

Tally ho chaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 05:12 PM

Lox,
"Oh right - I forgot - the content of a hypothesis and its robustness when scritinized are not important factors."

My case is the over-rep.
I do not care if you believe the explanation or not.
Much more knowledgeable people than us propose it, and you have no alternative.
I do believe it.
You can't.

"What matters is that if one of our feudal lords pronounceth that the blackamooors have funny ways"

No feudal lord. A BP whose life has been devoted to the poorest of his community, and Left Wing politics.
But what does he know next to you? Right Lox?

And the pitiful testimony of raped children.
Bastard Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 05:26 PM

Poor iggle keef - the recipient of all that horrible abuse ...

... reduced to calling me a bastard because he has never even seen the evidence he is relying on.


"and based on the evidence I have never seen, I am able to conclude ... etc ... "


Pitiful.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 05:28 PM

"I do not care if you believe the explanation or not.
Much more knowledgeable people than us propose it, and you have no alternative."

Oh look you've forgotten again ...

Poor Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 05:30 PM

I call you bastard for denying the cries of raped children.
Just allegations.
Not under oath.
No degree in psychology.
Lying sluts.

Bastard

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 06:38 PM

Very interesting ...

... cries which you haven't heard ...

... of whose content you have no knowledge ...

... and whose source and number remains unknown to you ...

Pathetic.

The real reason you are calling me a Bastard is that you got so cocky commenting on my ass that you didn't notice that your head was buried up your own ... and now you're drenched in your own shit ...

... how embarrassing!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 06:45 PM

So Keith thinks that Pakistanis are only slightly rapy ...

... I guess that makes him only slightly racist ... hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 01:12 AM

We have heard many victims' stories now.
Emma. The girl in the Woman's Hour interview. Cases detailed in Lively's links.
Cases in the various articles such as Yorkshire Post.
All very similar, and I found them deeply moving.
You don't even remember.
The only thought elicited in you was, "how can I discredit them?"

Hillary Wilmer is universally praised and admired for her work.
We have read some of her victims' stories.
She offered them as typical examples.
She has hundreds.

We know they exist.
You shut your ears to the cries.
You wont hear or see anything that challenges your preconceptions.

Perhaps I should have looked for a better word to describe you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 01:54 AM

And there we go, yet another extremely long, tediously pointless and extremely depressing trip down Cul-de-Sac Lane; ending nowhere and finally drowned in a torrent of hard-wrung crocodile tears, but summed up perfectly by one of Keith's classic posts showing what he thinks it's really about:
                                                                              "Good result for me though."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 02:59 AM

"tediously pointless" is how I would describe your continuing denial that there is any issue.
All the victims that have been found, many hundreds now, all tell the same story, and you two tediously and pointlessly deny it.

I refute crocodile tears.
I fail to understand how anyone could not be moved by those stories we have heard and read.
You two have not once expressed any concern at all for the victims.

You have nothing to suggest that other groups are doing this, so your case has all been about me.
Such things you accused me of.
So yes, it is a good result for me that you are exposed for what you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 03:44 AM

"You have nothing to suggest that other groups are doing this,"

In point of fact other groups are doing this, all over Europe. British authorities are seeking advice from the Dutch who have been experiencing a near identical new-wave of pimping - specifically targeting, grooming and internally trafficking young schoolgirls - for at least a decade (they call them "loverboys" over there, and there is a UK based campaign of the same name.) So no, it's not a specifically Pakistani based phenomenon by a long straw. If you are genuinely interested in the subject, then I'm sure you will be able to find plenty of articles about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 03:59 AM

I have come across the Loverboys thing.
There was that Australian version too.
I think you supplied that.
In those Northern towns and cities of England Lively, would you say that on-street grooming by groups is mainly a crime of BPs?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 04:35 AM

I've said as much as I want to say on that matter already.

Meanwhile, one of the things noticeable by it's absence in all this are the clients. Pimping out these young girls a highly lucrative business for those gangs who are engaging in it, but there is a bigger problem not currently being addressed in any of the materials I've been reading, and that is the law of 'supply and demand'.

Who are the clients funding this industry? Why is pimping out schoolgirls such good business both in the UK and Europe, including places like Holland where prostitution is legal? In the UK, Emma of Crop says the clients of these gangs are predominantly married Muslim men, in Holland I have read clients include Company Directors and such-like individuals of wealth and social status.

I don't believe anything can be deduced from such a random smattering of information, but it strikes me that focusing on Pakistani culture "in which their own girls are off-limits" is a red herring, because none of these industries would function without sufficient criminally complicit consumers who want to pay good money for the particular 'product' that these gangs are supplying them with.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 04:45 AM

It may be a red herring lively.
It was put up by some notable people though.
Since Lox and Jim do not believe there is an issue to explain, I see no point in pursuing it.
Why will you not express an informed opinion about the main issue of contention?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 04:53 AM

Lively,

I've read some research into the "loverboys" phenomenon too.

From what I've read, Dutch police have noticed that prostitutes in holland have a habit, when they are caught for other misdemeanors, of saying "my loverboy made me do it". Apparently the stories are similar in the way that police testimony was similar during the Rodney King Trial .. ie .. they are recited by rote, as if off a sheet.

In addition, the girl in holland who drew attention to the matter of "loverboys", (as i evidenced earlier in this thread - just type "control f" and then type in "loverboy" and you'll find it quite quickly) had her million euro making best seller on the subject discredited, and her million euro making spoken word tour of holland interrupted, when investigators began to find that her account was fundamentally flawed and very likely fabricated.

It seems that the issue of Loverboys in Holland is based in truth - there are loverboys in Amsterdam - but it has been blown into an exaggerrated hullabaloo, by a combination of factors, including both the willingness of society to condemn foreigners and the complicity of women involved in drugs and prostitution who, when caught, say it wasn't their fault "he made me do it". In fact, according to some in the Amsterdam police, the role of loverboys may be very different to that which has become part of popular mythology. Often they are very much subject to the whim of Prostitutes who use the "loverboy" accusation as a means of control.

The situation in the UK is very different for a number of reasons, not least the difference in Law, and we know so little about what is happening up north that we simply cannot make a comparison one way or the other.

But that is the whole point.

Until CEOP finishes its more comprehensive study, we are all equally in the dark.

Certainly to deduce anything about Pakistani culture based on the information we don't have but we have heard could exist is utterly ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 05:28 AM

"You shut your ears to the cries."

You have shown no interest in the consequences of these crimes or in possible solutions.

You have focussed solely on trying to blame them on Pakistani culture.

Your posts here are notable for a total absence of attention to the victims recovery or protection, or other solutions to the problem of trafficking gangs.


You have used this issue as an excuse to portray Pakistanis as sexual deviants.

You couch it in disingenuous pompous language, but you get more transparent with each post you make.


And Ake peers over your shoulder cheering you on like the school bullies wormy best friend in the playground.


Where were you when I started a thread about child exploitation?

And where are you every time there is a thread about race?

The answer to the first is "nowhere" and the answer to the second is "using whatever means at you disposal to peddle racist crap".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 05:53 AM

Lox blames the victims of the Loverboys!

Their victims can be
distinguished in several categories. The most
vulnerable victims are girls who have experienced
little love and safety at home and have been
maltreated, abused or neglected. Girls, especially
with multi problem backgrounds, or mentally
handicapped girls have a higher chance of
victimization.17
In this sense, one could regard
these characteristics as the victim's push factors
while the lover-boy's attention (love, adoration,
money, and an exciting and glamorous lifestyle)
are the pull factors. Due to extensive media
coverage of this phenomenon, both public and
private projects were initiated to deal with the
'lover-boy' problem in the Netherlands. We listed
the many local initiatives in our latest report and
concluded that no nation-wide understanding and
record-keeping of 'lover-boy'-THB exists today.
Work is currently underway on a national register
for juvenile prostitution.18
http://www.judgesandmagistrates.org/Chronicle%2009.02.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 05:56 AM

Lox,
"You have focussed solely on trying to blame them on Pakistani culture."
Lie.
I did not know anything about it.
I quoted those who know more about it than all of us put together.

"Your posts here are notable for a total absence of attention to the victims recovery or protection, or other solutions to the problem of trafficking gangs."
So are yours and Jim's!


You have used this issue as an excuse to portray Pakistanis as sexual deviants
Lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 06:32 AM

"Lox blames the victims of the Loverboys!"


Show me where I said this/



""Your posts here are notable for a total absence of attention to the victims recovery or protection, or other solutions to the problem of trafficking gangs."
So are yours and Jim's!"



Not true - I made a suggestion about how this crime could be prevented - in a response, not to you, but to Richard Bridge.

here

It was never explored or discussed because you weren't interested in any other aspect of this issue except the issue of Pakistani Sexual Deviance.

Press "control F" and type in thword "solution" and you will be taken to my posts, dons and michaels. it will be clear who has tried to discuss solutions and who hasn't.

Keith has never used the word solution even once.


"I did not know anything about it.
I quoted those who know more about it than all of us put together."

And then spent 2 and 1/2 months fighting to defend those views through thick and thin.

If thats impartial, then Ake is a professor of anthropology.


"You have used this issue as an excuse to portray Pakistanis as sexual deviants
Lie. "


Show me any other contribution to this thread that you have made that doesn't deal with backing up YOUR racist hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 06:47 AM

Lox, you wrote this about the child victims.
From what I've read, Dutch police have noticed that prostitutes in holland have a habit, when they are caught for other misdemeanors, of saying "my loverboy made me do it". Apparently the stories are similar in the way that police testimony was similar during the Rodney King Trial .. ie .. they are recited by rote, as if off a sheet.

In addition, the girl in holland who drew attention to the matter of "loverboys", (as i evidenced earlier in this thread - just type "control f" and then type in "loverboy" and you'll find it quite quickly) had her million euro making best seller on the subject discredited, and her million euro making spoken word tour of holland interrupted, when investigators began to find that her account was fundamentally flawed and very likely fabricated.

It seems that the issue of Loverboys in Holland is based in truth - there are loverboys in Amsterdam - but it has been blown into an exaggerrated hullabaloo, by a combination of factors, including both the willingness of society to condemn foreigners and the complicity of women involved in drugs and prostitution who, when caught, say it wasn't their fault "he made me do it".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 06:50 AM

Lox,

"Show me any other contribution to this thread that you have made that doesn't deal with backing up YOUR racist hypothesis"

But it is not my hypothesis, and it can not be racist because anti racist BPs proposed it.
And what about my contributions about the actual issue of contention, the over-representation?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 06:58 AM

Yes I know I wrote that.

It was me who wrote it.

Show me where in at quote I Blame any victims of anything?

PS - Loverboys in Holland are knowm mainly for seducing adults, not children. Most Child sex slaves in Holland come from Africa.

Also, Loverboys tend not to capture deprived, abused or ghetto women, but are known more for seducing suburban middle class girls.


I haven't blames anyone. I have provided information that undermines your position.

(what? ... more? ... How can it be possible)


Now about your concenr for children keith ... where are your solutions and where is your interest in the victims of Gangs in the North of Engalnd ...

... evidence that you give a shit required please Keith ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 07:18 AM

"PS - Loverboys in Holland are knowm mainly for seducing adults, not children. Most Child sex slaves in Holland come from Africa.
Also, Loverboys tend not to capture deprived, abused or ghetto women, but are known more for seducing suburban middle class girls."

Not trying to be obtuse, but could you could clarify the seeming contradictory elements made in your statement? Yes I know I've edited it, just to pull it into relief.

a) Loverboys in Holland are known mainly for seducing adults.
b) Loverboys are known more for seducing suburban middle class girls.

A reference would be jolly handy too.

PS - thanks for the update of the Dutch girls debunked 'book and tour deal', it's terribly hard for me not to take reports of abuse on face value. No doubt it is for many of us. Women who 'cry rape' do us all a diabolical disservice.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 07:36 AM

Before we get too deeply into Dutch issues, can we establish who is mostly doing it here please?
We would all value your opinion Lively.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 07:49 AM

Lox I searched the word solution.
The only one you suggested is to make kerb crawling illegal.
I have seen no report of that tactic being used.
Jim suggested separating church and state.
And that is it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 07:55 AM

Lively.

"a) Loverboys in Holland are known mainly for seducing adults.
b) Loverboys are known more for seducing suburban middle class girls."

There is no contradiction here unless you infer that "middle class girls" is the same as underage girls.

That is not something that I intended to imply.

By Girls I mean young women, though I should clarify that women as old as their late 20's are seduced by loverboys.

Youy could combune (a) and (b) to get "middle class girls/women"



Keith.

I started an attempt to make the conversation about solutions.

I failed as there were no takers.

Just a sustained two month assault on Pakistanis.



I repeat my earlier demand - evidence that you give a shit about the victims of trafficking gangs ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 07:57 AM

"Before we get too deeply into Dutch issues, can we establish who is mostly doing it here please?"

Not without evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 08:03 AM

Agreed Lox.
We could start with what the victims say, but you won't listen to them.
Why won't you Lox?
Many have been quoted here now.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 08:08 AM

"By Girls I mean young women,"

OK

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 08:14 AM

Lively, why will you not address the main issue?
Is there an over-representation?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 08:31 AM

"We could start with what the victims say, but you won't listen to them.
Why won't you Lox?"

Actually Keith, I took the time to read their testimony - unlike you.

That is how I knew that they offered nothing to corroborate your hypothesis.

And that is why you didn't know that.

You have clearly decided that you don't need to pay attention to such things.

That is how you are able to use evidence you have never seen and cannot be sure even exists to support your argument.


I read the accounts provided and they are extremely upsetting.
Just one of the reasons why your hijacking of this issue to prove that Pakistanis are sex deviants by nature is all the more distasteful.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 08:39 AM

So you are now upset by the testimonies.
Of course you are.
How are the perpetrators described in all those upsetting testimonies?
Or are you too upset?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 08:48 AM

I think BOTH of them talked of Pakistanis Gangs.

How does that support your racist hypothesis Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 08:51 AM

Oh no - hang on - there have been three ... there was the one from the girl who was enslaved by the gang that were convicted as well.

What a mountain of evidence that is to support the view that Pakistani men are culturally predisposed to sexual deviance ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 09:11 AM

Then there was all of Wilmer's hundreds of victims.
Did you find any victims describing non BPs?
I did not.
Then all those senior police officers, serving and retired....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 09:19 AM

"Then there was all of Wilmer's hundreds of victims.
Did you find any victims describing non BPs?
I did not."

That was because you were never able to find those testimonies - and you have no idea what they contain or who provided them.

You found no others describing Pakistanis, non Pakistanis or men from mars.

You simply believe that they are there.


We have 3.


And 2 and 1/2 months of racial slander.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 09:32 AM

How do you count only 3??
There are more than that just in Mothers Of Prevention.
Then all the other links.
Then all the court cases.
And Wilmer states, STATES, that her hundreds of cases were all by BPs.
WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE CHILD VICTIMS????
Too upset perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 09:59 AM

Lively, you said you were in touch with Jim.
Have you been asked not to state your position?
Why will you not?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest, wampum
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 10:28 AM

Barking, absolutely barking!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 01:18 PM

Just in case anyone cares, Afghan fanatics who killed UN workers were not really about crazy Rev. Terry Jones but really used him as an excuse to act out about Pax Americana
in Afghanistan.

People who are occupied by foreign troops will find any reason to revolt.

What do you think would happen if anyone decided to publicly desecrate the Christian Cross in the U.S.?   (Anyone for mosque burning?) Not me.

There are those who seek simplistic answers through scapegoating. It's all the Jews, Muslims, Christians, Catholics, Democrats, Republicans fault. They all think alike,
act alike and are robotically committed to their behavior. You believe that and you have bought a fool's bargain.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Apr 11 - 01:39 PM

How do you know this stringsinger?
The demonstrators themselves sid they were angry about the burning.
They had been told that hundreds were burned.

A large and angry crowd surged through the streets of Kandahar, chanting "They have insulted our Koran" and "Death to America", the BBC's Paul Wood reports from Kabul.

The authorities in both Kandahar and Mazar-e Sharif blamed the Taliban for the attacks. However, the Taliban has rejected the accusation.
Mazar-e Sharif is due to be one of the first places transferred from Nato security control in the summer, but on this occasion the Afghan police were unable to protect the UN.
"The Taliban had nothing to do with this, it was a pure act of responsible Muslims," spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told the Reuters news agency by phone from an undisclosed location.

"The foreigners brought the wrath of the Afghans on themselves by burning the Koran," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 02:31 AM

"Have you been asked not to state your position?"
You low-minded, nasty bastard.
You are the only one who has lied and manipulated on this thread and has tampered with evidence, omitting important relevant detail from cut-and-pastes to try to make your case. In the past it is you who has posted under a false name in order to weigh the argument in your favour and give yourself support you did not have.
THE ONLY DIRTY-TRICKS STUNTS OF THIS SORT ON THIS THREAD AND ON THIS FORUM HAVE BEEN YOURS AND YOURS ALONE
For the record - Lively has not been in touch with me; had he been, I would not have attempted to influence his input into this thread (I don't have to - I'm not trying to make a non-existent case for my non-substantiated racist theories).
Most importantly, had I attempted to persuade Lively not to post, I have no doubt I would have been told by him in no uncertain terms to 'shove it'.
The fact that you are forced to resort to an allegation of this sort against two members of this forum is not only proof that you have no honest or valid case to make here (evidenced by your almost total lack of support here), but it also shows what a scumball you really are when you set your mind to it.
"WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE CHILD VICTIMS????"
And still you attempt to float your racist boat on the backs of raped children
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 03:04 AM

You could not make this up if you tried !

Just found this story in the Daily Express about a crackpot female Labour politician Karen Buck .


Ms Buck, a shadow welfare minister, made her contribution at a public meeting in Islington recently, the North London spiritual home of the metropolitan Left.

There she claimed that coalition plans to limit housing benefit claims to a maximum £400 per week were designed to force black and Muslim women out of central London and into the outer suburbs.

"Let us be very clear – because we also know where the impact is hitting – they don't want black women, they don't want ethnic minority women and they don't want Muslim women living in central London," she said.

Later she issued a partial retraction saying she could not be sure this was the deliberate aim of the housing benefit
reforms but stuck by her assessment of the policy's impact.

What makes this so telling is that for Ms Buck to even level her accusation, it must be the case that an awful lot of ethnic minority and Muslim women are being subsidised to the tune of much more than £400 week to live in central London.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 03:11 AM

I am just curious as to why Lively feels unable to state his position on the central issue keeping this thread running.
i.e. is a minority group the majority offender in a certain crime?

He stated that the Binden pieces were compelling enough to help inform his thoughts, and were "a clarification of where I'm coming from."
Thoses pieces are an unrelenting catalogue of pitiful child victims gang raped by BP gangs.
You have to assume he accepts what the poor victims state, but he can not or will not say it.
It helps to explain why this scandal has been kept secret for well over a decade.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 03:21 AM

"I am just curious as to why Lively feels unable to state his position on the central issue keeping this thread running."
No you're not - you are attempting to smear two members of this forum with sewer-level innuendo.
Personally I don't give a shit what you think about me - it certainly couldn't be lower than the opinion I have of you - but I think you owe Lively an unconditional apology for your shit-level suggestion AND AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL - don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 03:22 AM

Jim you repeated my question to Lox.
"WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE CHILD VICTIMS????"

I put the same question to you.
Everyone states that they were raped by gangs of BPs.
Not one has been found who identifies any other group.
Why won't you listen?

To save your face you try to make liars of these children.
That itself is abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 03:27 AM

I accept your denial and withdraw the question.
I do not need to apologise for asking a question.
A query is not an assertion.

Now answer my question.
"WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE CHILD VICTIMS????"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 04:18 AM

No apology - fair enough; we'll have to settle for the nasty taste you leave in the mouth, both with your smears and your continued attempts to use raped children to score points.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 05:24 AM

"WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN TO THE CHILD VICTIMS????"

Why won't you Keith?

Because you aren't interested in their plight or finding a solution to it.

Your sole concern has been to find tenuous tit-bits of support for your racist hypothesis.

Consequently you have absolutely no idea what is important about their testimonies and no interest in finding out.

Such a severe case of Myopia I have never before seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 05:35 AM

Jim: I feel bound as a friend to point out that the tone of your posts [CAPS EVERYWHERE!] and their abusive content ~ 'scumbag, shit, bastard ...' ~ appear to an impartial observer [which is what I have endeavoured to be on this thread, honestly] increasingly hysterical ~~ counter-productively> so, and in danger of undermining your case. Keith has remained cool throughout and has not resorted at any point to such name-calling, and I genuinely feel this contrast can only damage your position.

We can all see that this is a topic on which you feel deeply; but as I have implied before, I think there may be a danger that this is preventing your seeing the issues clearly or responding rationally to some of them.

I honestly think it would be to your advantage to take a step back and a deep breath...

And I sincerely hope this does not sound too patronising or grandmother-sucking-eggs-ish.

Best

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 05:37 AM

Sorry got the html re itals wrong on last post ~ ignore most of them, please

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 05:39 AM

Jim, you failed to answer.
Lox, you again deny what the hundreds of child victims say.
Every one of them has said they were raped by gangs of BPs.
Not one has identified a different group.
Have they Lox?
Why won't you listen?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 05:55 AM

"A query is not an assertion."

No - but in this case it is definitely an insinuation.

But this is exactly what we would expect from Keith.

He posts entirely one sidedly on a topic, but claims impartial reporter staus.

So why woouldn't he insult aomeone and then claim innocence on a technicality.

... sniff ... sob ... you bastard ... snuffle ... (throws self dramaatically on nearby chaise longue)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 06:03 AM

Answer the question Lox.
Why do you deny what all the children say?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 06:07 AM

Sorry Mike,
I've had just about enough of this guy- he's more than proved his 'sincerity' by his behaviour on this thread, both with evasiveness, open cheating and with innuendo - as here.
If he expects respect and to be taken seriously he has to extend the same to those with whom he's he's debating.
I've had over two years of this from him, occasionally losing my rag, but mostly attempting to follow his twists and turns with honest answers.
His latest cynical hand-wringing hypocracy just about does it for me.
I'll happily debate this, or any topic with you and virtually anybody who has participated in this thread, whether I agree with your points of view or not, but personally, I find Keith too toxic for my stomach.
As for name calling - I think we've all done our share of that; Keith mainly by innuendo and deliberate misrepresentation - making us all out a s liars, idiots and heartless bastards who support extremist child rapists, or at the very least, are happy to ignore their behaviour in order to put forward some political agenda - which is exactly what he is doing at the present time.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 06:46 AM

"Why do you deny what all the children say? "

I haven't denied anything they said Keith.

Where I have had access to what they have said, I have read it. In all 3 cases.

Unlike you who hove superimposed you hypothesis and misrepresent the eviidence to support it, or just invent it when it doesn't.

I have found nothing that supports your hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 07:40 AM

I think we are agreed, Jim, that we differ as to the significance or effects of Keith's posts and points; there is probably no purpose in our pursuing that argument further. My point was simply that I thought your arguments would come over more cogently if expressed more moderately and less abusively. It is always more effective if one can keep one's temper, whatever the provocation. Most people {unless looking for the perverse enjoyment which comes from watching someone 'losing it'} would have preferred to watch Stan Smith play tennis rather than John McEnroe, despite the frequent brilliance of the latter's play. I know I certainly did.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 07:52 AM

Remember this innuendo Jim?
Nothing you (rather Lively - you tend to ponce off other's input's) have put up here

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 09:01 AM

Not talking about his posts Mike, am referring to his openly dishonest behaviour, which you have chosen not to comment on: his doctoring of 'evidence', his innuendos of a dirty-tricks campaign on mine and Lively's part, his posting of snide attacks on other threads and and fact that the implication of what he has repeated over and over again is that we are liars, stupid and (his current approach) if we do not endorse his hypocritical plea for sympathy, heartless bastards who ignore or support paedophelia.
"Remember this innuendo Jim?"
Not innuendo Keith - statement of fact. You took Lively's findings, which he introduced into the discussion sensitively and responsibly, and emblazoned it all over the thread (in case it disappeared!!!) and used those dreadful cases as an emotional jack-hammer to make your racist point over and over again, and are still doing so as a piece of emotional blackmail (endorse what I say or you are all heartless bastards).
You are so unimaginitive that you even took Mike's name-calling of Lox and used it yourself - if not word-for-word, certainly in form - want me to dig it out?.
Whatever points you or we may or may not have made here, your behaviour has been abominable towards others you are debating with.
Nobody really gives a shit about name-calling, we all do it at times, but at least we try to respond honestly to each other's points, even when we disagree.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 09:25 AM

---Mike, am referring to his openly dishonest behaviour, which you have chosen not to comment on:---

Why, Jim, yes I have: by saying more than once I do not perceive it as dishonest quite as you do; but that is not the issue I have been pursuing of late ...

it was the tone, rather than the content, of your posts that I have been commenting on these last couple of times.

{Where has Keith used my 'name-calling of Lox' btw? I don't remember calling anyone any names; only recall his disobliging refs to me a while since ~~ since when he & I have exchanged some observations without too much heat, IIRC.}

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 09:57 AM

"Not innuendo Keith - statement of fact"
That we "ponce off each other"
That is a worse insult to Lively than just posing a question.

Jim it is monstrous that you accuse me of using the child victims as "an emotional jack-hammer."

Those families are angry that their stories have been suppressed.
They told their "dreadful stories" to the journalist Binden because they wanted to be heard.
In my small way I am helping them to be heard.
I know they would thank me for putting their "dreadful stories" on this forum.

But what would they say to you and Lox, for denying the truth of what they say?
If they called you bastard, who would blame them.

Every one of them says they were raped by BP gangs.
Likewise all the testimonies we have heard and read.
Likewise all those who went to Straw, Cryer, and the Hindu and Sikh groups.
Likewise all the hundreds who went to Wilmer.
And not one says different.
So, why won't you listen?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 10:59 AM

"That is a worse insult to Lively than just posing a question."
The quote in full - referring to your poncing off Lively's information - no reference at all to Lively on my part
"Nothing you (rather Lively - you tend to ponce off other's input's) have put up here in any way backs up the claims you have continually made since you first turned this thread into a torrent of hatred for Pakistani culture. If it does, please point it out."
"But what would they say to you and Lox, for denying the truth of what they say?"
Once again - where has anybody denied what they say, certainly not me?
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 11:10 AM

If you accept what they all say, that they have all been raped by gangs of BPs, and none say different, how can you deny that it is mainly a crime of BPs?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Silas
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 11:34 AM

Boynnng. Time for bed said Zeberdee.

g'it a rest lads - 38 pages should be enough for anyone...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 12:05 PM

"Where has Keith used my 'name-calling of Lox"
M
"Stinkilox – CrapLox – ObnoxiousLoxious - Poxy-Loxy-Woxy – SilliLox –PsychoLox - SickoLox"
K
"Bastard Lox - Ludicrous Lox! - Obnoxious Lox - obnoxious Lox – ludicrous Lox - ridiculous Lox - ridiculous Lox"

Not commenting on the quality you understand, or even the usage, - there but for the grace......! just the lack of imagination on Keith's part in not developing his own style of invective (is that the word).
And this is the last time I'm trawling through this swam looking for stuff that is either flatly denied or ignored.
".....that they have all been raped by gangs of BPs, and none say different, how can you deny that it is mainly a crime of BPs?"
Because they are crimes committed by ALL RACES, CREEDS and COLOURS and to claim them as "mainly a Pakistani" crime is SIMPLY NOT THE CASE.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,wampum
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 12:09 PM

Barking, absolutely and totally barking!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 12:29 PM

Again you deny and betray the child victims.
They all say they were raped by gangs of BPs, not by other groups.
Why will you not listen to those poor raped children.
No-one likes it, any more than you do.
But, it is a fact and we should learn to deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 01:21 PM

"Again you deny and betray the child victims."
Are the child victims saying that this is not true? This is what you have been saying and this is what we have been denying throughout this thread.
"Because they are crimes committed by ALL RACES, CREEDS and COLOURS and to claim them as "mainly a Pakistani" crime is SIMPLY NOT THE CASE."
"Why will you not listen to those poor raped children."
And for crying out loud
".....Why will you not listen to those poor raped children......." you're beginning to sound like Michael McLiammoír reading "The Death of Little Nell"
You're the same bloody hypocrite who has cynically used these children to make your racist case.
Sod off!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 01:33 PM

And we haven't forgotten how you crowed like an egg-bound black bird and told us how good it was for you when Lively uncovered these figures.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 01:41 PM

Its all academic now.

2 and 1/2 months diligently trying to prove that Pakistanis are perverts is enough evidence of Keiths motives to be completely clear about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 01:49 PM

Jim and Lox.
"Because they are crimes committed by ALL RACES, CREEDS and COLOURS and to claim them as "mainly a Pakistani" crime is SIMPLY NOT THE CASE."

This crime is mainly committed by BPs.
All the children say they were raped by gangs of BPs.

To deny their claims is to abuse them further.
I believe them.
You can't.

IT JUST CAN'T BE TRUE!
THEY ARE ALL RACISTS BIGOTS AND LIARS!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 02:17 PM

"This crime is mainly committed by BPs."
Calmly - No it isn't Keith; the figures you received from Lively with such obscene glee:
                         "I can hear YOU screaming Jim, and I'm bloody enjoying it."
represents a miniscule fraction of such crimes that have been going on since the dawn of time and all over the world. To lay them at the door of one race is RACIST.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 02:29 PM

Jim,
""This crime is mainly committed by BPs."
Calmly - No it isn't Keith;"

It is according to the child victims.
They all say they were raped by gangs of BPs.
None say different.
Why will you not listen to them?
Why do you deny and betray them?
Have they not suffered enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 02:35 PM

How thick can you be ...

... all the vcitims of Pakistanis say they were raped by Pakistanis.

Are you suggesting that only Pakistanis in the North of England abuse children or commit rape?

Get a life!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 02:44 PM

The various journalists, MPs, Support workers etc. did not go out looking for victims of BPs.
They just looked for victims, or the victims sought them out.

And all those victims said they had been raped by gangs of BPs.
There are no other victims claiming different attackers are there Lox?
That is because this really is mainly a crime of BPs.

Sorry, but I am just the messenger.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 02:49 PM

Keith - one more time:

                                                                                        G T A F F

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Apr 11 - 03:04 PM

No jim.
The children and families have a right to be heard.
It is disgusting that you won't accept the word of those who actually experienced the rape.

Why won't you?
Saving your face?

Let it go both of you.
You are on the wrong side.
I am with the raped kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 05:57 AM

"I am with the raped kids."

mm hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 10:13 AM

Explanation of your last post Lox?

And explain also why all the victims say their abusers were BPs, and why none have been found who accuse others.

And why you choose to ignore what the actual victims say.

And why we should listen to you and Jim instead of those who, as victims, know more about this evil crime than anyone else in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 04:04 PM

""And explain also why all the victims say their abusers were BPs, and why none have been found who accuse others.""



To be more accurate, Wilmer says that the kids said all of the abusers were Pakistani, and it suits you to believe her, so you present it as evidence that what you wish to believe is FACT!

You would never get that level of hearsay admitted into evidence in any court in either the UK, let alone presented as fact to a jury.

So, if that is your case, best of luck with it Keith. You are being persistently foolish and dishonest in calling that evidence, simply because it supports your hard wired prejudice.

I would hate to see you on a jury trying any member of an ethnic minority.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 04:11 PM

BTW Keith, we never did get to hear your answer to my question about HOW those children could have identified all their abusers as Pakistani, rather than Indian, Spanish, Maltese, or any other darkish skinned race.

And please remember that we are talking about 400 children, not just those who were victim to. the Pakistani groups already convicted.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 04:47 PM

Of course I believe Wilmer.
You would need a bloody good reason to believe she would lie about all this.
What is yours?

These crimes do not involve the rapist creeping up on the victim with a balaclava on.
The victim knows the names, the cars, where they work, everything.

I am slightly disgusted that you try to discredit the word of raped children with talk of heresay, when you clearly have not read any of the testimonies from children or families, or researchers or support workers.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Apr 11 - 04:51 PM

Full front page in today's Times.

More than sixty white schoolgirls were being groomed for sex in Blackpool, by a group of men who have been linked to the murder of a fourteen year old girl.
All the girls were white and all the perps Muslim....mainly BPs

"The endemic nature of the abuse was kept secret"

Sorry, unable to link to this story which covers three pages.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 01:58 AM

The Telegraph picked up on that story.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8433887/60-girls-groomed-for-sex-at-takeaway-shops-in-Blackpool.html

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 02:00 AM

More info. here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374443/Police-hid-abuse-60-girls-Asian-takeaway-workers-linked-Charlene-Downes-murder.h

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 02:03 AM

link does not work.
cut and paste.
sorry.

By James Tozer
Last updated at 11:12 PM on 7th April 2011



At least 60 schoolgirls were groomed for sex by workers at seedy takeaways linked to the murder of a 14-year-old girl.
Children as young as 11 were targeted by mainly Asian staff at fast food outlets in Blackpool. They were offered food, alcohol and cigarettes in return for sexual favours.
An unpublicised police report produced after 14-year-old Charlene Downes vanished in 2003 found the girls, most if not all white, had been victims of the 'honey pot' premises. There were claims last night that the report was suppressed for reasons of political correctness.
Seedy: The takeaway in Blackpool linked to Charlene Downes, then 14, and Paige Chivers, then 15, who are both missing
Four years later another girl, 15-year-old Paige Chivers, also went missing. Detectives believe she was killed like Charlene, whose body has never been found.
Two Middle Eastern restaurant owners were acquitted over Charlene's murder in 2007 and the crime remains unsolved.
The pair still run a kebab shop in Blackpool which was also linked to Paige, and she too was identified as a victim of sexual exploitation. Last year police reported that the takeaway was attracting young girls who were being supplied with alcohol and cocaine.
Victims: Charlene Downes (left) is believed to have been murdered while Paige Chivers has been missing since 2007

The revelations about the scale of grooming centred around the downmarket cafes comes amid growing concern at disturbing cases involving mainly Asian gangs exploiting young white girls for sex in the Midlands and North of England.
More...The one-boy crime wave: 17-year-old behind 100 burglaries and £445,000 spree is jailed
Mystery of the teenager who went to nightclub restroom... and never returned

The girls, often from vulnerable homes or in the care system, were befriended by men who showered them with gifts and affection before using them for sex.
Former Home Secretary Jack Straw has said the girls were seen as 'easy meat', while David Cameron called on police to follow criminal acts 'without fear or favour' wherever the evidence leads.
The Home Office commissioned a nationwide investigation into the problem, which has long been considered taboo by police officers fearful of being branded racist.
Indeed, a former senior detective at Lancashire Police yesterday blamed political correctness for its failure to highlight its 2003 findings in Blackpool.
But the force denied this, saying the report had been available online since 2007 but had never been intended for publication.
Senior officers insisted an intensive programme to break the cycle of exploitation had been a success and that in the last six months 50 of 54 grooming suspects were white.
Shocking claims made in court over Charlene's murder revealed fears that her body had been put through a mincing machine, with takeaway staff said to have joked that her remains had 'gone into the kebabs'.
A jury failed to reach a verdict on charges that Jordanian immigrant Iyad Albattikhi had murdered her while his Iranian landlord Mohammed Reveshi had disposed of her body.
A retrial collapsed in 2008 amid failings in the police investigation and the men were paid almost £250,000 each in compensation.
The kebab shop run by Mr Albattikhi and Mr Reveshi has changed its name from Funny Boyz to Mr Beanz. It was refused a hot food licence last year amid fears about 'sexual activity' linked to the premises, but the pair blame a 'police vendetta' and have appealed.
Following Charlene's disappearance in 2003, police found more than 60 girls were being groomed for sex by non-white men centred around 11 Blackpool takeaways.
They were mainly aged between 13 and 15, but some were as young as 11. Yesterday former Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell warned that research into the problem was being hampered by 'political correctness and concerns about upsetting community cohesion'.
But Lancashire police denied a cover-up. Assistant Chief Constable Andy Rhodes said his officers were making significant progress in tackling child sex exploitation across Lancashire, regardless of the background of the culprits.
He added: 'We recognise that in some areas the number of Asian offenders is disproportionate to the population and far from ignoring this, have been tackling the issue head on by working with the local communities, giving presentations to community forums and visiting mosques to raise awareness.'
It was reported yesterday that while most British sex offenders are lone white men, details of court cases in 13 towns showed that out of 56 men convicted of multiple offences of grooming girls for sex, 50 were Muslim, mostly of Pakistani heritage.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374443/Police-hid-abuse-60-girls-Asian-takeaway-workers-linked-Charlene-Downes-murder.html#ixzz1IuP4Tqn0

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 04:39 AM

More glee for Keith:
In context:
This took place 8 years ago.
Two Pakistani kebab takeaway owners were said to have been involved and put on trial.
It was found they had no case to answer and the trial collapsed ie; they were innocent and were compensated for having been wrongly accused.
Some police are now claiming that the reason they did not do their job properly in the first place was that they feared accusaions of racism.
End of story - which in no way implicates the British Pakistani population as a whole - back to square one.
Incidentally, Ake could have put up all the information yesteday - there were a number of sources he could have chosen, such as fascist publications like The White Supremist (think that's the name, but it might be the organisation - speaks for itself though) who have called for their members to 'move into Blackpool and sort things out'.
Wisely, Ake chose not to go there as it would have put this discussion were it truely belongs.
Said I wasn't going to be involved again, and I'm not, but I thought you should know where we stand
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 05:02 AM

Charlene died all those years ago but the abuse of children goes on.
That is stated by the police.
Do you believe that Charlene got justice at the trials for her murder Jim?

If you have a strong stomach, read this BBC piece about the first trial.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6688137.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 05:04 AM

Police investigating the disappearance of a teenage girl allegedly 'chopped up' for kebab meat have been criticised for a catalogue of failures which led to the collapse of a murder retrial.
An independent review found that police surveillance techniques were 'handled poorly and unprofessionally' and as a result nobody is now likely to be convicted of killing Charlene Downes, 14, who was last seen in 2003.

Her mother today said she felt 'badly let down' after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) recommended that seven officers should be disciplined over the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 05:39 AM

Jim states,
"It was found they had no case to answer and the trial collapsed ie; they were innocent.."

No.
The police messed up and all the evidence had to be withdrawn.
Official report here.
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr151009_lancashire.aspx

A shocking miscarriage of justice.
An abused and brutally murdered child, and the rapist killers are still free to carry on.
No glee from me about any of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 05:48 AM

"Do you believe that Charlene got justice at the trials for her murder Jim?"
No I don't - the police didn't do their job properly and those guilty escaped - pretty much as happened in the Stephen Lawrence case.
The main pont of all this is as stated - ie; which in no way implicates the British Pakistani population as a whole - even if those arrested had been as guilty as hell.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 06:15 AM

If course it "in no way implicates the British Pakistani population as a whole"

Nothing I have posted on this thread does!
You don't listen, but I keep saying that only a tiny minority are offending.

My whole case, simply put, is that there is an over-representation in this horrendously nasty type of crime, and there is a mass of horrendously nasty evidence confirming that, not least the testimony of the surviving victims themselves.

You deny it, but offer nothing except smears.
IT JUST MUSN'T BE TRUE!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 07:15 AM

Nothing new here, certainly no new evidennce to back up your "more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim.", which flies in the face of yur own 'witnesses' - I'm off - but don't hestiate to call me when you have something fresh (not really a word that can be applied to such a foetid an argument)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 07:22 AM

From the IPCC report.

"Six years since the disappearance of Charlene, her parents are no nearer to knowing what happened to their daughter. I cannot imagine how distressing this must be for them. The failings in Lancashire Constabulary's investigation can only have compounded that distress. Lessons must be learned from this matter to ensure such failures cannot happen again."

How come They don't know, yet Keith is sure?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 07:37 AM

I do not know what happened to the poor child Lox.
She has been denied even the dignity of a grave.

I am deeply shocked at your casual, cold lack of any empathy.

Do you care at all that her vicious killers are still laughing at her?
Or are you glad because of who they are?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 07:47 AM

Jim,
"no new evidennce to back up your "more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim.","

That was a direct quote of Jack Straw, former Home Secretary, former Foreign Secretary, Blackburn MP.
Not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 08:09 AM

"That was a direct quote of Jack Straw"
Aimed at a specific, but unspecified community - not at the British Pakistani population as a whole - as you would have us accept.
"I do not know what happened to the poor child Lox. She has been denied even the dignity of a grave."
Back to you Beerbohm Tree impersonations Yuuuukkk!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 08:36 AM

You lie.
I have never addressed anything at the whole BP population.
You have to lie because you have NOT ONE SINGLE HONEST CHALLENGE to the contention that there is an over-representation.

You have to keep running from the thread because you have no reply to the mountain of evidence against you.

And you mock the compassion that I feel for a murdered child.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Silas
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 08:44 AM

I can't tell you how interesting this thread is guys, I keep seeing new posts appear and think to myself, "ey up, I bet someone has posted something new...."

Have a little dignity chaps and call it a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 09:12 AM

"I am deeply shocked at your casual, cold lack of any empathy."

Your imagination is running wild again Keith

"Or are you glad because of who they are? "


I don't know who they are Keith.

How would I know when even the parents don't?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 09:36 AM

The mother believes she does know Lox.
It is easy to find quotes from her.
I believe I know too.

I hope there is justice beyond ours.
You don't care do you Lox.
You are just glad there is not another conviction to explain away.

Without this case there are mountains of evidence for an over-representation.
You have none, NONE, to support your denial of the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 09:41 AM

"And you mock the compassion that I feel for a murdered child. "
No - I am sickened at the cynical use you have put this tragedy to - and the fact that you have diverted the subject away from the children whose fate you were gloating over a few days ago (you've had the quotes) means that the attention is turned away from the crimes and their causes to an attack on a racial group in Britain - just as those in the 'White Supremists' have done - same line, same objective.
"You have to keep running from the thread "
Can I remind you that EVERYBODY apart from "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers" has run from this thread - have they fled from your mountain of evidence?
Silas has the right of it - I'll leave you to uyour slurry pit.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 10:03 AM

Oh I see - so the mother "Believes" she knows.

And you "Believe" you know.

Wow - that really adds to the mountain of evidence.


"You have none, NONE, to support your denial of the truth. "

This old logical non sequitir again.


The truth = your hypothesis, for which you still fail to provide evidence.

So we don't know if its true or not.

You just believe it to be true thats all.

Just as you blelieve Pakistanis are deviants.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 10:30 AM

No one has to read this against their will, but you two and I are in contention over a disputed fact. (Note NOT a hypothesis!)

I say that there is an over representation, and I have the evidence of hundreds of victims' statements, statements from MPs, police officers, Barnados officials, victim support workers, Sikh and Hindu groups, BPs such as Allibhai-Brown, Lord Ahmed, and Mohammed Shafiq, journalists, conviction stats., .......

You say there is not, but have nothing to suggest significant numbers of any other groups are committing this crime.
Your whole case is that I am a bad person.
So you have to keep saying it, and/or hide.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 11:18 AM

Jim and Lox, let me help you.
I will accept that I am indeed a bad person.
All my evidence for the over-representation is still good.
What have you got?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 04:42 PM

'fraid you'll have to go turning over a few stones Keith....thats where you'll find the varmits.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 08:46 PM

""I have never addressed anything at the whole BP population.
You have to lie because you have NOT ONE SINGLE HONEST CHALLENGE to the contention that there is an over-representation.""

You are a LIAR!

You have answered a series of questions with the statement that you believe that the British Pakistani Culture slightly predisposes male British Pakistanis toward this activity, in a way not seen in other cultures. Would you like them copy/pasted to show how you distort the truth?

You have also insisted throughout upon using the dehumanising term BPs when referring to British citizens of Pakistani ethnic origin.

YOU ARE ON A MISSION, and it has little to do with the welfare of those poor kids, and much to do with your attitude to Pakistani men.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 11:51 PM

Does that mean you retract your hypothesis?

Well if you wouldn't mind clarifying, here's a direct question.

In your view, are British Pakistanis culturally predisposed to trafficking and raping underage girls?

And if there is no straight answer, then can you clarify what, in your opinion, they are culturally predisposed to doing?

It would be very helpful to know exactly where you now stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 01:42 AM

Why discuss an explanation if you deny anything to explain?
I never proposed one anyway.
Wiser people than us did, and I have said that they have convinced me.

My case is just that there is an over-representation.
There is overwhelming evidence for that.
If there was not an over-representation, there would have to be a much larger number of non BPs offending, because BPs are a minority group.
There is absolutely no evidence for that.

Do you have any Lox?
Don?
Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 02:53 AM

Don, BP is an entirely neutral abreviation, like MP or GP.
Two keystrokes instead of seventeen, it has saved me literally thousands of key strokes.
Would you care to suggest an alternative abreviation for me?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 07:00 AM

Why don't you provide your opinion anyway Keith?

Just clarify whether or not you still think Briitish Pakistanis are predisposed to trafficking and rape.

Its very easy. Either you do or you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 08:47 AM

"Your whole case is that I am a bad person."
No – our whole case is that you have no evidence to back up your 'culture' or 'mainly a British Pakistani crime', or 'tip of the iceberg' claims, and are unable to think outside of your racist box.
(One more time), can't do this using sound-bites so anybody still remotely interested, (especially Keith) is just going to have to lie back and think of England!
We have no idea what the 'imbalance' is, or even if it exists at all – we have random reports from specific but unnamed and unquantified areas – no figures, nor any details other than the minute handfuls of reported cases from a population of one and a half million.
If I was burgled tomorrow, that would make me a victim of burglary, not an expert on the crime – that takes research, so any constant appeal to "listen to the victims", is pointless; they can only tell us what has happened to them, no more, no less, and Keith know it and it is little more than amateur theatricals on his part to try and undo some of the damage you did to your case with your obscenely gleeful reception of Lively's information – and you bloody well know this as well
Unlike Keith, I have not been prepared to speculate on the topic because we simply don't have the details necessary to reach a coherent conclusion and I certainly am not prepared to lay it at the door of ethnicity or culture.
But I do have some experience of working with another minority group – the Travellers.
When we started to work with Irish Travellers in London they were a still a fairly isolated community, essentially rural dwellers visiting the city with a strong culture of their own and strong family ties. The main recorded crime among them was driving without tax and insurance, with some opportunist petty theft thrown in (scrap metal etc). Within five years this had changed completely; they had become urban dwellers and (particularly the youngsters) had taken on board many of the worst habits and values of the host community, major theft, drugs and violence.
We have no reason to believe that this has not been the case with the British Pakistani population.
We know two things for certain about them;
a. That they are four times more likely to be harassed, persecuted and assaulted, thanks to the endemic nature of racism in Britain – look it up.
And;
b. That they are almost certainly the most impoverished of all the social groups in Britain (with one possible exception) – look it up.
The outcome of both of these facts are (a) that they have been forced to move into ghetto-like communities, largely for self-protection.
And:
(b) The places they have settled in are low-priced and run-down, with sub-standard housing and poor general amenities, in areas of high unemployment and low spending power and political influence– Thatcher's legacy to the North of England.
The politicians who created these holes and continue to allow them to exist without improvement, including ex Home Secretaries like Jack Straw, have made few attempts to change conditions for the better in these places and have only shown an interest at election times or when certain events attract wider attention and become an embarrassment.
These are depressed areas of low self-esteem; breeding grounds for street vice, petty crime and degradation – I know because I grew up in one of them (somewhat different in those days, as sex hadn't become the readily accessible and marketable commodity it now is).
To suggest, as Keith has done persistently, that the grooming and pimping of young women is the province of Pakistani communities, "a new offence", "a massive over representation" underage or otherwise, is a nonsense; he is well aware of this and yet has constantly ignored it when it has been pointed out here.
We know that parents have always told their children "don't speak with strangers" from time immemorial, or refused to let them walk to school, but insist on driving them there. Watching out for 'the scoutmaster' has been a running joke throughout my life; as was being careful of the oddball characters (Charlie Yarbo – when I was a kid) who wanted to do strange things to you.
The latest 'star' of the Conservative party, (a teacher whose name escapes me) has crawled into the limelight with her outright condemnation of the lower class education system; part of that condemnation has been that the schools are hot-beds (pun intended) of underage sex, in and out of school, consentual or otherwise.
This is not just a UK based problem, in Ireland we are still coming to terms with a long term (possibly over a century) and widespread outbreak of clerical abuse, where priests have taken advantage of their exalted position to groom and abuse children under their care. The Magdalene Laundries, where the 'bad girls' were sent to, have yet to be enquired into, but it is a regular claim that some of the girls were groomed by those over them and put at the disposal of some of the wealthier patrons in return for donations to the institutions.
Internet grooming of underage children of both sexes in Britain has reached epic proportions; a few weeks ago there was a massive swoop by police in Britain and Europe with the largest number of arrests ever.
The introduction and increased use of date-rape drugs like rohypnol are all part of the grooming process, and as far as we know they have no connection whatever to Pakistani culture.
Sex of all shapes and sizes has become an extremely marketable commodity; it sells newspapers and magazines, it has its own television channels and websites, it sells DVDs...... it is big business writ bigger.
To attempt to separate the different types of grooming and pimping is a nonsense; it's the same play on different stages with different scenery – one quite often being an upmarket/downmarket version of the other.
Place any "testosterone driven" young men into these situations, no matter what their cultural or ethnic origins, and you are bound to draw out predators and criminals who will prey on underage girls – Straw knew it and said it, and Keith knows it and removed it from his quote.
Why is there an over-representation of Pakistanis in cases of underage grooming and abuse?
We don't know that there is outside a tiny handful of areas mentioned in a tiny handful of hearsay statements by a tiny handful of field workers and politicians – all over which can be explained variously; e.g. a coincidentally larger number of Pakistanis moving into these area who are morally inclined to such behaviour, an existing indigenous thriving sex industry taken over by the newcomers,   inadequate or, more likely, non-existant research being replaced by superficial observation on the part of those reporting the situation…. a whole bunch of reasons,.
What is this over-representation – one in ten, one in a hundred, one in a thousand, one in ten thousand…….?
What are the sizes of these areas, whole cities, towns, districts, streets……?
What are the prevailing conditions?
Do the areas have a history of underage sex abuse or is it a new phenomenon?
Until these and many other questions can be answered by knowledgeable authorities on the subject with properly researched data to back up their conclusions, the persistent asking for an explanation is like asking "how long is a piece of string" – it is a cynical exercise in point-scoring by somebody with a not very well hidden agenda.
One thing we do know for sure – none of this has anything whatever to do with ethnicity, culture or race, otherwise it would have manifested itself in every Muslim community in Britain and not the isolated areas that have so far been reported on.
There – that's my limit of experience, understanding and opinion; let's hear yours Keith – or not, as the case will almost certainly be - unless you can find a convenient cut-'n-paste.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 06:33 PM

Hi Keith,

Still Waiting for you to clarify whether or not you still think British Pakistanis are predisposed to sex trafficking and rape of underage girls.

Any time soon would be very useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 06:49 PM

I told you that I am convinced by the hypothesis.
It is proposed by two MPs with a large BP vote, and by three actual BPs, well known as defenders of their community from bigotry and prejudice.
Why do you three know nothing twats think you know better than them?
Why should anyone listen to you?

Still waiting for any of you to post evidence against the over-representation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 07:05 PM

Jim,
Neither the culture claim nor the tip of the iceberg claim were made by me.
They were made by people who know more about this crime than all of us put together.
"What is this over-representation"
BPs are a minority group.
They should be a minority of offenders.
If not they are over-represented.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 07:17 PM

Me:

"Still Waiting for you to clarify whether or not you still think British Pakistanis are predisposed to sex trafficking and rape of underage girls."


Keith:

"I told you that I am convinced by the hypothesis."



Keith is convinced that the above hypothesis is true ... but it doesn't reflect his opinion ...


Is that a fair synopsis of your position Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 07:43 PM

"Still waiting for any of you to post evidence against the over-representation. "


Because Keith believes that the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Is that a fair synopsis of your view Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 01:53 AM

Lox,
"Keith is convinced that the above hypothesis is true ... but it doesn't reflect his opinion ..."

My opinion is that they are right, and you are wrong.
Why do you care if no hypothesis is needed anyway?

"Because Keith believes that the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Is that a fair synopsis of your view Keith? "

No, it has no bearing whatsoever!
I believe there is an over-representation because of the overwhelming evidence for it, and the total lack of evidence that others are the majority offenders.
That is rational

NOW PLEASE TELL US WHY YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 02:30 AM

"Still waiting for any of you to post evidence against the over-representation."
No you're not Keith - you've had suggestions throughout this thread and you've ignord them - you've had mine and you have not attempted to address one single point, I doubt that you've even read it. You are alone in your ignorance and your bigotry.
In return you've offered nothing, not even an attempt to analyse your own cut-'n-pastes; just a parrot repeating of 'I am only obeying orders'
You entered this thread knowing nothing, you go away from it knowing nothing - and you offer nothing exept sick-making triumphalism when you think you might have scored a point.
"They should be a minority of offenders."
They are a minority of offenders - the bit you edited out of the Straw statement said as much and your total failure to deliver one single piece of information essental to judge how and if they are 'over-represented' backs up that statement totally.
If this long, vicious thread has proved anything, it has shown what a sad, empty, unpleasant and dishonest individual you are.
You have no evidence, you have no knowledge, you don't even have opinions of your own - "They were made by people who know more about this crime than all of us put together.".
A hollow man.
Lox may wish to waste his time on you - I don't.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 03:12 AM

Jack Straw, like me , acknowledged that in other crimes BPs are under-represented.
Then he said""But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men... who target vulnerable young white girls.

"We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way." "

If he had never made a statement at all the evidence for the over-rep. is still overwhelming!

You say I have "no evidence"
You forget the evidence of hundreds of victims' statements, statements from MPs, police officers, Barnados officials, victim support workers, Sikh and Hindu groups, BPs such as Allibhai-Brown, Lord Ahmed, and Mohammed Shafiq, journalists, conviction stats., .......

You have no evidence at all that other groups are the majority offenders in this crime.

That is why you have to keep posting and running.
You have made a dizzying number of entrances and exits, as if you are stuck in a revolving door!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 05:38 AM

The last time Jim whizzed past in his revolving door, he castigated me for having no opinions of my own.
He thinks I should be like him, and go blundering into a serious and sensitive subject with preconceived opinions and a closed mind.

I recommend what he ridicules.
Listen to what is being said by those who know more about it than all of us put together.

Jim and Lox have kept this thread alive for nearly 3 months by blindly denying the truth of the over-rep, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence, and with absolutely nothing to substantiate their claims.
The dogma-driven duo, plus Don!

I am off line for a few days.
If they continue with the old discredited tactic of claiming that evidence has been posted, call their bluff.
It is a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 07:50 AM

Question,

"Still Waiting for you to clarify whether or not you still think British Pakistanis are predisposed to sex trafficking and rape of underage girls."

Answer,

"I told you that I am convinced by the hypothesis."

"My opinion is that they are right, and you are wrong."


Ok keith - now can you provide the actual quotes where Jack Straw et al state that they believe British Pakistanis to be predisposed to trafficking and rape of underage girls.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 07:52 AM

"My opinion is that they are right, and you are wrong."

So you are attributing them with the opinion that Pakistanis are predisposed to trafficking and rape.

And you are saying you agree with that view.

In other words it is your view.


But we're ahead of ourselves - we now know that that is what you think, but we need to see evidence that they think the same - please provide it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 08:36 AM

"Jim and Lox have kept this thread alive for nearly 3 months by blindly denying the truth of the over-rep, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence, and with absolutely nothing to substantiate their claims.
The dogma-driven duo, plus Don!"


OK

1. Find a quote of my Dogma ... you can't ... because it doesn't exist.

2. "nothing to substantiate their claims" ... this is projection mate.


Lets compare your "evidence" with some of THE evidence ... starting with Straws opinion

his idea was based on the notion of Young Pakistani men fizzing and popping with testosterone who needed to find sexual gratification outside a closed culture where sex was unavailable.

Right?

But the victims testimony is that the young men were used as bait by highly organized crime cells.

So the victims think that frustrated testosterone fuelled young men aren't the reason for the crimes, but are used as bait by the real criminals.

In other words the victims testimony contradicts Jack Straw and you.

I think that renders Straws unqualified mass psychological diagnosis not only as mere opinion, but also as categorically wrong.

Unless you ignore the victims.

To quote you Keith - WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THE VICTIMS? ..... hmmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 08:05 PM

""Would you care to suggest an alternative abreviation for me?""

Nothing anybody suggests for you would be taken on board Keith.

Evidence abounds on this (and other) threads of your intellectual laziness.

You have admitted that you cannot be bothered to read posts even half as long as some of yours.

You make no effort to speak for yourself, preferring to cut and paste the opinions of others, to whom you then shift blame when your arguments are successfully contested.

You cannot be bothered to accord to those you wish to denigrate the courtesy of typing two extra words, preferring the anonymising and dehumanising use of Initials.

You post more and say less than almost any other contributor to this forum.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 08:21 PM

""Why do you three know nothing twats think you know better than them?
Why should anyone listen to you?""

Did Keith actually write this?

Surely not! Keith is the polite and sensitive chap who NEVER indulges in ad hominem attacks. He's the poor undeserving victim of scurrilous bullying by those nasty evil thugs Jim, Lox and Don.

Wait a minute, it was posted under Keith's Mudcat name, not some guest troll.

Now we are finding out what this man is really like!

Disagree with him and the veneer slips, showing the nasty nature that lies below.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 08:45 PM

""They were made by people who know more about this crime than all of us put together.""

Says who?   YOU?

""He thinks I should be like him, and go blundering into a serious and sensitive subject with preconceived opinions and a closed mind.""

No Keith, he thinks you DID JUST EXACTLY THAT, and he is RIGHT!

You saw a group of people buying into what you already thought of British Pakistanis, and it was an opportunity you couldn't resist.

You blindly accepted both their qualifications to pronounce on the matter, and the interpretation they placed on these events.

You were too lazy to go into the full detail of everything they actually said, choosing instead to put the worst possible construction on it, and formulating your own theory (way beyond theirs) which you have defended tooth and nail, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

The total population of Pakistanis in the affected area is just 40 percent of the number nationwide, so any figure must be divided by 2.5 if you are relating it to British Pakistanis as a culture.

Also (for the umpteenth time), street grooming has always happened, with young girls (often runaways) being seduced into the sex trade. It is not a new phenomenon, and has existed since long before the first Pakistani got off the boat in England..

I suggest that you expand your reading beyond the Daily Mail, and peruse some of the books on the subject at your local library. It will, I promise, be an education.

Don T.

Of course I know you'll do no such thing because it might force you to admit you are wrong, and you aren't capable of admitting that, even to yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Apr 11 - 06:54 AM

The really telling point in all of this, is that not one of the young victims has been Muslim, yet the perpetrators are almost exclusively Muslim,

This would tend to suggest that Straw et al are correct and that these Muslim men regard young non Muslim girls as "easy meat"

A straight forward example of prejudice by Muslims to non Muslims as well a disgusting sexual crime.

Perhaps now that Keith is away, you may give reason a chance and re-examine your thought processes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Apr 11 - 07:14 AM

"A straight forward example of prejudice by Muslims to non Muslims as well a disgusting sexual crime."
That can be said of any religion.
We've just about come out at the other end of twenty years of bloody internecine warfare between One group of 'christians' against another who happen to kick with the other foot, affecting both Ireland and mainland Britain.
Sexual predation embraces all religions - as is proved by the long runnning abuse of children by Christian ministers, lasting for generations.
This is a human problem, not a Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish, or Buddhist - or any specific religious or cultural or national one, simply people doing bad things to other people.
Or would you clam that serial child abuse was a 'catholic' thing?
Perhaps now that Keith is away, you may give reason a chance and re-examine your thought processes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 11 Apr 11 - 11:24 AM

"This would tend to suggest that Straw et al are correct and that these Muslim men regard young non Muslim girls as "easy meat""

Not what the Dando reserachers found.

They found that victims were chosen on the basis of convenience and ease of capture.

Not being a kidnapper I cannot say for sure, but I imagine that capturing a teenage girl from an orthodox muslim family is a bit harder.

That would be consistent with the Dando institutes explanation.

And as they are the only ones who have actually done any research or looked at the actual data, it stands as the most authouritative explanation until the ceop report comes out.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Apr 11 - 12:56 PM

The point surely is, that if they had any respect for these children they would not be subjecting them to this horrific abuse whether the children were muslim or non muslim.

To commit these sorts of crimes against children the perpetrators must perceive them as absolutely worthless.

Jim.....you know my views on the sexual abuse by Catholic priests of mainly young adults and teenagers.
It is purely and simply homosexual abuse in most cases, calling this abuse paedophilia is quite wrong.
The celibacy rule encourages large numbers of homosexuals into the priesthood where their sexual orientation can be disguised.....and as I have stated before there is plenty of evidence to support the contention that many male homosexuals are predisposed to sex with yound adults and teenagers......Not paedophilia.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 11 Apr 11 - 03:47 PM

"To commit these sorts of crimes against children the perpetrators must perceive them as absolutely worthless."

Yes - 100% correct.


Organized criminals have no respect for human life or dignity, which confirms what the victims testified, which was that the perpetrators were highly organized gangsters.


According to the Dando report, 1. These criminals chose the most convenient girls, and 2. those girls were disproportionately non white.

They made that point very clearly and succinctly.

In the process they clarify the issues you highlight.

Will you be ignoring those explanations?

Probably.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 03:49 PM

Lox and Don And Jim.
"Still Waiting for you to clarify whether or not you still think British Pakistanis are predisposed to sex trafficking and rape of underage girls."

Cryer, Straw, Ahmed, Saffiq, and Allibhai-Brown all ascribed this problem to aspects of BP culture.
They think the culture predisposes their menfolk to engage in this crime, albeit only a tiny minority succumb.
They all have knowledge and experience, no-one has suggested any other explanation, so I have come to accept what they say.

Will you please explain how you can be so certain that they are wrong?
One random bloke from Kent and two people who live in another country!
And why do you care about an explanation for something you do not believe in anyway!!

Still waiting, three months later, for you to produce any evidence that a majority of these offenders are other than BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 04:15 PM

i look forward to the ceop report. One of the things that i find difficult in all this is what is the relationship between the gangs and their clients. Emma of crop says the clients of such gangs are married muslim men. Unless these men are also mafioso, then this suggests a greater complicity betwixt overtly criminal and more 'law abiding' members of the same comunities.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 04:18 PM

sorry for clumsy editing - on phone

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 05:05 PM

My case is that there is an over-representation.
Your case is that there is not.
I have a mountain of evidence, because the over-representation is real.
You have none, for the same reason.

Is that why you only want to discuss the explanation and not the fact?
I do not care what the explanation is.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Interested, Tunbridge Wells!
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 05:41 PM

Welcome back Keith. You were missed. Have you been away burning a Koran by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 04:23 AM

In fact there is no over-representation whatever of Pakistani involvement in these crimes and, other than your own, there is no claim of there being one outside of one trial involving 17 criminals. You have used the term "massive over-representation" 28 times without presenting one shred of evidence, apart from "a politician said it so it must be true" - no politician has ever made such a claim, and if they had they would need to present proof in order to back up such a serious accusation; no such proof has ever been presented by anybody - and politicians being what they are, any evidence would need to be microscopically examined.
You have taken some meaningless random figures which any one of us could have done from any racial group in Britain to prove they were over-represented, and you have ignored and continue to ignore everything that others have said, as is your wont.
The accusation of over-representation is yours and yours alone, and the additition 'massive' is your own racist twist on your own invention. The burden of proof lies with you alone, that is how natural justice works - none of us can possibly disprove an accusation that has not been proven in the first place.
We've shown you ours, now you show us yours.
Welcome back Keith; your departure was a light gone from our lives, your return, a new dawning!!
And by the way - your repoening this dead thread puts paid to the lie that Lox and I have kept this thread open for three months - your postings must be well into the 600s now - far, far in excess of any other single poster by a mile - even Nick Griffiths hasn't shown that level of dedication to his cause.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:05 AM

Jim, are you welcoming me back from inside, outside, or from your revolving door?
My departure proves who has kept this alive. A string of posts from the three of you containing refutations and questions and demands for responses!

BPs are a minority group.
They should be a minority of any group of offenders.
They are a majority in this crime, making a massive over-representation.
Evidence.
Victims' families went to Straw and Cryer.
They all said BPs were the perps.
For these polticians to make public such a sensitive issue tells us that significant numbers were involved.
Hillary Wilmer. Hundreds of cases. She states that the perps were ALL BPs.
Bindel. Interviewed large numbers of victims. All perps BPs.
Sikh ans Hindu groups also raise the same issues.
Saffiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown from within the BP community ALL stated that this is a real issue for BPs.

Evidence against?
Er..... NONE.

You have not produced any in 3 months, because there is none.
You have tried to discredit me personally instead of countering my points, because they can not be countered.
You have to keep leaving, because you have nothing to say.

You are ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:08 AM

(Also the conviction stats. 95% BPs)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Interested, Tunbridge Wells!
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:27 AM

Yeah, whatever.

But what about the book-burning? Did you singe your eyebrows? Are you now more, or less, anti-Muslim than before your trip? Is there a correlation to be drawn? Can one use it as evidence?

A nation awaits !

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:34 AM

Keith,



Lets compare your "evidence" with some of THE evidence ... starting with Jack Straws opinion

his idea was based on the notion of "Young" Pakistani men fizzing and popping with testosterone who needed to find sexual gratification outside a closed culture where sex was unavailable.

Right?

But the victims testimony is that the young men were used as bait by highly organized crime cells.

So the victims think that frustrated testosterone fuelled young men aren't the reason for the crimes, but are used as bait by the real criminals.

In other words the victims testimony contradicts Jack Straw and you.

I think that renders Straws unqualified mass psychological diagnosis not only mere unqualified opinion, but also as categorically wrong.

Unless you ignore the victims.

To quote you Keith - WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THE VICTIMS? ..... hmmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:36 AM

"Jim, are you welcoming me back from inside, outside, or from your revolving door?"
Mind your own ******* business how often I visit this thread - it does not belong to you, even though you have monopolised it for your racist message.
Your miniscule list of a handful of Pakistani criminals is not proof of your "massive over-representation."
Iyt is not our job to present proof - you are the accuser - present your proof; and your 'ridicule' is no more than empty invective to cover the fact that you have none
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:45 AM

Lox, you are still going on about the explanation for the over-rep.
I do not care what the explanation is.
Explanation smacks of excuse.
This crime against children is inexcusable.

Jim,
"Your miniscule list of a handful of Pakistani criminals"

Many hundreds of victims which the experts agree is the tip of an iceberg.
Miniscule is a ridiculous description.
You have nothing to refute my case or support yours.
You are ridiculous.
Time for you to revolve away again I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 06:12 AM

"Miniscule is a ridiculous description."
Next to a population of one and a half million it is miniscle - we have no idea how big the iceberg is, even if they/you could prove that "this is only the tip" which nobody has yet.
You even attempted to include two innocent men (who were not only proved such, but were given large sums in compensation for wrongful arrest) to inflate your miniscule figures.
"You have nothing to refute my case or support yours."
I don't have to refute your case - you have not made a case - only a list of unrelated, unquantified and unqualified incidents - you would be laughed out of any court in the land, presuming you ever got gained access to one.
Where is your evidence of "over-representation" let alone "massive over-representation".
You (and you alone) are the accuser - we have nothing to prove - the burden of proof lies entirely with you.
PROVE YOUR CASE
"Time for you to revolve away again I think. "
Don't you just wish - dream on!! I may have a life outside of the computor (as you apparently haven't) but am happy to spend a bit of effortless fun allowing you to prove yourself a racist toe-rag.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 06:53 AM

BPs are a minority, so should be minority offenders.
In the many hundreds of cases that have been referred to, BPs are the overwhelming MAJORITY of perpetrators.
That PROVES them to be massively over-represented in those cases.

Can you produce significantly more cases where BPs are NOT involved?
No.
You can not produce any at all.
And neither can I, because there are none.

Do not try to claim that some imaginary rules remove any requirement of evidence from you.
I say there are few if any other cases.
You claim there are more than many hundreds, but you choose not to produce them.
Who would believe that Jim?
It is ridiculous.
You are ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Interested, Tunbridge Wells !
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 07:12 AM

And the eyebrows, what about the eyebrows? Did they get singed?

Looking through this thread, there is little or no evidence, merely opinions unsupported by fact. That does not mean that the issue need not be further and thoroughly investigated. But I think that, pending such investigations, it is inflammatory in the extreme to peddle unsubstantiated opinings, and in such a blatantly racist fashion.

As a matter of interest, Keith, when you have done with the "Muslim/ British Pakistani issue", where to next?

Do you still believe that the Jews are Satan's bankers? Is there a case for denying that six million really died in the Holocaust? I would be interested to know your position on that. After all, David Irving clearly proved that the stats were lies. Oh, wait a minute, he didn't though, did he?

So, what do you think, Keith? Did six million really die?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 07:22 AM

Keith,

You say you have evidence.

Lets examine your evidence together.

Your first item of evidence is the opinion of Jack Straw, who speaks about young men, fizzing and popping with testosterone, unable to get sex within their community, who are forced to get sex elsewhere, that being the root of these crimes.

But the victims testimony says that this is wrong and that the young men are merely used as bait.

Who do you agree with? Jack Straw or the victims?

Simple question.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 07:28 AM

GIT, it appears you are not to be deleted so I will reply to you.
Did you start posting especially to attack me, or have you got another identity?

Koran burning.
I have never made an anti muslim post, and I excoriated the pastor for his antics in that thread.

Holocaust. I am not a denier.
I have defended Israel against Lox and Jim on Mudcat.

Do you have any actual contribution to make to this discussion?
Can you help Jim find the many thousands of non BP cases needed to make BPs minority offenders?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 07:34 AM

Jack Straw stated, from his own experience of victims families as MP for Blackburn, that this is a particular problem for BPs.
He explained it in terms of testosterone fueled, unslaked lust.
I am not interested in explanations.
The victims say that the young men who are bait, and the gangs that employ them, are all BPs.

I believe the victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 07:54 AM

"I am not interested in explanations."

Not true - you think that there is a cultural explanation.

But that is beside the point.

Jack Straw is your first witness, and his "testimony" is contradicted by the victims testimony.

So which testimony should we trust? His or that of the victims?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 07:55 AM

"Excoriate" !
Execrate.
sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 07:58 AM

"I have defended Israel against Lox and Jim on Mudcat."

No, you have justified an action of the current Israeli administration.

Not quite the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 08:02 AM

Lox, a cultural explanation has been put forward.
I believe it, but only because of the stature of the proposers and absence of any alternative.
Beyond that I am not qualified to defend or oppose it, and do not care anyway.
What are your qualifications for dismissing it?

Straw expressed his opinion on why they do it.
Victims may have opinions too.

Straw states as fact that this is a particular problem of BPs.
The victims state the fact that their abusers were all BPs.

In matters of fact, I believe the victims.
Why don't YOU?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 08:11 AM

Wriggle wriggle.

Keith,

Straws opinion is flatly contradicted by the victims.

You state that you believe the victims.

So do you concede that Straws opinion is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 08:14 AM

"Lox, a cultural explanation has been put forward.
I believe it, but only because of the stature of the proposers and absence of any alternative."

The victims testimony contradicts that cultural explanation.

Do you still believe the cultural explanation or do you believe the victims?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 08:23 AM

"Do not try to claim that some imaginary rules remove any requirement of evidence from you."
No imaginary rules - the burden of proof lies entirely with the accuser - how could it be otherwise, expecially as you have not provided an iota of evidence to back up your claims of over-representation or massive over-representation, nor do you intend to do so.
How can we disprove what you have not proved
"You claim there are more than many hundreds, but you choose not to produce them."
I merely totted up the cases you have provided so far and pointed out that they wouldn't even make the needle twitch - it is up to you to substantiate your claims. Any nasty little racist can make unsubstantiated claims implicating any section of the population - they have in the past and they no doubt will continue to do in the future - just as you are doing here.
"Can you help Jim find the many thousands of non BP cases needed to make BPs minority offenders?"
Don't need any help - I have already done this here - internet grooming by non-Pakistanis alone would put your pitiful numbers into non-existence, and that's without counting the street grooming, outside schools, childrens parks and playgrounds, date rape drugs - that is part of indigenous British culture and history and has been from time immemorial - even Jack Straw admitted it in his statement.
As you have been accused on every thread I've met you on, you deliberately fail to read what others have posted because you have no answer.
Where is your evidence of "over-representation or massive over-representation?" It is your accusation - prove it.
And your continued rhetoric of my being ridiculous continues to make me believe that evidence does not exist and you are substituting it for real argument - if I am ridiculous, we are all ridiculous - why have you no support here?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 08:42 AM

Jim, if you want to bring in unrelated crimes, you will just create a new debate.
I do not dispute what you say about internet grooming and loner grooming, but the numbers of victims are comparatively small.

Returning to on-street grooming by groups, we have many hundreds of victims where the perps. are BPs, and so far none where the perps are from any other group.
You would need many thousands of such to make BPs minority offenders.

I say there are few if any.
You can not produce any at all.

Lox, the over-rep is a matter of fact.
The explanation is opinion, and I am not interested.
The victims all state that their abusers were BPs.
I believe them.
Why won't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 09:00 AM

"Lox, the over-rep is a matter of fact.
The explanation is opinion, and I am not interested.
The victims all state that their abusers were BPs.
I believe them.
Why won't you? "


1. Show me where I have disputed or contradicted any victim testimony.

2. You state that you believe the opinion of Anne cryer, Jack Straw, Lord Ahmed and others, but in doing so you are taking an opposite position to the Victims whose evidence flatly contradicts that opinion.

So to clarify your opinion, do you still believe the opinion of Jack Straw, Anne Cryer, Lord Ahmed etc?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 09:08 AM

Lox,
"1. Show me where I have disputed or contradicted any victim testimony."

You deny that this is mainly a crime of BPs.
The victims all say their abusers are BPs.

"do you still believe the opinion of Jack Straw, Anne Cryer, Lord Ahmed etc? "

Yes, but only because of their superior knowledge and experience.
How are you CERTAIN that they are wrong?
Voices?

I do not accept that they contradict victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 09:26 AM

"You deny that this is mainly a crime of BPs.
The victims all say their abusers are BPs."

mm hmm ... and do the victims say that this is mainly a crime of Pakistanis?

No they don't




The victims do state that young boys were used as bait by highly organized criminals.

Your "experts" say that young boys are driven to these crimes by sexual repression.

That is a contradiction.

Which testimony do you believe?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 09:31 AM

By the way, just to clarify ...

MP is a standard abbreviation for either Member of Parliament or Military Policeman.

BP is a standard abbreviation for British Petroleum.

All of the above abbreviations are self imposed.

BP is not a standard abbreviation for Pakistanis of British origin, nor is it self imposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 09:59 AM

Lox, I need an abbreviation.
Please provide an acceptable one if BP is unacceptable.
Jim used BP as an abbreviation in one of his posts.

I do not understand your obsession with explaining something you claim not to believe.
I am not interested in any explanation.

The cultural explanation was for those involved in the grooming and/or raping of the children.
That would hardly apply to the youngest of the boys acting as bait.
They were said to be schoolmates or even classmates of the victims.

If all the victims say their abusers were BPs, that proves the over-representation.
If you deny one you deny both.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 10:34 AM

"If all the victims say their abusers were BPs, that proves the over-representation.
If you deny one you deny both. "

No Keith.

Another logical non sequitir.

There are three testimonies on this thread from girls who have been abused by British Pakistanis.

They tell us nothing about Pakistani representation in trafficking and rape crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 10:37 AM

"I do not understand your obsession with explaining something you claim not to believe.
I am not interested in any explanation."


Jack Straw offered the explanation.

I disagreed with it.

You joined the discussion to defend it, and state that you still believe it.

You continue to defend it, even though it is contradicted by the victims testimony.

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 10:50 AM

Jack Straw offered the explanation.
You disagreed with it.
Culture based explanations were also provided by Cryer, Ahmed, Saffiq and Allibhai-Brown.
You knew better than all!
How did you?
What superior knowledge has been revealed to you?
I have no reason to disagree with such people, and no reason to believe the likes of you!
In any case, the explanation is not an issue to me.
Give me a more plausible one and I will drop it, but really I don't care.

You refer again to three victims only.
The Bindel pieces refer to about six.
Unknown numbers who told their stories to Straw and Cryer.
Hundreds who told their stories to Wilmer.
Many more Sikhs and Hindus.
Many, many hundreds and said to be the tip of an iceberg.

Is no one going to respond to Lively?
I tend to agree with him, but I would like him to make clear where he stands on the over-representation.
He did say it was wrong to dismiss "tip of iceberg" statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 11:21 AM

"What superior knowledge has been revealed to you?
I have no reason to disagree with such people, and no reason to believe the likes of you!"

The victims evidence directly contradicts their view.

So if you see ne reason to disagree with them then you must be ignoring the victims.

Whay aren't you listening to the victims Keitth?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 11:27 AM

"Unknown numbers who told their stories to Straw and Cryer."

According to Straw and cryer that is ... but the available victim testimony contradicts them ...

... so either their testimony is unreliable, or the testimony we have actually seen is unreliable ...

Which would you see was more reliable Keith ... the victim testimony we have all seen or the testimony you believe Straw and Cryer are giving an accurate picture of?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 11:30 AM

"Unknown numbers"

Indeed? - mountains and mountains of unknown and unseen evidence?

So how come you know so much about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 12:21 PM

Unknown numbers.
Wilmer states 400 cases, all BP offenders.
Cryer and Straw. Unknown numbers but for Left Wing politicians to speak out publicly on such a sensitive issue, the numbers must be significant.
Now, where are there enough cases of non BP offenders to make those BPs a minority?
Not a rhetorical question Lox.
You have had three months and produced nothing, because there are NONE.

I do not accept that there are any contradictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 12:28 PM

Unknown numbers.
The Dando report.
17 multi-victim court cases.
Perpetrators 95% BPs

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 12:58 PM

"
Jim, if you want to bring in unrelated crimes, you will just create a new debate."
I won't have to do anything of the sort - and coming from someone who has deliberately manipulated a thread from one on Muslim prejudice into an attack on British Pakistanis, you have to be joking!!! When will you understand that YOU DO NOT OWN THIS THREAD.
You are still failing to provide any proof to your claims and attempting to keep this thread within your self-confessed ignorant comfort zone.
Grooming is grooming, the only difference is the stage on which it takes place. On street grooming has been part of street life for as long as we have had streets - today it is believed to be one of the one of the main ways that the Eastern European gangs stock up on victims.
Apart from anything else, attempting to discriminate between different types of grooming in realation to cultural groups is the equivilent of saying you're only going to count left handed groomers - read my preveios letter on the matter.   
"I do not dispute what you say about internet grooming and loner grooming, but the numbers of victims are comparatively small."
WHAT??????
The last swoop on internet abuse alone netted something like 5 times the number of criminals being discussed here.
"Lox, the over-rep is a matter of fact."
NO IT ISN'T - you are the only one claiming it - prove it. Good old Dr Goebells technique of repeating a lie until it becomes accepted YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE CLAIMING THIS AND YOU ARE REFUSING TO PROVIDE PROOF TO BACK IT UP - IT IS PART OF YOUR RACIST PSYCHE - IT IS NOT TRUE - WERE IS YOUR PROOF OF IT AND WHO ELSE IS SAYING IT APART FROM YOU???
You are still failing to produce any evidence for your claims - so lets play it your way
You are a racist who has decided to mount an attack on the British Pakistani population. In order to do so you have manufactured a case for there being an over -representation (a massive one, you have repeated 28 times). You have done this in order to project your own racist prejudices.
Much of this is self evident from your massive number of contributions, but even if it weren't, I would have no need whatever to justify my statement as you do not feel the need to justify your continual racist ones - where do we go from here?.
"Jim used BP as an abbreviation in one of his posts."
Absolutely pathetic, justifying your general approach by using one slip on my part (my having picked up on your constant repetition of the term), just as you did when you doctored Jack Straw's statement.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 01:01 PM

"17 multi-victim court cases. Perpetrators 95% BPs "
Just as we have been saying - your case for massive over-representation is based entirely on 17 criminals
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 02:15 PM

"I do not accept that there are any contradictions."

I see, well lets look at this again then.

Straw, Cryer et all, say that these crimes are the result of young men, fizzing and popping with testosterone, whose urge to sow their wild oats is frustrated by their culture.

The victims say that the fizzing and popping of young mens testosterone is not responsible, they are merely used as Bait.

So one source say it is young mens need for sexual release, and the other says it isn't.

Those are opposing viewpoints.

They contradict each other.

On what basis do you not accept that?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 02:32 PM

Jim,
"The last swoop on internet abuse alone netted something like 5 times the number of criminals being discussed here."

The police hailed it as the biggest ring in the world.
264 victims worldwide.
This crime has hundreds of victims from just a small part of Britain.

I can not stop you confusing the issue with other crimes, but this crime is what I am discussing, and it was what Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Wilmer, Allibhai-Brown and the Dando Institute were all referring to.
You want to change the subject because you can not make a case.

The Dando Report was about 17 cases involving 56 convictions.
95% BPs.

Again you try to make a case based on me being a bad person.
It will not work.
It can hardly be construed as racist to abbreviate British Pakistani to BP.
That is ridiculous.
Referring to the crime, I have said no more than Ahmed, Saffiq and Allibhai-Brown, all BPs and proud defenders of their community against racism and bigotry.
Unless you claim they are racist, it is ridiculous to accuse me.

But that is all you can do.
You are ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 02:39 PM

Lox,
"Straw, Cryer et all, say that these crimes are the result of young men, fizzing and popping with testosterone, whose urge to sow their wild oats is frustrated by their culture.

The victims say that the fizzing and popping of young mens testosterone is not responsible, they are merely used as Bait."

Some of the young men were part of the rape gangs. The ones with the smart clothes and flash cars.
There were also some very young boys.
Your argument is ludicrous.

Straw and Cryer stated that this is a BP problem.
All the victims state that their abusers were BPs.

If they did it driven by testosterone, that makes no difference and excuses nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 03:04 PM

"Your argument is ludicrous."

I haven't presented an argument, I have made note of the fact that The victims account contradicts the opinion of Straw etc.

One set of witnesses gives their 'opinion'; that these crimes resulted from frustrated young mens uncontrollable need to fulfil sexual urges repressed by their culture.

The other set of witnesses state their 'experience' that these crimes were premiditated by highly organized trafficking gangs.

These are clearly two contradictory assessments of the nature and causes of these crimes.

Are you able to respond to that point?

Your adoring fans are pinning their hopes on you ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 03:21 PM

No I am not going to respond.
I do not care what these wicked, evil crimes "resulted from."
I do not care what opinions are expressed about that, but after all you said I still dispute any contradiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 03:26 PM

"I can not stop you confusing the issue with other crimes, but this crime is what I am discussing"
No you're not - you are attempting to confine the discussion to your ignorance zone. It is a totally artificial division to separate different types of grooming and the only reason you are attempting to do so is you believe there to be racist capital to be made from it.
"You want to change the subject because you can not make a case."
There is no case to make - you still have not provided one single shred of evidence to back your claims and while you continue to fail to do so you you expose yourself to being a racist. What is your case and why have you been trying to give the impression it is not just yours - you have no produced evidence to back up what you claim.
Where did your 'massive over-representation come from as applied to the Pakistani community as a whole - if not from your own twisted brain.
"5 times the number of criminals being discussed here."
No - we were discussing the 56 convictions which you have tried to base your 'over-representation' claim on - I pointed out the anti internet phaedophelie raids in the first place (and did ot have to look them up as you have just done) - remember.
"Unless you claim they are racist, it is ridiculous to accuse me."
I am not accusing them of being racist, nor am I contradicting their isolated personal findings - I am accusing you of being a racist because of the way you have manipulated and edited and presented out of contex and lied about what they have to say in order to do exactly what they warned against; using it to make racist points - it is you that is the racist, not they.
"It can hardly be construed as racist to abbreviate British Pakistani to BP."
I didn't say it was, but you have obviously taken the point that it is and have spinelessly made my using it as an excuse for your doing so.
"You are ridiculous."
More empty invective - and yet it is still you who is on your own here.
You have behaved abominably on this thread - you have lied, you have distorted, you have ignored points others have made and claimed they have not made them, and you have claimed to have had evidence you simply are unable to produce, and whanever you have been challenged you have hidden behind your self-apponted 'messenger role.
Don't you wish you had stayed away just a little longer, and maybe read up a little on the subject you are making such a balls of?
And I withdraw my Doctor Goebells remark - at least he hid his anti-Semitism behind some pseudo- scientific mumbo-jumbo - you have just lied badly and obviously.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 04:12 PM

Jim,
"No you're not - you are attempting to confine the discussion to your ignorance zone. It is a totally artificial division to separate different types of grooming and the only reason you are attempting to do so is you believe there to be racist capital to be made from it."
Shite.
On-street grooming was what Straw was talking about when he made this the main news story of that week.
It was what was IN THE TITLE of the Dando Institute Report.
It was what Cryer had been making an issue of for years.
It is what Wilmer's CROP was set up to deal with.
it is what all thase senior police officers were talking about.

But you come in and demand we not talk about that because it is mainly a crime of BPs and you have no case against it.
You actually are ridiculous.
You have made an arse of yourself all over again.
Thanks Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 04:50 PM

And still you have failed to provide any evidence for your claim
I say your "massive over-representation" claims are all your own invention and ask for proof - without response of course.
"You have made an arse of yourself all over again."
And you howl at the moon all on your own by substituting invective for argument - where is your proof, and where is your support if I am the arse?
"But you come in and demand we not talk about that....."
Where have I or anybody, apart from yourself, demanded we don't talk about anything - I don't expect an answer to this one of course - It is you who has contantly attempted to take propriotorship of this thread, not me, nor any other participant.
Sleep well - and maybe tomorrow you'll emerge from behind your cut-'n-pastes!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:22 PM

Jim,
"And still you have failed to provide any evidence for your claim
I say your "massive over-representation" claims are all your own invention and ask for proof - without response of course."

Here it is again.
You must have missed it.

BPs are a minority group.
They should be a minority of any group of offenders.
They are a majority in this crime, making a massive over-representation.
Evidence.
Victims' families went to Straw and Cryer.
They all said BPs were the perps.
For these polticians to make public such a sensitive issue tells us that significant numbers were involved.
Hillary Wilmer. Hundreds of cases. She states that the perps were ALL BPs.
Bindel. Interviewed large numbers of victims. All perps BPs.
Sikh ans Hindu groups also raise the same issues.
Senior police officers state this is mainly a crime of BPs
Saffiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown from within the BP community ALL stated that this is a real issue for BPs.

I am just talking about on-street grooming by groups.
I have always acknowledged from long before you came on the scene that BPs are under-represented in other crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:29 PM

Woops!
I forgot the convictions again.
53 out of 56 BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:31 PM

So to clarify,

You have presented a hypothesis, which you described, literally and specifgically as your hypothesis.

This Hypothesis is that Pakistanis are predisposed to trafficking and rape due to cultural restrictions on their sexuality.

And you state that this hypothesis originates with Straw, Cryer, Ahmed etc, who refer to young men (fizzing and popping with testosterone) being forced to act out their sexual urges on unwilling children.

It is in fact the whole purpose of you entering this discussion.

It is your whole purpose for trying to establish some kind of overrepresentation.

You agree that it is a cultural issue and you are trying to prove it.

You have shown great interest in it up til now.

Yet you have suddenly lost interest ever since it became clear that the victims testimony clearly and unequivocally contradicts your hypothesis.

Why are you ignoring the victims Keith?

They are telling you something very specific.

They are telling you that their ordeal is a consequence of organized crime.

Why won't you believe the victims Keith?

How can you ignore the testimony of these raped children Keith?

Hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:44 PM

"It was what was IN THE TITLE of the Dando Institute Report."

Mmmm hmmm ....

That was the title of the investigation.

Keith - do you know what came after the title?


The actual report.


Do you know where the information actually is?

is it (a) in the title or (b) in the reports conclusions

The answer is (b) ... the title is just telling you the subject under investigation.


So what were the conclusions?

The researchers who conducted the report state clearly that they are concerned about people misrepresenting the data into a new crime type.


What alleged crime type do you suppose they are talking about Keith?

is it (a) Poaching (b) indecent exposure or (c) Street grooming

hmmm ... I'll give you a clue its in the title of the report ... any luck? ... oh blast that alzheimers ...

The answer is (c) Street grooming.

The Dando report authors clarify that Street grooming is not a new crime type.


So what is your response to that inconvenient, and very specific and literal contradiction to your position Keith?

Will you go and sulk in the corner and refuse to respond to that one as well?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 06:52 PM

Blimey,

How could I have missed this ...

From the same post:


"No I am not going to respond."

and

"I still dispute any contradiction."


or in other words - I refuse to accept the evidence in front of me - but I have no good reason for denying it.


Why do you dispute the victims contradiction of your hypothesis Keith?

Are they lying?

Why won't you believe them?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 01:24 AM

Lox, on-street grooming may not be a new crime type, but it is a crime.
It was the subject of The Dando Institute Survey and is the subject of follow up studies by CEOPs and BBC.
There are many hundreds of victims.
It exists.

My case was and is that BPs are over-represented as offenders for this specific crime.
I also reported cultural explanations that were nothing to do with me.
I do not care about the explanations.
You are totally obsessed!
Yet you deny there is anything to explain!

Post your supposed contradictions again.
They damage your case and help mine.
I am quite happy to leave them unchallenged.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 03:57 AM

Keith - you are basing a total condemnation of a whole culture on a tiny handful of unexamined and unanalysed cases.
You are providing no overall numbers, or the pertaining conditions, rather, you rely on parrot like repetitions of your tiny handful of examples you have managed to dredge up, repeating them over and over and over and over...... again - on you past record, I doubt if you have read those properly.
This is not evidence - it's a chanted mantra
In the course of this you have cynically used the suffering of young women, sneering and even laughing at what has happened to them because you thought it enabled you to score points, then almost drowning us in a flood of your crocodile tears in order to try and extract yourself from the clarts your sneering had got you into.
On this basis you have insult and demeaned a whole people, making you an obsessed racist who, in your campaign, has also insulted the intelligence and integrity of almost every other contributor to this thread.
And you are on your own - which is the way it should be.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 04:24 AM

In the absence of specific responses Keith it can only be deduced that you are unable to respond.


Dando investigated the 'Question' of Street Grooming. They found it was not a new crime type.

Keiths latest suggestion is that they meant it was an old crime type.


It is actually entertaining to watch Keiths torured logic in action.

The suggestion that Dando were clarifying the age of a (previously unknown) alleged crime type is as far fetched as they come.


Then there is this bit of pseudo-rationale.


"I do not care about the explanations.
You are totally obsessed!
Yet you deny there is anything to explain!"


So Keith proposes a hypothesis, and then to support it claims an overrepresentation. He continues to support it for more than 2 and 1/2 months

I dispute his position - its that simple.


But Keith manufactures some idea that it makes no sense to dispute the hypothesis if one disputes the overrepresentation ...

They are both your assertions Keith.


The final and most absurd of Keiths claims is that his position is supported by mountains of "unknown" evidence.

Fascinating!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 04:45 AM

Jim,
"basing a total condemnation of a whole culture "

Nonsense! No-one has done that.
I say BPs are over-represented in one crime type.

"You are providing no overall numbers,"
We know from Wilmer it is at least 400.
This is said to be the tip of an iceberg, so you would need about 1000 non BP offenders to make a case for them not being over-represented.
So far you have not found any at all!

The only people I have laughed at is you twats, hopelessly trying to defend the indefensible.
None of you have shown any concern or compassion for the victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 04:52 AM

Lox, I said that it might not be a new crime type, but it is a crime.
Have I got that wrong?
56 people have been convicted of that crime.
Are you saying it is not a crime?

I did not "propose" any explanations.
I reported explanations proposed by people of stature, knowledge and experience.
I have no reason to doubt them or to believe the likes of you, but I don't care about the explanation anyway.
The crime is what counts, wicked and evil as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 05:09 AM

A new figure to add to your pile.
This morning's Irish Times reports on the results of an organised survey carried out by Ark - a joint initiative by Queens University and The University of Ulster.
They have found that 10% - 1 in 10 - of the teenagers in the North of Ireland have experienced sexual grooming and more than 75% of them were under the age of 16 when it occurred.
Following your reasoning, can we draw any cultural conclusions on the people of Northern Ireland from these figures - do they not indicate a "massive over-representation" of the British population.
Don't you have relatives there, and does not such a report place them under suspicion - following your own 'logic' of course.
"We know from Wilmer it is at least 400."
Out of an overall population of one and half milion - the needle didn't even twitch!"
As I said, isolated incidents.
"So far you have not found any at all!"
Yes we have - in your convoluted selection system you have chosen not to count them.
As I said, agenda driven
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 06:15 AM

Jim,
"As I said, isolated incidents."

No!
That is every known victim.
If every victim of this crime was groomed and raped by BPs, that is a MASSIVE over-representation of that minority group in that crime.
That is my case.

It stands unless a greater number were abused by non BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 07:35 AM

I take it from your radio silence about Northern Ireland that you have no opinion - isn't it nice when it goes quiet.
The rest is prevaricating bollocks - the massive over-representation continues to be your racist opinion - the indigenous population are vastly superior in number when it comes to paedophelia, sexual grooming and pimping - Jack Straw said so - so it must be true.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 08:05 AM

Reduced to calling me racist again.
Pathetic and shameful tactics.
Not one of the hundreds who turned to Wilmer had been abused by non BPs.
Bindel failed to find a single victim not abused by BPs.
Every known victim of this crime suffered at the hands of BPs
The only logical conclusion is that few, IF ANY, are victims of other than BPs.
That means a massive over-representation.
Not racism.
Cold logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 08:06 AM

"56 people have been convicted of that crime."

There goes the Alzheimers again.

No they haven't Keith, they have been convicted of Trafficking and rape.

Please try and remember.



"I did not "propose" any explanations."

What about your hypothesis?

Straw et al talked about young men fizzing and popping with testosterone.

Only you argued that Pakistanis are culturally predisposed to kidnapping annd raping underage girls.

Only you stated that generally they are able to overcome this urge.

That was a suggestion that you proposed.

"I have no reason to doubt them"

Even though the victims said that it wasn't young men? When Jack Straw cryer etc said it was?

But I forgot - you don't accept that their opposing viewpoints are in any way contradictory.

So the fact that they do categorically contradict each other is not grounds for doubt.

Regardless of the fact that none of them is qualified to make psychological diagnoses about any individual, let alone a whole racial demographic.

No - they are all prominent politicians and journalists and we know for a fact that politicians and joutnalists nevr tell lies or capitalize on hot topics for their own personal Gain.

Long may they reign!

Hip hip - hooray.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 08:24 AM

So to clarify,

Keith proposes a slightly different cultural explanation to Straw, Cryer et al.

And it is founded on the idea that Pakistanis are overrepresented in the crime of street grooming.

And it is that there is an inherent problem with Pakistani culture in Britain.


Even Ake doesn't share this view.

He thinks its about Moslem culture and isn't specific to Pakistanis.

While Keith states that Moslem culture is not to blame, these crimes being a symptom of a Pakistani cultural problem.


As for Abbreviations, I'm surprised Keith that you don't just abbreviate your whole argument as you have repeated the same points ad nauseam for weeks and weeks now without making any attempt to engage your brain with them.

Just think of all the time you would save.

We would know exactly which arguments you were repeating as we know them off by heart having heard you chant them over and over again.


I've heard of a captain going down with his ship, but who'd want to set sail on one so full of holes.

I can see you, clinging to the flag pole ... at the bottom of the ocean ... remaining firm ... "I will not respond" ...

You silly stubborn old fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 09:04 AM

Lox, the 56 were convicted of grooming, trafficking and rape.
That is why they were counted by the Dando Institute survey of On-Street Grooming.
All young men have testosterone. Straw said why he thought it affected BPs differently.
Argue it out with him.

"Keith proposes a slightly different cultural explanation to Straw, Cryer et al."

NO!
Keith proposes no explanation at all.

"Even though the victims said that it wasn't young men?"
I do not remember that Lox.
I suspect you have made it up.
It would be despicable to corrupt the testimony of young rape victims.
Quotes please.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 10:56 AM

Your refusal to compare or even acknowlege the Northern Ireland survey brings this thread to the finalé it merits as far as I'm concerned:
                                                             wrong religion, wrong colour, wrong race - and in your case, wrong move .
Your silence underlines your selectivity in making British Pakistanis the target for your hatred - doesn't count if the perps are white or Christian = racism.
Throughout this thread this has been obvious, but this tops and tails it nicely.
Your contempt for the other members of this forum, your triumphalist gloating when you found 'even more victims', your attempts to include two innocent (to the extent of being heavily compensated) Pakistanis in your head count, your lying, cheating and selectivity in choice and exclusion, and your denial of black-and-white evidence, especially on your previous and disgusting stance on race.... all goes to make a rather sad and twisted individual.
To indulge in a little triumphalism of my own:                                       
                                                            
                                                                                     game, set and match, I think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 11:35 AM

"Lox, the 56 were convicted of grooming, trafficking and rape."

I see - but not of any seperate cime called "Street Grooming"

If they were, now would be a good time to provide the first evidence of this.


""Even though the victims said that it wasn't young men?"
I do not remember that Lox.
I suspect you have made it up."

No - its the Alzheimers Again Keith.

The victims said that the young men were merely used as bait by highly organized crime units.

That contradicts the notion that young men instigated these crimes as a result of their fizzing popping testosterone.

So to clarify - were the young men involved (a) as a result of fizzing popping testosterone needing an outlet? or (b) was it because they were members of highly organized crime cells who used them to trap young girls?

The answer is (b) - it is an orgabnized crime issue.

You have actually commented on this fact already, though i understand that your short term memory .. and long term memory are severely damaged.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 11:38 AM

Funny what news the Daily Mail and the Times will report and what they accidentally miss.

Here's an interesting quote from Jack Straw.

"The breakdown by ethnicity is consistent with what I've said all along, that the majority of perpetrators of this type of crime are white."

From This Article

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 11:40 AM

URL too long

Straws comment comes from this Article.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/hyndburn/8969605.50_East_Lancashire_men_warned_over_child_grooming/?action=complain&cid=9294071

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 11:41 AM

2000


I wonder if Keith wiill continue to see no reason to disbelieve Straw now ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 11:42 AM

The NI survey was not about on-street grooming and was thus totally irrelevant.
You are desperate to change the subject because you have no case.
Expect no help with that!

"your selectivity in making British Pakistanis the target for your hatred "
I have expressed no hatred.
BPs as offenders were indeed the subject of this discussion.
I did not start it.

I did not count in the two non BPs who were aquitted of rape and murder on a technicality.
I only used Wilmer's stated number and the Dando findings.

My case was that there is an over-rep. in this crime.
I have shown by irrefutable logic that there is.

Your case was that there was no over_rep.
That requires you to show a larger number of non BPs as offenders.
In three months you have found, ...er.......NONE.

So Jim, what exactly are you crowing about?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 11:49 AM

Lox,
This from the Guardian.
The view points to the convictions of 56 men, all but three of whom were Asian and most from the British Pakistani community, found guilty of sexual offences involving on-street grooming. There have been 17 court cases in 13 urban areas in the north and Midlands since 1997.

This from your link
It was reported yesterday that while most British sex offenders are lone white men, details of court cases in 13 towns showed that out of 56 men convicted of multiple offences of grooming girls for sex, 50 were Muslim, mostly of Pakistani heritage.

That is my case Lox!
Have you changed sides?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 12:54 PM

""Returning to on-street grooming by groups, we have many hundreds of victims where the perps. are BPs, and so far none where the perps are from any other group.
You would need many thousands of such to make BPs minority offenders.""

This sentence alone proves that you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

There is no such thing as on street grooming by groups. All on street and off street grooming is by individuals.

Only when the victim has been groomed and is hooked on the individual does the introduction of others to the scene begin, and the end product is the passing over of the victim to a trafficking ring, usually being paid for supplying her for use by the gang.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, this has been going on since long before the first Pakistani got off the boat onto English soil.

It is NOT a new phenomenon, nor is it related to any single culture.

You asked for thousands of others to reduce the "over representation", well they are there.

Eastern European, English, Turkish, Cypriot, Afro Caribbean and many more. Each gang (or group if you prefer) tends to be composed of a single ethnic type as none of the groups trust the others.

You really haven't a clue, have you? You see a ring of criminal gangs, of an ethnic background you distrust, and you are ready and willing to take comments made about this tiny number, and extrapolate from them to encompass their whole culture.

This in spite of the fact that the people who made the comments absolutely do not support that interpretation.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 02:25 PM

Poor Keith, If it isn't Alzheiners its chronic Myopia.


No keith,

First of all, the link does not lead to the Guardian.

Second, you have merely provided part of a comment which you have selectively edited, The bit you quote comes from the Daily Mail and the rest of the comment says "Kinda puzzling really how most papers quote these figures!"

It says that because the actual article my link leads to provides information that The Mail forgot to report.

Like Straws comment:

"Jack Straw, Blackburn MP, said: "These figures show what a great job Lancashire police is doing and the effectiveness of the Engage programme.

"The breakdown by ethnicity is consistent with what I've said all along, that the majority of perpetrators of this type of crime are white. "


Here's the title of the report.

"50 East Lancashire men warned over child grooming"

Its an article about a new way of preventing children from being groomed and abducted on the street.

As Street grooming ois not a crime, they can't arrest them, so instead they iissue them with a notice banning them from stopping and chatting to young children on the street.

It states:

"MORE than 50 men have been issued with 'abduction notices' to stop them approaching children in East Lancashire."

and

"For example, a letter can warn the person not to stop and talk to under-age children in his car."

And no you don't have to be a convicted Paedophile.

"Police said the notices were used as a 'shot across the bows' by officers when there was evidence of concerning behaviour by potential abusers."

then

"Specialist team Engage in Blackburn with Darwen, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley, has identified 134 victims and Freedom in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale, has helped 61 victims.

The team has also identified 44 individuals involved in sexual exploitation of which 32 were white, 11 Asian and 1 other.

Of those, 20 have been arrested, five charged and 21 abduction notices issued."

and

"Pennine's Freedom team, which has dedicated police, children's services and a health nurse, has identified 13 individuals, of whom five are white and eight asian.

They have made 10 arrests leading to one charge and issued 33 abduction notices."

I suspect you will ignore all that or try to suggest that Straw meant something entirely different.

However, his words clearly contradict your assertion that this is a peculiarly Pakistani problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 02:43 PM

Lox,
The Guardian piece was to establish that those 56 convictions were for on-street grooming by groups.
That is what I am discussing.
That is what the Dando Institute Report was about.
That is what Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Allibhai-Brown, the police, The Guardian, the CEOPS investigation and BBC investigation are all concerned with.
If you three are determined to talk about other crimes, I can't stop you.

Your Lancs Telegraph link produced the quote I gave.
The rest is about Engage.
They pass all their On-Street Grooming cases to Wilmer's CROP.
The biggest case they have ever dealt with was that music teacher who groomed a few pupils.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 06:56 PM

"The Guardian piece was to establish that those 56 convictions were for on-street grooming by groups.
That is what I am discussing.
That is what the Dando Institute Report was about.
That is what Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Allibhai-Brown, the police, The Guardian, the CEOPS investigation and BBC investigation are all concerned with."

mm hmmm ... and none of them establishes it as a crime type.

In fact, the Dando institute clarify that it isn't one.


"Your Lancs Telegraph link produced the quote I gave."

No Keith, it credits it to the Daily Mail very clearly.

"The biggest case they [engage] have ever dealt with was that music teacher who groomed a few pupils."

You clearly missed this from the Article.

"Specialist team Engage in Blackburn with Darwen, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley, has identified 134 victims and Freedom in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale, has helped 61 victims.

The team has also identified 44 individuals involved in sexual exploitation of which 32 were white, 11 Asian and 1 other.

Of those, 20 have been arrested, five charged and 21 abduction notices issued.".

You should really pay attention then you might stand a chance of not looking so unbelievably thick.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 07:37 PM

The link again to allow folks to see just how laughably Myopic poor Keith really is.


The Web page, including the quote from Mail and the actual Lancashire Telegraph Article

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 01:32 AM

Engage is a multi-agency initiative to safeguard vulnerable youngsters in East Lancashire. It was launched around the time the Lancashire Telegraph's Keep Them Safe campaign uncovered the problem of gangs of older men grooming girls for sex in 2005.

Voluntary organisation CROP teamed up with Operation Engage team as it works to end the sexual exploitation of children and young people by pimps and traffickers.

Vulnerable parents are helped by the group once a referral has been made to the Engage team.
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/8809386.Parent_officer_appointed_to_Engage_team/

DANCE teacher Edwin 'Teddy Eddie' Dillon was jailed yesterday for sexual activity with five under-age girls. It was the child sexual exploitation specialist unit Engage's biggest ever investigation.
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8454722.Mother___s_anguish_at_Blackburn_dance_teacher_s_grooming_of_daughter/

That case was October 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 01:44 AM

Engage deals with all kinds of exploitation of children.
CROP specialises in the grooming of children for prostitution (pimping) by gangs.
That is the crime we have been discussing for 3 months.
It is mainly a crime of BPs.
That is why it suits you to deny it is even a crime, and to change the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 02:52 AM

From your link Lox.

priority is to arrest offenders of all types of 'abhorrent' child abuse, whether street grooming, online or within the family.


"We recognised that there was an issue in relation to on-street grooming of young people by adults who have power over them by virtue of their age, gender, intellect or status."

Jack Straw, Blackburn MP, said: "These figures show what a great job Lancashire police is doing and the effectiveness of the Engage programme.

"The breakdown by ethnicity is consistent with what I've said all along, that the majority of perpetrators of this type of crime are white.

"But I maintain that there is an issue and a specific problem within some areas of the Pakistani community."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 05:20 AM

"priority is to arrest offenders of all types of 'abhorrent' child abuse, whether street grooming, online or within the family. "

Did you deduce that from this?

"The team has also identified 44 individuals involved in sexual exploitation of which 32 were white, 11 Asian and 1 other."

By sexual exploitation what diid you think they meant?

let me save you the bother of redefining the term to suit you.

Barnardo's definition of Sexual Exploitation.

So we aren't talking about "all types of 'abhorrent' child abuse" but specifically about exactly the same crime "we have been discussing all along"

The article is consistent. It talks about preventative measures for stopping kids being groomed on the street, and it talks about the prevention of the sexual exploitation of children using these preventative measures.


Now for 500 posts or so of Keith ignoring some bits, forgetting other bits, offering hallucinatory interpretations of inconvenient bits and then bizarre tortured logic to explain away his total lack of a case.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 05:31 AM

Sexual exploitation includes all kinds of sexual abuse.
This discussion is about on street grooming.
You deny it is a crime, and provide a link that states it is.
Thank you.
It also states that 3months later Jack Straw still states it is an issue and particular problem of Pakistanis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 05:40 AM

An interesting quote from the Barnardos Page about Sexual exploitation.

"It is often difficult for these children to accept that they are being exploited but they are always coerced in some way into such a lifestyle by others. For example, it is common for a girl to think that the man who controls every aspect of her life is her boyfriend and she will remain loyal to him even when he coerces her into having sex with others and in some cases resorts to violence to ensure compliance."

Note this bit:

"it is common for a girl to think that the man who controls every aspect of her life is her boyfriend and she will remain loyal to him even when he coerces her into having sex with others".

Hmmm ... noot a specific charactaristic of Pakistanis then eh?

The plot thickens!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 05:45 AM

"You deny it is a crime, and provide a link that states it is."


Perhaps new glasses might be the answer Keith.

The link states nowehere that Street Grooming is a crime.


It states that on street grooming is a means of grooming that is being succesfully prevented.


(Keiths predictable tactic #1 - making shit up)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 05:45 AM

Waste of a post.
We know that is how the perpetrators gain power over the victims.
The perpetrators are mostly BPs.
Would you like all the evidence again?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 05:48 AM

Lox, largely thanks to CROP, all kinds of grooming (contacting a child for the purpose of sexual activity) are a crime.
On-street grooming IS a crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 05:48 AM

"It also states that 3months later Jack Straw still states it is an issue and particular problem of Pakistanis."

Ah yes - tactic #2 - changing the wording of inconvenient quotes.

No he didn't say it was a particular problem of Pakistanis, he said that he still thinks its an issue and a specific problem within some areas of the Pakistani community.

Back to his idea of fizzing popping young men ... which the victims say isn't the case.

He also says that the majority of offenders are white, and that that has always been his position.

Perhaps you'd like help crossing the road too?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 05:52 AM

"On-street grooming IS a crime. "

Not a seperate crime type.

The crime is grooming.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 05:59 AM

On street grooming is an issue Keith.

What is an issue?

Well there are about 20 possible definiitons of the noun, but the only two relevant here are as follows.

"a point in question or a matter that is in dispute, as between contending parties in an action at law."

and

"a point, matter, or dispute, the decision of which is of special or public importance: the political issues."


i.e. it is something being debated and discussed.

i.e we don't know what it is for sure, so we are debating it.

Not only that but it is being investigated for us.

By Dando and by CEOP.


Dando concluded that it is not aa seperate crime type.

CEOP has yet to provide an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 06:03 AM

"Sexual exploitation includes all kinds of sexual abuse."

No Keith.

I knew you would ignore Barnardos.

Their definition is much more specific than your vague cop out.

They say "It ranges from them being given accommodation in return for sexual activities through to being exploited through more 'formal' exploitation."

That is not just general abuse.

It is a very specific definiton.

In the context of the Lancashire telegraph article it is even more so and describes exaactly the crimes we are discussing here.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 06:25 AM

"They say "It ranges from them being given accommodation in return for sexual activities through to being exploited through more 'formal' exploitation."

That covers much more than just on-street grooming.

Stabbing is not a separate crime, but it is a crime.
So is on-street grooming.
Why do you deny it?

Sex crimes are mostly committed by the majority group.
On-street grooming is mostly committed by BPs.

Straw does not say testosterone is a particular issue for BPs.
He does say that this crime is.
That is what started this furore, and he has not changed his mind.
Your link tells us that.
Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 07:59 AM

"They say "It ranges from them being given accommodation in return for sexual activities through to being exploited through more 'formal' exploitation."

Shall we break it down?

"being given accommodation in return for sexual activities"

Who needs accommodation?

(a) Kids with a home and a PC? or (b) kids living on the street.

The answer is (b).

And where Keith, do you suppose that kids living on the street are groomed?

(a) in an aeroplane, (b) in a submarine or (c) on the street.

I know - its a toughie ... the answer is (c)


Now what would you say "formal exploitation" meant?

is it (a) shaking hands before committing rape? (b) saying please and thank you? or (c) organized crime?

The answer Keith is organized crime, involving pimping andd trafficking etc.

So sexual exploitation, as described by Barnardos, ranges from individual acts of coercion against girls groomed on the street to organized pimping and trafficking.

Exactly the ball park this thread is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 08:25 AM

"Stabbing is not a separate crime, but it is a crime.
So is on-street grooming.
Why do you deny it?"

Another Non Sequitir, followed by more alzheimers and a bit of making shit up.

1."Stabbing is not a separate crime, but it is a crime."

Murder is a crime.

You cannot be convicted of Murder and stabbing.

ABH with intent to injure is a crime.

You cannot be convicted of ABH(witi) 'and' stabbing

The stabbing is merely the method by which you commit the murder or the ABH.

2. "So is on-street grooming. Why do you deny it?"

Dando clarify that it is not a crime type.

you cannot be convicted of Grooming 'and' street grooming.


Shall we examine the law?

What constitutes grooming in law?

"the offender must either have met or communicated with the child on two previous occasions;
the offender must then either meet the child or travel with the intention of meeting the child; and
at that time, the offender has the intention of committing a relevant sexual offence. "

Well thats pretty clear isn't it.

Where Keith, apart from online, do you think an offender meet a child for the first time ?

On a bus? in a park? on the street? in a shopping mall?

I'd say all of the above.

Do you think "bus Grooming" or "park grooming" should be recognized as crimes to Keith?

Or would that just be silly?

I think that would be very silly.

Why don't you stop being silly now Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 08:36 AM

"That covers much more than just on-street grooming."

Oh yes ... the guys convicted in Derby were also convicted of crimes covering a lot more than street grooming.

That was just where they went to groom their victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,wampum
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 08:42 AM

I wonder if the monthly Hertford session is as *interesting* as this?
:>(

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 10:24 AM

""Returning to on-street grooming by groups, we have many hundreds of victims where the perps. are BPs, and so far none where the perps are from any other group.
You would need many thousands of such to make BPs minority offenders.""

I have re-posted this in the forlorn hope that you, Keith, will summon up the energy to READ IT. I am sorry that it is longer than your normal twenty word attention span, but it is pertinent to the discussion.

Your above sentence alone proves that you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

There is no such thing as on street grooming by groups. All on street and off street grooming is by individuals.

Only when the victim has been groomed and is hooked on the individual does the introduction of others to the scene begin, and the end product is the passing over of the victim to a trafficking ring, usually being paid for supplying her for use by the gang.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, this has been going on since long before the first Pakistani got off the boat onto English soil.

It is NOT a new phenomenon, nor is it related to any single culture.

You asked for thousands of others to reduce the "over representation", well they are there.

Eastern European, English, Turkish, Cypriot, Afro Caribbean and many more. Each gang (or group if you prefer) tends to be composed of a single ethnic type as none of the groups trust the others.

You really haven't a clue, have you? You see a ring of criminal gangs, of an ethnic background you distrust, and you are ready and willing to take comments made about this tiny number, and extrapolate from them to encompass their whole culture.

This in spite of the fact that the people who made the comments absolutely do not support that interpretation.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 10:31 AM

""But I maintain that there is an issue and a specific problem within some areas of the Pakistani community.""

The perfect example of a politician's meaningless non-statement.

There is, in truth, an issue and a specific problem within some areas of every community.

All that can logically be derived from this statement is that there are good and bad in every community, and the British Pakistani community is no different.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 10:41 AM

""Stabbing is not a separate crime, but it is a crime.""

The only place in which anybody is ever charged with, or convicted of, stabbing is in the newspapers.

The crimes, according to the severity of the stabbing are:

Actual Bodily Harm
Grievous Bodily Harm
Malicious Wounding
Wounding With Intent
Attempted Murder
Murder

You see?.....Not one mention of the crime of "Stabbing". It is merely one method by which those six crimes may be committed.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 10:51 AM

""Straw does not say testosterone is a particular issue for BPs.
He does say that this crime is.""

NO, HE DOES NOT!!!

When will you learn to read, and report what you read, rather than re-interpret it?

He says it is ""a particular isse within some areas of the Pakistani Community", which is an entirely different story from the one you are trying so desperately to peddle.

Give it up man. You are becoming a joke.

All that statement says is that there are some bad Pakistanis. Name me a community that you think has no bad members.

Heaven excluded, of course.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 11:07 AM

It is a joke that I get blamed for sustaining this thread!
Straw originally said that there was a problem specifically with BPs and the abuse of young girls.
He has now says he has not changed his mind.

Your discourse on the status of on-street grooming is enthralling.
I will just say that all forms of grooming are illegal.
Up to 10 years in prison.
Fact.

On street grooming for rape and pimping has been described as a serious problem in large areas of England, with many hundreds of child victims (though just the tip of an iceberg), and the perpetrators are overwhelmingly BPs.

Wilmer's statements alone make this an irrefutable fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 11:46 AM

http://www.sasorg.co.uk/docs/Muslim%20Grooming/%E2%80%98Some%20of%20these%20men%20have%20children%20the%20same%20age.pdf
(extract)
Andrew Norfolk
January 5 2011 12:00AM
The voices of three young Muslim men climb in anger. They want to share their
revulsion for fellow members of their Pakistani community who took a group of
impressionable British schoolgirls and turned them into a collection of broken sex
toys.
'Some of these men have children the same age; they are bad ...   http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article2863031.ece
1 of 6 06/01/2011 08:57
Their neighbours flirted with children as young as 12, offered rides in souped-up
cars, flashed gold jewellery and promised love, then steadily fed the girls a diet of
alcohol and drugs, eventually creating what they sought: compliant human goods
to be traded and abused by dozens of men. The groomers were men in their early
twenties. Their customers were older relatives, friends or contacts. They travelled
to the girls' home town to have sex with them or had their victims delivered by car
to Pakistani communities in northern England and the Midlands.
In a room a few streets from the address where much of the abuse took place, the
three men have agreed to speak on condition of anonymity. They are so scared of
reprisals that their town must not be named.
"The younger ones speak fluent English and they know exactly what they're doing,"
said one. "They treat the girls all nice, buy them drinks, give them cannabis. They
get them on drugs and mess them up bad. Some of the girls are from quite good
homes but they're easily manipulated.
"Half of the guys having sex with them can't speak a word of English. They're
old-school Asians or illegals working in restaurants. If a girl smiles, they think
they're in heaven. They're all a bunch of dirty, filthy bastards."
The men explain that some of the grooming was initiated on the instructions of
older relatives. Other young men were seeking kudos. Some clients were paying
customers — perhaps £10 for sex with a 14-year-old white girl. Others were being
repaid a favour. "Our community is sick and tired of these people. Some of them
are married, with children the same age as these girls. They don't deserve a place
in society. Every community has its bad apples and these are ours."
One man confides that "a lot of people" knew of the abuse but that he and others
were "too scared to do anything about it". He points to a widespread view that
betraying members of one's own community to the police would be an even greater
sin than child sexual exploitation. White girls are targeted by such men because "if
they did it to a Muslim girl, they'd be shot".
Hilary Wilmer is the chairwoman of trustees at Crop, the Coalition for the
Removal of Pimping, a national voluntary organisation that has supported more
than 400 families affected by child sexual exploitation. "Parents feel bewildered
and helpless," she said. "They have watched their child being destroyed before
their eyes by perpetrators who have very sophisticated methods."
Few experts involved in child protection in northern towns are unaware that most
cases of gang-led, on-street grooming that have come to light involve British Asian
offenders and white girls. Yet almost no one will admit it.
Important work is being done by both voluntary and statutory organisations to
protect and support vulnerable girls and their families, and also to prosecute
known offenders.
Yet The Times has been able to identify only one town in which preventive work
has been targeted on changing attitudes in the minority community to which most
of the on-street gang perpetrators belong.
Engage, a project in Blackburn, where in 2006 Police Superintendent Neil Smith
spoke of dozens of girls as young as 12 being groomed for sex by groups of men,
noting that "the majority of cases" involved Asian males, has been widely praised
for its pioneering work on child sexual exploitation.
Nick McPartlin, the project's manager, said that preventative work such as raising
awareness in mosques has led to a dramatic change in the profile of local men
'Some of these men have children the same age; they are bad ... http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article2863031.ece
3 of 6 06/01/2011 08:57
prosecuted for on-street grooming. He gave figures from the past year, which
suggested that 80 per cent of identified offenders were white, although those cases
included victims of all ages and both sexes and most prosecutions involved lone
perpetrators.
Salim Mulla, chairman of the Lancashire Council of Mosques and a local councillor
in Blackburn, said that his organisation had used its network of 103 mosques to
spread a message of "respect for young women" across the Muslim community.
"We've done a lot of preventative work in mosques and madrassas and we're still
keeping a close eye on things. We have regular meetings with the police and the
local authority. It's a very worrying situation, it's something we take very seriously
and I think we've made a real difference."
In other towns and cities, there are signs that the scale of the problem is becoming
so grave that agencies are finally prepared to seek targeted help.
In November, nine men — seven of them of Pakistani heritage, one man with a
Hindu name and one white man — were convicted of offences involving a child sex
gang that groomed, assaulted and raped 27 girls in Derby, most of them aged 12 to
16. As some of the victims were under the care of social services, a serious case
review was ordered by the Derby safeguarding children board.
Its published report urged wider consideration of "whether the ethnic background
and culture of the perpetrators had any bearing on their decision to take part in
this activity". The board is to ask the Home Office to commission the first official
research on the subject.

Barnardo's, which runs 21 projects across Britain supporting victims of child
sexual exploitation, many operating in the towns and cities of northern England,
refused to speak about the ethnicity of on-street groomers. In a written statement,
its chief executive, Martin Narey, said: "Anecdotal evidence suggests that trends
relating to the predatory adults who sexually exploit young people may sometimes
'Some of these men have children the same age; they are bad ... http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article2863031.ece
4 of 6 06/01/2011 08:57
be linked with ethnic background. But they vary enormously throughout the
country and it would be wrong and dangerous for the media or others to generalise
on the basis of one or two cases."
Fourteen years ago, Detective Chief Superintendent Max McLean, who has
recently retired, led what seems likely to have been the first British police inquiry
involving the grooming and sexual exploitation of white girls by a gang of British
Pakistani men.
It began with a plea for help from a Leeds mother whose young daughter was
leaving via her bedroom window whenever she was summoned by the beeping
horn of a private-hire car that would stop outside their house in the early hours of
the morning.
The investigation led to 23 arrests and the exposure of a sex-trafficking ring
involving a network of private-hire taxi drivers and the sexual abuse of at least 20
girls. The victims had been groomed, held captive and some were driven as far as
Newcastle upon Tyne to be used for sex by older men.
In 1997, after the two ringleaders were jailed for kidnap, rape and assault, Mr
McLean warned that what police had uncovered was the tip of an iceberg. He
alerted forces across England to the possibility that similar networks were
operating in their communities.
Looking back now, his strongest memory is of the girls' extreme vulnerability and
of the pleasure that their abusers so clearly took in exercising power and control
over them. "The men held those young girls in extremely low esteem; they thought
that this somehow justified the violation that was taking place. As the years have
passed, the message should have gone out long ago that to ignore the scale and
nature of this problem is to bury your head in the sand."
In any other type of child sex offence — online grooming, familial abuse, crimes
against prepubescent children, against boys, or grooming by adults in a position of
trust — the overwhelming majority of offenders are white men. More than 82 per
cent of sex offenders in jail are white; less than 6 per cent are Asian, a statistic that
sets in even starker relief the extent to which men of Pakistani origin dominate the
list of those convicted of on-street child grooming offences involving
gangs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Silas
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 01:20 PM

Just doing my bit for the post count on this rather tedious thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 01:33 PM

You choose to open the thread.
You might find it tedious but it is in no way trivial.

Inter community relations is a major concern in any mult-ethnic country such as Britain, and this issue is highly sensitive.

Do you not feel that the gang raping of certainly hundreds, and possibly thousands of children should be of huge concern anywhere?

This compares with the global abuse of children by priests, but concentrated in a small region of Britain.

I make no apology for exposing and raising awareness of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Silas
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 02:20 PM

It wasn't trivial.

It is now. You made it so.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 04:57 PM

Thank you Keith for posting that long article.

Your lack of analysis or scrutiny is typical.

The Article states nowhere how these three young men know what went on.

They don't say aywhere that they were involved.

They don't say anywhere that they witnessed anything.

The only thing that one of them claims to have actually seen is a video on a mobile phone.


Apart from that, the same stuff is being reported again.

Hilary Wilmer etc.

So whats new in the report?

Well there's this:

Or you wouldn't have missed this.

"Nick McPartlin, the [engage] project's manager, ... gave figures from the past year, which
suggested that 80 per cent of identified offenders were white, although those cases
included victims of all ages and both sexes and most prosecutions involved lone
perpetrators."


Sounds like the Imams haven't been ignoring Straw. Cryer et al after all.

Sounds like there's been an incredible effort to raise awareness and combat organized crime.

What else is new?

This Quote from Barnardos ex head Martin Narey:

Martin Narey, said: "Anecdotal evidence suggests that trends
relating to the predatory adults who sexually exploit young people may sometimes be linked with ethnic background. But they vary enormously throughout the
country and it would be wrong and dangerous for the media or others to generalise
on the basis of one or two cases."

Well, whatever thge explanations (keith, apparently isn't interested) it would seem that white men have committed 80% of these crimes (beginning with grooming on the street) in the last year.

Very interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 05:02 PM

"Inter community relations is a major concern in any mult-ethnic country such as Britain, and this issue is highly sensitive.

Do you not feel that the gang raping of certainly hundreds, and possibly thousands of children should be of huge concern anywhere?"

Now this is really rich.


Keith conflates Gang rape with inter community relations, and states that it is highly sensiitive for this reason, and thiis after having stated that he believes Pakistanis to be presisposed to sexual abuse of minors!!!


I do like satire, but I never believed I would get to participate in the writing of one in which tha caricature gets to write his owwn lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 05:24 PM

Lox, that Times piece.
Andrew Norfolk is a Times reporter.
He was nominated for The Press Association Journalist Of The Year for "dogged investigating".

You quoted the 80% white figure achieved in Blackburn, but neglected to say how it was achieved.
The full quote.
"Engage, a project in Blackburn, where in 2006 Police Superintendent Neil Smith
spoke of dozens of girls as young as 12 being groomed for sex by groups of men,
noting that "the majority of cases" involved Asian males, has been widely praised
for its pioneering work on child sexual exploitation.
Nick McPartlin, the project's manager, said that preventative work such as raising
awareness in mosques has led to a dramatic change in the profile of local men prosecuted for on-street grooming. He gave figures from the past year, which
suggested that 80 per cent of identified offenders were white, although those cases
included victims of all ages and both sexes and most prosecutions involved lone
perpetrators."

Got that Lox. It used to be mostly BPs but they worked with the community and turned it around.
And, the remaining abuse was mostly lone abusers.
Not what we have been talking about at all.

Norfolk stated that no-one was prepared to say who the perps were.
He said, "Barnardo's, which runs 21 projects across Britain supporting victims of child
sexual exploitation, many operating in the towns and cities of northern England,
refused to speak about the ethnicity of on-street groomers"

Narey is holding back Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 07:05 PM

Analysis of the Article provides very few new facts.

The only new facts contained in the article are the ones I have presented.

"they worked with the community and turned it around."

Thats one interpretation of the facts.

Another is just to state the facts, which are that the communities were alerted to organized crime in their midst, and the organized criminals are laying low, having been subject to arrest and scrutiny.

The idea that Pakistani communities have a cultural predisposition to rape, but that this was turned around by a few Imams speeches is just another example of your torured fantasy mind trying to turn a gfabrication into a solid gold argument.

You just keep on polishing your turds Keith - thats fine by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 02:21 AM

No Lox.
My interpretation was the truth.
Yours is a lie.
Not "communities", just the BP community.
"preventative work such as raising
awareness in mosques has led to a dramatic change in the profile of local men prosecuted for on-street grooming."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 02:40 AM

Got that Lox?
Before going to the BP community.
"dozens of girls as young as 12 being groomed for sex by groups of men,
noting that "the majority of cases" involved Asian males"

After, just the usual lone pervs you get everywhere.

You talked about solutions.
Here is one that has been proved to work.
It is exactly what Ann Cryer proposed, and you rubbished.
You all were WRONG.
She was right.
I am vindicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 08:22 AM

Sorry Keith,

Nearly, but no cigar.

You said that Pakistanis were predisposed to rape.

Cryer said it was a cultural problem.

The victims said it was a problem of organized crime.


"I choose to believe the victims."


Neither of the above assertions is even addressed by this news.

The notion of some endemic cultural psychological issue being solved overnight is just more deranged fantasy.

A much more plausible explanation is that awareness was raised of Pakistani organized crime gangs by the recent media furore, and indeed by Imams etc, which, in combination with recent arrests etc, has resulted in the gangs shutting down their trafficking activities.

Organized criminals don't take unnecessary risks, they commit crime they think they will get away with.

Media and community scrutiny are not good for organized crime.

They are still there, still dealing cocaine etc (or did you think that having cocaine lying around is a cultural thing too), but they are laying low because of what is effectively a huge neighbourhood watch initiative.

Here's the rub Keith,

If this was a cultural issue, if the alleged predominance of Pakistani men were symptomatic of that, then once the gangs were stopped, we would not have seen such a radical change.

The fact that the gangs being stopped in their tracks had made such a difference supports my view, and the victims clear consistent testimony, that this was an organized crime issue and not a cultural one.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 10:09 AM

Lox, we can discuss the explanation, when you accept that on-street grooming, by groups, for rape and pimping, is mainly a crime of BPs, at least in the towns and cities of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Greater Manchester?

Until you do, what is the point?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 05:17 PM

Lox
"The victims said it was a problem of organized crime."

"the victims clear consistent testimony, that this was an organized crime issue and not a cultural one."

"I choose to believe the victims."

I remind you Lox, that the victims are terrified children.
They are not going to be speculating about the motivation of their tormentors.
It is despicable of you to twist their testimony to suit your warped, worthless agenda.

Of course the perpetrators are organised gangs.
And they are BPs.

As soon as it was acknowledged, in one town, that this crime had an ethnic dimension, action could be taken.
The overwhelming majority of good and decent people in the community, once made aware of what some were doing, put a stop to it in that town.

Why has it taken so many years to do something?
Because no-one dared say who was doing it.
People like you three were ready to start screaming "RACIST!" at anyone who dared.

A terrible accusation for anyone to deal with.
For anyone in the caring or police services, it would bring a career to a shuddering stop.
And so the abuse of young kids was allowed to go on, year after year, in town after town.

Even on this thread people have been silenced.
From reading his posts you can tell that Lively knew that the over-representation was real, but he was not willing to come out and say it.
Understandably so because of the vile abuse he would receive from you three pompous, posturing Witch-Finder Generals.

Because of people like you, the brutalisation and raping of children has been allowed to go on.
Thousands of young girls sacrificed on the altar of Political Correctness.

Your worthless philosophy can only be made to stand up by lies, deceit and groundless personal attacks on decent people.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 10:21 AM

"I remind you Lox, that the victims are terrified children.
They are not going to be speculating about the motivation of their tormentors.
It is despicable of you to twist their testimony to suit your warped, worthless agenda."


Nothing to twist mate.

They said that the young boys who groomed them were used as bait by gangs.

Which bit of that is twisted?


"Your worthless philosophy can only be made to stand up by lies, deceit and groundless personal attacks on decent people. "

What philosophy Keith?

Where?

Quote please.



Your hypothesis that Pakistanis are culturally predisposed to rape is, on the other hand, still a racist hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 10:48 AM

Lox,
"Your hypothesis that Pakistanis are culturally predisposed to rape is, on the other hand, still a racist hypothesis. "

AGAIN Lox, it is NOT my hypothesis.
The cultural explanation I reported was proposed by 5 individuals.
Since 3 of them were famously anti-racist BPs, it CAN NOT BE a racist hypothesis.

Your only case is to claim that I am a bad person.
Suppose I was.
Everything I have said is still true.

The gangs use their younger members to ensnare the girls.
The very young ones are children themselves.
They are all BPs.
How does that undermine my case that this is mainly a crime of BPs.?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 11:07 AM

""I remind you Lox, that the victims are terrified children.
They are not going to be speculating about the motivation of their tormentors.
It is despicable of you to twist their testimony to suit your warped, worthless agenda.""

If this were not so serious, you would be funny Keith.

You use the above argument to explain why these kids were too terrified to report motivation, while at the same time being able to nail down the ethnicity of their abusers to Pakistani, as opposed to Indian, Arab, Iraqi, Iranian, or any other swarthy race.

Make up your mind man. Either they are too terrified to judge, or they are not.

The testimony twisters are Hilary Wilmer and YOU!

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 11:11 AM

all the evidence you have posted shows, is that the majority of Gang members in Pakistani trafficking Gangs are Pakistani.

Thats it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 11:57 AM

Don,
"You use the above argument to explain why these kids were too terrified to report motivation"

No Don.
It would be stupid to ask raped children for an opinion on the motivation of their abusers!
No crime victims are expected to provide that, never mind abused kids.

Wilmer is above suspicion.
It is despicable of you to smear her.

Lox,
"all the evidence you have posted shows, is that the majority of Gang members in Pakistani trafficking Gangs are Pakistani."

No Lox. I have shown that it is mainly a crime of BP gangs.
If you had any evidence of a greater number of non BP gangs doing this, you would have provided it by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:12 PM

I have provided evidence of grooming as far back as the 1940s, when all the Pakistanis were still sorting out their own homeland.

You are the despicable fool who will not raise a finger to find out the truth of that, nor read, nor acknowledge the posts of those who do not agree with you.

Grow up for Christ's sake. Your theory is fatally flawed unless you can explain the fact that, while grooming and trafficking flourish in the South of England, the twenty nine percent of British Pakistanis who live there do not feature in it at all.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:57 PM

"No Lox. I have shown that it is mainly a crime of BP gangs."

This is actually a slightly new twist on what you've been saying.

Before you were just saying its a crime of British Pakistanis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 03:31 AM

Don, this is a specific type of grooming and pimping that we have been discussing for 3 months now.

Lox it is not a new twist.
I have been using this statement/question for weeks/months.

"that on-street grooming, by groups, for rape and pimping, is mainly a crime of BPs, at least in the towns and cities of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Greater Manchester?"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 04:42 AM

From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 08 Mar 11 - 01:05 PM

"Is on street grooming by groups mainly a crime of BPs?"
Yes where have I claimed it wasn't? (please answer)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 09:29 AM

"Lox it is not a new twist.
I have been using this statement/question for weeks/months."

Nope - its the first time you have saiid anything about it being a gang issue.

You have consistently stuck up for the idea that it is a general cultural issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 10:05 AM

"Yes where have I claimed it wasn't? (please answer)"
How dare you try to score points on something I have pointed out as a mistake and withdrawn - are you really that shoryt on argument -you dishonest shit -as well as proven yourself a selective racist?
im Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 10:21 AM

Lox, groups and gangs are the same thing.

Jim, the assertive, aggressive way you answered show that you meant every word.
A rare outbreak of honesty, that you immediately regretted, and spent the next day frantically back pedalling from.
How I enjoyed it.
You really made an arse of yourself that day!

Of course, you would never rake up someone's old posts to try to undermine, discredit and embarrass them.
That would make you a whining hypocrite,. wouldn't it Jim?!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 10:28 AM

I really wasn't going to bother with this – I found your hypocritical, racist behaviour so sickening, but since you have invited me back, here is a summary of your performance on this thread to date.
Right from the beginning you has ignored and refused to answer points made by others, even to the extent of denying that they have ever been made. You have persistently insulted contributors to this thread by claiming that they have not provided the evidence he has demanded, while ignoring requests to provide information necessary to make any assessment.
You have driven people from this thread with this, with his constant repetition, and with his 'last man standing', technique, and when they leave he has claimed some sort of victory.
When your unsubstantiated claims have been challenged you have persistently scurried behind "don't blame me; I'm only the messenger".
You have deliberately misrepresented what others have said, and when you have been caught out you have blatantly denied having said what is down in black and white.
You have doctored your own evidence and provided four separate reasons for having done so before finally settling on a final one.
You have complained of contributors dual-posting when it is you who as always done this on this thread and others.
You have openly attempted to smear one contributor who has probably acted in a more principled way than any of us by providing information that apparently went against his own beliefs – You accused him of succumbing to my supposed efforts of trying to influence him to not posting. It goes without saying that you have refused to apologise to either of us for this smear.
You have accused Lox and I of "keeping this thread alive", despite that fact that on 31st March your own postings numbered 535 and must be well into the 600s by now.
You have complained persistently (and pathetically) when I have returned to this thread to respond to his continuous racism (it is not your thread and anybody can come and go as they please without your permission).
You have pathetically complained of my postings being 'too long'.
You have attempted to give the impression that Lox and I are the only ones who disagree with him when in fact you has no support himself apart from a couple of feeble nods in his direction.      
You have used the fate of abused children to peddle an anti-Pakistani message.
You have crowed and gloated over fresh examples of paedophile abuse, describing yourself as "laughing" when you received it. In order to absolve yourself from this you then went into a disgusting an apparently uncontrollable bout of amateur theatricals weeping crocodile tears over the very thing you were gloating about earlier – and then accusing others of "not caring".
You have refused to comment on officially carried out reports of the grooming of underage teenagers in Northern Ireland because they involve Christian/white paedophiles, from whom racist capital cannot be made.
And now you attempt to score points that have been pointed out as being mistaken and have been withdrawn.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 10:32 AM

"Lox, groups and gangs are the same thing."


No chance mate.


You resisted the idea that it was a problem of organized crime throughout, asserting instead that it was a cultural problem.


Now that the Gangs have stopped operating, your assertion has been shown to be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 10:53 AM

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:28 PM

This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 11:00 AM

Jim, we have heard it all before.
You have no case to offer, so you try to attack me personally.

Not one of you claims against me stands up.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 11:53 AM

Keith
"Not one of you claims against me stands up."
All are verifiable for anybody with the stomach to wade through this thread.
As far as I am concerned you are a racist degenerate, every bit as ready to use the abuse of underage girls for your racist propaganda as the paedophiles were to use their bodies for sexual satisfaction - your performance on that particular section of this revolting discussion must have reached a low, even by your deplorable standards.
You are now reduced to attempting to use something that has been long admitted as a mistake and withdrawn - just as I predicted you would. You still stand on your own and have run out of ideas, having convinced no-one with your revolting and dishonest arguments.
You want to disprove anything on my list - please feel free and see how far you get.
It's on record and easily available for future use.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 11:59 AM

"This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know. "

Interesting, but not according to you.

According to you, Islam had nothing to do with it.

According to you, these crimes were a Pakistani cultural issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 12:20 PM

You make yourself more ridiculous with every groundless insult Jim.
Anything to say about the over-representation?
Obviously not!

Lox, my case is just that BPs are over-represented.
All the cultural stuff was proposed by people with actual knowledge of it, unlike us.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 01:41 PM

"Anything to say about the over-representation?"
Yup - still the same figment of your imagination that it was when you first invented it - as can be seen from the waves of supporters you've managed to win over for it here.
Anything to say about your abuse of abused children?
Obviously not!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 01:49 PM

" the same figment of your imagination that it was when you first invented it"

Hardly invented by me Jim.
Lox was discussing it for two days without me.
The discussion followed statements by Straw and Cryer, and the results of the Dando Institute survey.
So, not actually invented by me at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 02:27 PM

"have run out of ideas, having convinced no-one with your revolting and dishonest arguments."

"as can be seen from the waves of supporters you've managed to win over for it here."
====

Me, Jim? With all due modesty, I do not think I am no-one. I have refrained from intervention for a bit because I have not been back on this thread for a while, astonished at how long it has contrived to run & run.

But, having gone over what has gone on since I left a fortnight ago, I am distressed to find that you three, Don & Lox & Jim, are still priggishly & self-righteously congratulating yourself on having entirely missed the perfectly valid points, within the very limited compass which is all that has been at issue despite your efforts to widen the topic to a point which few others have even considered relevant, which Keith has been making throughout; and that you still persist in abusing him in a most disgraceful fashion for having said things which you have put into his mouth, without engaging with what he actually has said ~~ all in addition to such disgusting lapses as Don's having attempted to denigrate Hilary W, a respectable researcher who knows more on this topic than the three of you put in a bag together & shaken up will ever know, because her conclusions did not accord with his dishonestly postulated preconceptions.

It is patent to me that your positions have not changed: the least whiff of anything that might [in this case entirely in your own perceptions and not in reality] be construed as the evil R-boo-word, effectively robs the three of you of the little-bit-of-sense-you-had, like brother Paul in the Football Crazy song, and makes you, three normally tolerably intelligent persons {despite in the case of one of you occasional lapses which need not at present be specified}, go on in this unmannerly and aggressive fashion, of which I think you should all be ashamed.

Not that I am ingenuous enough to expect for a moment that you are ~~ but just go back to some of your posts & listen to yourselves...!

Best

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 03:40 PM

As far as I can tell there's nothing left to add.

Keith says he meant the gangs all along.

Thats fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 03:47 PM

So Lox, do you now accept that on-street grooming, by groups/gangs, for rape and pimping, is mainly a crime of BPs, at least in the towns and cities of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Greater Manchester?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 03:58 PM

(and the Midlands)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 04:06 PM

I'm all finished.

Feel free to carry on but please don't take my name in vain.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 04:09 PM

"So Lox, do you now accept that on-street grooming, by groups/gangs, for rape and pimping, is mainly a crime of BPs, at least in the towns and cities of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Greater Manchester?"

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 07:35 PM

""Don, this is a specific type of grooming and pimping that we have been discussing for 3 months now.""

NO, IT ISN'T! It's exactly the same crime it has always been, which is why the survey warned specifically against the idea that it is a new crime type.

You can easily check it out for yourself, but of course you won't, because your claim to be willing to consider alternatives is just a load of hot air.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 01:18 AM

YES IT IS!

It was the actual subject of the Dando Institute Report.
It is the subject of two ongoing reports.
It is the kind of grooming that Straw, Cryer, et al were referring to.
It is what those 56 convictions were for.
It is what the rest of us have been discussing since January.

Lox,
"Keith says he meant the gangs all along.
Thats fine. "

You read all my old posts about groups and gangs.
What has changed for you?
What is fine?
Why have you gone again?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 02:27 AM

Why can they not just accept that the over-representation is real?
Reverse racism, which is just as pernicious as the other sort.

Unfortunately for them, there is irrefutable evidence that it is real, and they have no answer to it.

That is why Lox has to run away and hide in a flurry of nonsensical posts.
That is why Don closes his eyes to make it all disappear.
That is why Jim can only make up long posts about what a bad person I am.

Not a subject for mirth, but it is impossible not to laugh at their antics.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 03:53 AM

"Not that I am ingenuous enough to expect for a moment that you are ~~ but just go back to some of your posts & listen to yourselves.."
And just go back over Keith's posts and say he hasn't behaved the way I have described Mike.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 04:34 AM

I have done so, Jim. I still feel you have misunderstood the points he has made within an extremely, and avowedly, limited compass; and can only have interpreted his meaning as you have by widening the applications of his assertions to a point he has persistently disavowed, which disavowals you have refused to take on board because they would not be in accord with your preconceptions. He has not said or implied what you interpret so far as I can see. I think we shall have to agree that our perceptions are different, which is a fair enough admission, is it not?; but you really cannot continue in your assertions, which are what brought me back to the thread, that you & Don & Lox have absolutely carried the day and Keith has garnered no support for his attitudes and beliefs, can you now? I categorically decline to regard myself as 'no-one'!

Regards ~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 05:03 AM

MIke - I am apalled at the unbelieveably one-sided and uncritical support you have given Keith, even his open refual to even consider the same crime when committed by white Christianss - no, not a different crime as he claims, but the same one - sex with under-age girls. This, to me, is open racism which you are giving your support to.
The rest of my analysis of Keith's behaviour here is a matter of record, which I would be happy to debate with you item by item had I not had my fill of this shit thread. I was only drawn back into it by a piece of particularly slime behaviour on Keith's part, which you apparently find no fault with.
A quick sprint through this thread shows very little input on your part on the subject in hand, rather you have largely confined yourself to calling for fair play for Keith - indicating that he speaks for your views - which makes a sort of sense, I suppose.
Whether I believe anybody has won the day - I believe the day was won long ago, and well more than half this thread has been mantra-like repetition on Keith's part and his constant retreating behind other people's statements.
In the end, nobody wins with Keith's 'last man standing' method of argument, people just drop out from frustrated exhaustion.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 06:21 AM

I don't think that is all I have been doing, Jim ~~ tho I reiterate that I do deplore the hysterically aggressive attitude which has been taken to the points Keith has been making; which, I repeat, I made myself above ~ in parallel with, rather than in support of, Keith...

Viz, that the grossly disproportionate number of convictions for a particular offence, in particular places, over a particular period, of men of Pakistani origin, was a matter of concern: not only to me {& to Keith}, but to several leading Muslim authorities, to a leading Muslim journalist, to a respectable politician like Jack Straw, and to a respected and authoritative social observer like Hilary W, who produced a large number of other worrying statistics leading to similar conclusions and concerns.

That was my sole point; so far as I understood the matter, it was also Keith's. The fact that other people in other demographics in other places may have committed offences with some similarities was irrelevant - or at best tangential - to the specific areas of concern we had rubricated.

No proper response was forthcoming to these points; merely abusive, disrespectful and hysterical kneejerk cries involving the R word. As I said, just read objectively back over your posts (or Don's or Lox's or Silas's), and find one moderately and civilly expressed contradiction or objection to any of the LIMITED RANGE of points we have made.

I don't think you will.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 06:33 AM

"That was my sole point; so far as I understood the matter, it was also Keith's."
That was indeed my whole case Michael.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 07:03 AM

"I do deplore the hysterically aggressive attitude...."
This is a discussion on racism Mike - a subject that tends, in my experience, to attract such responses - and while all might have been guilty of this, it no way excuses Keith's openly dishonest and manipulative behaviour, which you have given your blanket support to.
I have had a number of political disagreements with you in the past, some strong ones, which have in no way affected the respect I hold for you and your work; this remains unchanged.
Up to now I have regarded you as fair minded and balanced in your approach - it is this I find myself having to rethink.
Do you really find no fault with Keith's behaviour, particulary his honesty?
As I said, I was dragged back into this thread by what I believe to be an inexcusable piece of dishonesty on Keith's part (an attempt to use a mistake on my part which I had admitted to and withdrawn) to bolster his already sunken case - you apparently count this as acceptable - which allows me to reach my judgement of your fairness' with no difficulty, and with a degree of sadness.
As far as the argument itself; I have said that without more background information, which is unavailable to any of us, it is impossible to reach any comclusion, and to attempt to do so can only described as agenda-serving.
Beyond that, I see no point whatever in what can only be a further repetition of old arguments.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 07:04 AM

I'd like to make it clear that the ethnicity of the perpetrators was not and is not, my key concern in these cases. Of course abuse covers the entire spectrum from lesbian mothers to highly respected figures of authority. 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.

It's all very well to say, we all hate abuse, but it goes on everywhere. Because no type abuse can be efficiently targeted and stopped if a) there is either failure to acknowledge pertinent information regarding the perpetrators and their victims b) efforts to prevent such crimes are not targeted at the perpetrators and their victims.

It was heartening to see that in at least one town, efforts to engage community awareness resulted in a successful elimination of the particular type of crime under discussion here. I'm sure other such communities would favour efforts to engage them in similar gang activity in their towns. These communities don't want creeps crawling around their streets any more than any other community does.

One thing I would add, is that cultural (socially) and religious factors would appear to figure here, in as much as by comparison I find it highly unlikely that within a white dominated area, gang crime could be effectively be stopped through working with the local CofE Vicar.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 07:10 AM

"I'm sure other such communities would favour efforts to engage them in similar gang activity in their towns."

(Oops, spot the missing word!)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 08:14 AM

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~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 08:26 AM

"My support for Keith has been 'on balance' rather than 'blanket', Jim"
No Mike, it hasn't.
On the matter of his behaviour it has been total - a praising with faint damns, though you were quick enough to damn that of his opponents- and you still tiptoe round a specific piece of dishonesty I mentioned.
As far as I'm concerned, both you and he can both go hang - you are a matched pair.
I leave you and he to your 'massive over-representation' - enjoy.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 09:08 AM

And by the way - this is what you are defending
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"""Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 09:15 AM

"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"

M - I don't know if this is in fact correct. The discussion of these crimes on this thread began some time before I entered it, and I think the 'conversation' has taken a number of shifts in focus both before and since then.

I believe it was Jack Straw's et al comments on Pakistani marriage customs and "fizzing and popping testosterone" which was - at least initially - more of a key issue of contention between other contributors. Though personally that branch of the discussion was never of interest to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 09:24 AM

Whole post, 13th Feb,

Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things.

Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb.

Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 10:06 AM

The thoughtful, balanced post that I was replying to!

From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 06:54 AM

Now we've got the whole set of screamers joined in an adamantine block of pure mindless prejudice there doesn't seem much point in bothering, so I'll use my time more productively elsewhere.

Anyone asking them to consider alternatives is automatically on a loser.

There are NO alternatives for them. Muslims are all evil, oppressive, chauvinist, paedophile rapists, made so by their cultural upbringing. Do they, I wonder, ever listen to themselves?

My guess would be NO!!



Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 11:27 AM

"Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, "
Absolutely - I have always rejected the idea that any culture/race inherits criminal tendencies - or any tendency whatever - six million human beings were slaughtered because of that belief.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 11:41 AM

Surely those 6 million were murdered because of their race.
And it was not the race, but the culture of the perpetrators that drove them to do it.
Would you defend Natzi culture as you defend BP culture?

But once again you are trying to draw us in to explanations for the over-representation, while denying the over-representation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 12:00 PM

Jim:

Quote of the day ~~~

"Don't be peevish!

Daisy Ashford, The Young Visiters, or Mr Salteena's Plan 1919

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 12:06 PM

BTW Jim, it was a little dishonest of you to edit out the send half of my sentence, which qualified the first half.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 12:34 PM

"Jim, it was a little dishonest of you to edit out the send half of my sentence, which qualified the first half"
No it certainly was not - you put this down as your belief.
If I put every quote from you alongside your source, my posts woulld be twice as long.
"Surely those 6 million were murdered because of their race."
The Jews are not a race - they were slaughtered for being Jews, the arguments put forward for doing so were that they were 'genetically inferior'
Had the Nazis had their way they would have gone on to slaughter French, Hungarian, Polish, Dutch, British...... Jews; in fact they gave it their best shot with some of these (with the co-operation of the Pope in the case of the Italins).
"Genetic implants' is not just racicism; it is the cornerstone on which all racism is based.
What ******* planet do you occupy?
"Don't be peevish!"
Response of the day.
Don't be smug.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 12:59 PM

Jim ~~

✌

❤

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 01:14 PM

Does that constitute invective Mike - welcome to the abusive circle.
Jim Carrol

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 01:24 PM

The Nazis regarded the Jews as a race.
They were motivated by a cultural belief in the importance of racial purity.
Did you not know that Jim?

My crime, as you see it, was to be persuaded by people like Ahmed, Shafiq and Allibhai-Brown that the over-representation is explained by BP marital practices.
They are not racist so you can not accuse me of racism for believing them.

You have previously denied being blinkered by ideology.
You have now admitted it, and with some vehemence.
Your mind is closed by preconceptions to the possibility of BPs being over-represented in any crime!

It matters not that irrefutable evidence is presented.
Your mind is closed.

However, your preconceptions did not stop you gleefully stating that some crimes were mostly committed by whites.
Your preconceptions are racially prejudiced.
That makes you, by definition, a racist.

I have never said anything that could be defined as racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 01:26 PM

Your preconceptions are racially discriminating.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 02:50 PM

Nazism isn't a culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 03:33 PM

"The Nazis regarded the Jews as a race."
In the incredible off-chance that you are right, the Nazis also regarded all Jews as inferior and exterminated six million of them using the argument that they were genetically flawed, just as you have argued here. Since when do we take our outlook and definitions from mass murderers?
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Keith but the concept that:
                  "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" is not only racist, it's text book racism.
It is what we have been saying all along, had you only been listening.
You appear to be floudering - what you have claimed is deeply racist, and it runs through your argument like Blackpool runs through rock.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 03:48 PM

It is a blatant lie that I have ever once referred to genes or race in this thread.
The cultural explanation was from famously anti-racist BPs.
You should take it up with them.
I am not committed to it.
My mind is open and I am not in the least concerned about the explanation anyway.
Why do you even care about an explanation for the over-representation if you deny the over-representation?
I will not mention it again, except I know you will.

You preconceptions are racially discriminating Jim.
Will you address that?

" Since when do we take our outlook and definitions from mass murderers?"
Er, you brought it up Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 04:44 PM

"It is a blatant lie that I have ever once referred to genes or race in this thread."
"all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"
You mean you put this up as an argument because you didn't agree with it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 04:54 PM

If so, can you indicate which of the other quotes you have put up, you agree with, and which you don't.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 04:54 PM

Jim, I'm not commenting on the broader picture here, but surely you don't identify genetics and culture as being one and the same thing?

Genetic makeup is biological and what one is born with - like it or lump it. Culture however is social, and what one learns from exposure to one's immediate community - and as such may be deviated from depending on the individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 05:07 PM

I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb.
"You mean you put this up as an argument because you didn't agree with it?"

No Jim, I did not put it up as an argument at all.
It was proposed by highly authoritative, reputable people including BPs.
I said that I thought they were right.
That is all.
My case is the over-representation.
That is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 05:35 PM

Jim, respond to Lively, and above all, start debating issues instead of constantly trying to prove me bad.
I am not, and if I were, everything I have said is still true.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 06:00 PM

"It was proposed by highly authoritative, reputable people including BPs."
You started out a few postings ago explaining why you believed it - now you say you don't - you really need to think before you put finger to keyboard Keith.
Lively:
"all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"
Keith's comment was aimed at male Pakistanis - an atatck on "all male Pakistani Muslims "how else am I to regard it other than racist - unless you want to split hairs?
He didn't mean it anyway!!!!
Mike:
Maybe a longer spoon was in order?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 07:58 PM

""I still feel you have misunderstood the points he has made within an extremely, and avowedly, limited compass; and can only have interpreted his meaning as you have by widening the applications of his assertions to a point he has persistently disavowed,""

It is somewhat difficult to see how Keith's assertions can be "within an extremely, and avowedly, limited compass;" when he has repeatedly characterised the whole Pakistani culture as "slightly predisposed by their culture to crimes of sexual abuse of underage girls", ignoring the fact that his statement is based on a sample of 53 gang members who were from that culture.

He ignored also the fact that the 29 percent of British Pakistanis who live in the South do not exhibit any sign whatever of this predisposition.

He will not accept that the authors of the Dando report clearly stated that they were worried that some people were drawing from their report, the erroneous conclusion that this was (as Keith insists) a new crime type.

This type of grooming HAS been happening for many years, but until recently has not been recorded separately from general sex abuse, and trafficking of underage girls.

As this does not fit Keith's agenda, he simply chooses to deny it without attempting to check.

Lastly I take extreme exception to your comments about me attacking Keith personally, and if you take the trouble to check back (which I doubt) you will find that any personal comment I have made has been preceded by an ad hominem attack on me by Keith.

I have done my best to stick to discussing the issue, but Keith has chosen to ignore anything I suggest he should check out, and has openly admitted that he doesn't read my posts, because they are too long, doesn't check anything, insisting that I do the homework for him, and has described me as despicable, stupid, uncaring and a number of other epithets.

If I didn't care, it wouldn't matter enough for me to bother discussing the topic.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 08:26 PM

The Nazis murdered six million Jewish men, women, and children. These were not members of a homogeneous culture.

They were Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Yugoslavian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Albanian, French and many many more, whose only shared characteristic was their Jewish religious beliefs.

There was, and in certain quarters still is, a public perception that Jews amassed fortunes and used their money to acquire political clout.

Hitler needed some way to unite the German nation behind some pretty harsh government so he gave them a scapegoat to fear and loathe, and he chose the Jews whom he personally detested to fill that role.

The concept of uniting a nation by giving them somebody to hate wasn't new, and it didn't matter who was chosen for the role, but it did help that they were already disliked and distrusted by many Germans.

No parallel then with anything pertinent to this thread.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 10:36 PM

Jim, I believe in the over-representation.
Any rational person would. The evidence is overwhelming.
Naturally I am curious as to why.
Only one explanation has emerged and that from the most reputable and authoritative people.
Why would I not believe it?
If anyone comes up with a better one, I will accept it at once.

My case is that there is an over-representation.
The explanation does not matter to me.
Why does it to you?
Because you have no answer to the over-representation!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 10:44 PM

Don,
"he has repeatedly characterised the whole Pakistani culture as "slightly predisposed "
No I have not.
The cultural explanation is not mine.

"He ignored also the fact that the 29 percent of British Pakistanis who live in the South do not exhibit any sign whatever of this predisposition."
I could speculate but without evidence what would be the point?
I neither know nor care.

"He will not accept that the authors of the Dando report clearly stated that they were worried that some people were drawing from their report, the erroneous conclusion that this was (as Keith insists) a new crime type."
Not true.
I have accepted that.
I have only ever referred to their conviction stats.
I said it may not be a new crime type, but it is a crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 12:10 AM

"Jim, I believe in the over-representation."
Sorry Keith; doesn't work like that.
You have said - in full:
"Don I do now " believe that " but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."
Simple, straigtforward, uncomplicated; you put that forward because you believed it. As far as I can see, nobody else has said it; it is your summing up of what you believe.
It was not correct for me to have described it simply as racist.
The Pakistani bit makes it racist, the Muslim bit makes it bigoted, the male bit makes it sexist; it is a racist, bigoted and sexist attack on Pakistani, Muslim men.
The 'genetic implant tendency' puts it on par with the excuse that the Nazis put forward for the extermination of six million Jews, and the sterilition of many so the genetic fault could not be passed on - it is a racist statement of the worst kind.
Your stumbling efforts to explain your statement away, first by misrepresenting Nazi history and then, breathtakingly, eventually claiming "No Jim, I did not put it up as an argument at all" makes you an extremely stupid and dishonest individual.
Your claiming that you only put it up because "It was proposed by highly authoritative, reputable people including BPs" (perhaps you can point out who has claimed "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"), makes you not only stupid, but extremely cowardly in lacking the courage to stand by what you have said, and what you obviously believe.
So we are left with a stupid, lying, cowardly, racist, sexist bigot who is prepared to put forward the oldest racist weapon in the book, genetic deficiancy, to show that male, Muslim Pakistanis are genetically inclined towards paedophelia.
Do you take bookings?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 02:54 AM

Jim, I have never mentioned "genetic implant" or anything about race or genes.
That is a blatant, disgusting lie, and another attempt to smear me

Those authoritative people all stated that BP marriage practices were to blame.
It follows that while some are driven to offend, others are affected to a lesser extent.
If you can explain why that is a false assumption I will withdraw it.
I am not concerned about the cause the over-representation.
Unlike you obviously

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 03:37 AM

"all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."
Where does your culturally implanted tendency come from?
You have claimed over and over again that you have not attacked the British Pakistani culture yet you have talked about a culturally implanted tendency towards paedophelia - what is the evidence for that tendency, and if it is not genetic, what is it - you have already introduced the accusation of genes in regard to members of the immigrant communities in Britain into this argument?
Where is your evidence of of any tendency within the Pakistani population to any degree whatever towards paedophelia?.
Where is your evidence of any massive over representation whatever?
These are total inventions of yours; nobody else has said them nor even hinted at them outside of specific situations involving small numbers of criminals.
You have persistantly attempted to present paedophilia as a commonplace among British Pakistanis.
You have attempted to make the grooming of underage girls a mainly Pakistani crime, when every parent in Britain has warned their children at one time or another not to take sweets from strangers - this throughout history and when it is recognised that street grooming is a common occurence in all communities, including the indigenous one.
You have refused to even discuss the grooming of underage teenagers by white, christian men, even when it occurs to the extent of more than one in every ten, as it has in Northern Ireland.
You have set out to show, totally without proof, that the British Pakistani communities are cultural degenerates.
These are not Pakistani paedophiles; they are a relatively small number of criminals alongside a far greater number from the indiginous and other communities (according to Jack Straw), who you have presented as a cultural threat.
If that is not racism - what is?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 03:47 AM

The contention is that children are easier meat than older girls, not that the offenders are necessarily paedophiles.
The suggestion that the drive to offend is culturally implanted comes from others.
I got it from them, not the other way round, and it is not an issue with me anyway.

Would you really like me to restate the mass of irrefutable evidence for the over-representation?
I would be happy to oblige, but your preconceptions and prejudices will only make you reject it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 04:25 AM

You have presented no proof whatever beyond a small handful of examples in specific area - if you are going to claim these as proof - don't bother, they prove nothing whatever about British Pakistani culture as a whole and you are the only one making that claim.
Where is your proof of a massive over-representation among the one and a half million British Pakistanis?
Where is your proof that the Pakistani male population is in any way inclined towards paedophelia?
Where is your proof that street grooming is mainly a British Pakistani activity?
What is your rational for presenting street grooming as seperate from any other form of sexual grooming - internet, within the family, clerical sexual grooming, date rape drugging - all are forms of sexual grooming with the same objective in mind?
If the British Pakistani population is culturally inclined towards paedophelia, why isn't the white christian population of Northern Ireland culturally inclined to the same crime when systematically gathered data has produced vastly larger percentages of underage sex (over one in ten)? Why is this not even worthy of discussion when the sexual grooming of underage girls is aimed to produce the same result, however it is carried out.
If I have misinterpreted your stance on the genetic connection to this crime, as it seems I might have, I apologise unreservedly and withdraw my comments (something else for you to use at a later date), but this in no way alters the racist nature of your 'implant' statement, and it in no way absolves you from answering the above questions - one by one or all together, as you please.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 04:48 AM

Jim, I just told you that paedophilia was not a contention!

"What is your rational for presenting street grooming as separate from any other form of sexual grooming"
Not me again.
The issue was first raised about 20 years ago by CROP.
Google their site.
I first heard of it when Straw made it headline news.
For a while everyone was talking about it.(All the media did reports including Guardian, BBC, and Bindel and Norfolk.)
It was not even me who raised it on this thread.

Why are you so determined to make me look a bad person?
It is a total obsession with you, and nothing to do with this debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 04:59 AM

"this in no way alters the racist nature of your 'implant' statement"

Thanks for this clarification on your position Jim. I wasn't attempting to split hairs, but in difficult topics like this small words can mean a lot. I asked for clarification from Lox previously about his use of the word "girl" in a particular statement, by which he clarified that he meant "young woman".

For the record, while I do believe that cultural conditioning can certainly predispose particular groups to particular behaviours (cannibalism in certain tribal groups as one extreme example, though such practices are now no longer with us) I agree that there is no where near enough information to make such a blanket generalisation about supposedly culturally instilled (or "implanted" if you will, but such a phrase does appear to have physiological connotations) sexual tendencies of British Pakistani men.

You will find arguments, particularly from a feminist perspective, which argue that cultural factors do have a role to play in crimes of abuse against women, and in crimes of abuse against women (including organised crime) from specific groups, but that is a long way from arguing that "all Pakistani males have a culturally implanted tendency to abuse girls". So I'm going no-where near that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 05:13 AM

Further to this crime under discussion however - as I posted below (and I think as mentioned by another poster) - the positive influence of one Pakistani community's evident cultural and religious values (once awareness was raised of such crimes within that community) was such that they were both motivated and able to successfully eliminate this crime in their area.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 05:56 AM

"The issue was first raised about 20 years ago by CROP."
Stop hiding behind other peoples' reports - you put it up, you take responsibility for it.
The 'evidence' of all the groups and individuals you have put up are individual accounts of personal experiences in limited areas - they in no way impact on Pakistani culture as a whole.
They certainly don't constitute proof, they don't even count as evidence outside their own small disconnected areas.
The 'massive over-representation' is purely of your own making. I have long realised that you have no ideas of your own, only those you have managed to cut-'n-paste. At least have the balls to come out from behind them and state your own case.
Where is YOUR EVIDENCE of the 'massive over-representation' that you, and you alone claims to exist?
"Would you really like me to restate the mass of irrefutable evidence"
I would like you to state ANY EVIDENCE to back up your statements - the interminable repetition of irrelvant and unrelated personal observations in small isolated areas is not proof, it isn't even evidence until it is placed in the context of the areas it was collected.
And your evidence on Pakistani inclination towards paedophelia?
And your proof that street grooming is mainly a Pakistani crime?
And your rationale of separating street grooming from any other sort of grooming?
And your persistant refusel to draw cultural conclusions from the same Christian/white crimes?
"Why are you so determined to make me look a bad person?"
I am not attempting to make you look an such thing - I couldn't hope to compete with your own efforts in this respect.
You have lied, cheated, distorted your own and others evidence, you have accused others of behaviour you have been guilty of ten-fold....
You have shamed yourself with your own behaviour, and the fact that you have displayed no shame, shames you even more.
How could anybody possibly compete with that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 06:11 AM

Jim,
I would like you to state ANY EVIDENCE to back up your statements - the interminable repetition of irrelevant and unrelated personal observations in small isolated areas is not proof, it isn't even evidence until it is placed in the context of the areas it was collected.
My case is that there is an over-representation, at least in the areas I specified.
That is all.

"And your evidence on Pakistani inclination towards paedophelia?"
Not a contention of mine, as I keep telling you.

"And your proof that street grooming is mainly a Pakistani crime?"
Basically because they are a minority group, but a large majority of the offenders.

"And your rationale of separating street grooming from any other sort of grooming?"
Because that was the kind of grooming being discussed here when I joined the debate.

"And your persistant refusel to draw cultural conclusions from the same Christian/white crimes?
I am not qualified to draw such conclusions about any crime.
Are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 06:25 AM

""The cultural explanation is not mine.""

You made it yours when you extrapolated from what your sources actually said something more than they intended, chose to believe it, and posted to that effect on this thread.

""Don I do now " believe that " but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb.""

Like Jim, I find that ""Simple, straigtforward, uncomplicated; you put that forward because you believed it. As far as I can see, nobody else has said it; it is your summing up of what you believe.""

With respect to your constant claims of a "massive over representation", let's examine that.

You have 53 British Pakistanis convicted, and 400 individual cases brought to light by Hilary Wilmer. I have been accused of maligning that lady by asking what seems to me a very reasonable question, namely ""What makes Ms Wilmer so certain that all 400 were Pakistanis, and how did those 400 terrified children all instantly identify their abusers as Pakistanis?""

I'm seventy years old and I haven't yet found a way to tell apart the different Asian races.

Ignoring all that let's suppose for the sake of argument you have 453 abusers.

In a British Pakistani population of 1.5 million this is 0.03%. Even if this were (which is pure speculation, given the lack of any hard evidence) the tip of the iceberg and the real figure was ten times larger (you would think that would be noticed), it would still only be 0.3% of British Pakistanis.

Where is this massive over representation?

The answer is that Pakistanis are massively over represented in a few Pakistani criminal gangs, and nowhere else.

WELL BUGGER ME! What a surprise.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 06:43 AM

Add to that of course the fact that you, because you refuse to look into it, are completely unaware of the number of street, and railway, and bus station, grooming cases over the last fifty years, preferring to simply state categorically that there were none.

The degree of intellectual laziness involved in your assessment of this situation is stunning.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 07:06 AM

"I would like you to state ANY EVIDENCE to back up your statements - the interminable repetition of irrelevant and unrelated personal observations in small isolated areas" ---- "Not a contention of mine, as I keep telling you."
Proof enough?
"Because that was the kind of grooming being discussed here when I joined the debate."
When you joined the debate the subject was Muslim prejudice - you single-handedly turned it into a Paki-bashing exercise.
You have carefully chosen the type of grooming you wish to discuss because (according to you) it only involves Pakistanis. Even then you have blatently ignored the facts presented to you - that street grooming goes on in every ethnic community, mainly in the indigenous one, and always has - this is deliberate racialist distortion brought about by deliberately and wilfully ignoring the plain fact that - STREET GROOMING GOES ON IN EVERY COMMUNITY AND ALWAY HAS - it is racism to claim otherwise.
"I am not qualified to draw such conclusions about any crime."
Yet you have done so here on Pakistani criminals involved in paedophelia; making huge, unsubstatiated cultural claims. If you can draw cultural conclusions here, why not compare what has been discovered officially in Northern Ireland, where you have a properly conducted survey and verified data, not unconnected hearsay reports - or does the NI survey involve criminals of the wrong colour and religion?
Answer the questions please!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 07:48 AM

Others have said that BP culture makes them do it.
I took that to mean that all those subject to it would be affected to a greater or lesser extent.
If that is wrong I withdraw it, but first explain why it is a wrong assumption.
In any case, I do not care about the explanation.
I have certainly not "made it my own"!
Why does it matter so much to you?
Only because you think you can use it against me.
You are wrong.
It is of no consequence to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 08:02 AM

It is IRREFUTABLE that the MP for Blackburn stated that this form of abuse was a serious issue and BPs were mainly responsible.
It is IRREFUTABLE that the MP for Keighly has stated the same, and has been stating it for many years.
It is IRREFUTABLE that prominent BPs like Saffiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown have acknowledged that this is a particular issue for BPs.
It is IRREFUTABLE that investigations by journalists like Bindel and Norfolk find that this is a particular issue for BPs
It is IRREFUTABLE that 94% of all the convictions over 17 years are BPs.
It is IRREFUTABLE that 100% of the hundreds of cases dealt with by
Wilmer are BPs
It is IRREFUTABLE that none of you have found any cases not involving BPs, because there are few if any of them.
It is IRREFUTABLE that even in these areas BPs are a minority, and if majority offenders are massively over-represented.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 09:09 AM

It is IRREFUTABLE that Wilmer and others state that these cases are but the tip of a vast iceberg.
It is IRREFUTABLE that senior police officers have stated that this crime is a serious problem and it is mainly by BPs.
It is IRREFUTABLE that Hindu and Sikh organisations have stated that they have a problem with BPs abusing their girls.

All this and more is more than enough to convince me.
I regard it as irrefutable proof.

You will deny it.
Jim has already stated that his mind is closed to even the possibility that it is true.
I am sure Don thinks the same.
No-one cares what Lox thinks, obviously.

I would be happy to leave the debate there as we will never agree.
I don't want to prolong this thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 09:38 AM

Jim,
"When you joined the debate the subject was Muslim prejudice - you single-handedly turned it into a Paki-bashing exercise."

Not true.
Lox and others began discussing this on 21st Jan.
I carried on posting on the original subject until 23rd January.

Is "paki" a more acceptable abbreviation than BP Jim?
Most people regard it as racist in the extreme.
I would never use it, but I am no racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 10:47 AM

"Lox and others began discussing this on 21st Jan."
Lox mentioned it in passing; you took it and turned into a 'Paki bashing' session ( a well-know term, along with 'queer-bashing' which sums up perfectly the behaviour of white racists towards members of the Pakistani community - as displayed here)
I don't use the term out of context - that would be racist - I use it to describe your activities here on this thread.
"It is IRREFUTABLE that Wilmer and others state"
And it is irrefurtable that Wilmer's evidence is hearsay and locally based and has no value is assessing the general picture of British Pakistani life.
"It is IRREFUTABLE that senior police officers have stated that this crime is a serious problem and it is mainly by BPs."
See Wilmer reference; and it is irrefutable that other senior police officers, judges, social workers and politicians have said that there os no socil or cutural conclusions whatever to be drawn from these crimes - including Jack Straw.
"It is IRREFUTABLE that Hindu and Sikh organisations have stated that they have a problem with BPs abusing their girls."
And it is equally irrefutable that, as with Wilmer and the above-mentioned police, these are locally based and involve small numbers of criminals.
For the rest of your 'irrefutable evidence' - as above.
It is also irrefutable that these crimes are also committed by members of other racial and cultural groups and according to Jack Straw again, white christians are by far the largest group represented in the overall picture.
All your irrefutable examples, when added up are little more than a pin-prick in the numbers of underage young women used for sex.
It is impossible to come to any overall conclusion as no properly conducted survey has ever been carried out, yet despite this and despite your own ignorance and lack of knowledge of the subject you have informed us that "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency towards paedophelia".
You have also added - as far as I can off your own bat as I am unable to find anybody else who has used the phrase - that the British Pakistani population is 'massively over-represented in grooming and procuring underage girls for sex.
These are extremely inflammatory statements that can only be made confidently by experts in the field and only then after carefully conducted research.
No such research hs been carried out and no such experts have offered such an opinion.
These statements might have been lifted straight out of the BNP literature; even our sewer tabloid press have not ventured to experss them as you have.
Despite your self - confessed ignorance and lack of experience in thes subjects, you continue to make your accusations and scurry behind your locally based witnesses with their limited experience when challenged, yet when asked to proffer an opinion on Northern Ireland, which you have claimed some knowledge of in the past and even have relatives there, you refuse to offer one, claiming it to be beyong your eperience and knowledge.
What puts you in the position to make such damaging and culturally divisive pronouncements on one community and not the other?
I suggest it is a question of one being Pakistani and Muslim and the other being white and christian - do you have another explanation?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 11:13 AM

I regard it as proved.
Any open minded person would agree.
Not you obviously.

Your reply to the evidence is so laughably weak, I am going to leave it there.
If that is all you have, we are done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 11:27 AM

Lox made three posts about this issue, including one that was a page and a half of solid text, before I got involved.
(Passing reference! Passing lie.)
My first post on this was a reply to one of his.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 01:59 PM

===Jewish men, women, and children. These were not members of a homogeneous culture. They were Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Yugoslavian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Albanian, French and many many more, whose only shared characteristic was their Jewish religious beliefs.===

Not really reading this thread any more ~~ decided I would rather fill the shining hours watching the neighbours' newly applied paint dry...

But will just nip back long enough to tell you, Don, without any intention of offence or aggression, that if you believe the above you really don't know lickerty-schpitsch about Jews...

Or else you are being disingenuous...

Shalom

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 03:13 PM

"Any open minded person would agree."
Then you and your two silent friends are the only ones with open minds - do I have that right?
You have proved nothing and you have answered nothing - do yourself a favour and count the number of criminals involved in underage sex from your own 'evidence', find what percentage that number is of one-and-a-half million and tell me how you come up with "massive over-reperesentation" and "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency towards paedophelia".
You have yet to acknowledge the FACT that the 'evidence' you have mustered here is unqualified and localised and has comes from unqualified people not in the position, nor having the skill to make whoesale judgements, and so can have no possible significance to the British Pakistani population as a whole.
From the 'evidence' available to us all, that is the only way you will get the vaguest idea of what is happening, never mind being able to make such racist definitive statements you have made - statements that would have put you behind bars for incitement to race hatred had you made them elsewhere.
"Passing reference! Passing lie"
In fact it was Akenaton who first made reference to the subject of gangs and underage abuse (23 Jan 11 - 05:19 AM), Lox made passing reference to it and then you took it up (23 Jan 11 - 09:43 AM) - but it is you and you alone who has made this thread the racist attack on the Pakistani community that it became under your guidance.
Were I to take a leaf out of your book I would accuse you of lying, but I have no doubt it was an honest mistake on your part.
You have still not responded to any of my points - particularly why you will not even refer to white, christian criminals and prefer to stick to British Pakistani ones which, on your admission, you have neither knowledge nor experience of.
I ask again; is there any cultural significance in the report that over one in ten teenagers in Northern Ireland have admitted to having been sexually groomed, 75% of these being under age.
If your answer is still that you are not qualified to give an answer, in the light of your own admittance that you have neither experience nor knowledge of the subject under present discussion, what gives you the authority to make the sweeping racist statements you have here?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 03:33 PM

Lox made 3 posts, one very long, before I made my first post on this subject, 2 days after his first.
You can not blame me for it.

The NI case was not on-street grooming and so totally irrelevant to this discussion.

I regard the over-rep in the specified area as proven.
You failed to refute anything, and have provided no contradictory evidence since you arrived.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 02:46 AM

"I regard the over-rep in the specified area as proven."
Of course you do - why wouldn't you?
The fact that you have neither had the courage nor the ability to face the logistical facts of your argument, the figures and how they compare with the overall scene, the dangers of branding people as 'culturally challenged' and above all, the effects that the behaviour of pond-life like you has on the lives of the poorer people of our society, particularly the victims of these crimes, which you appear to have been quite happy to use to make your case - all this says what needs to be said here.
As far as I'm concerned, this world is a shitty enough place without people making it even more shitty by dividing black against brown against white, or Christian against Jew, against Muslim, by trying to prove that one is good and one is bad, by taking a bunch of iffy figures, carefully selecting them, then editing them even further, just to prove that the other guy is a cultural degenerate, is about as low as anybody can sink.
You really are welcome to your miserable, squalid little life - enjoy!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 03:05 AM

Things I have never said, and personal abuse.
Standard Jim post.
No refutation of any of the evidence, and no contradictory evidence, because there is none.
The over-representation is real.
Jim knows it is real but thinks it should be kept secret.
That is how this evil has been allowed to go on unchecked for nearly 20 years.

And I am supposed to be sorry for mentioning that the victims are real children.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 11 - 02:34 AM

For the record, this was my first post on this subject, 3 days after Lox and others started posting about it.

Notice i defend the victims, and point out they are not all white.

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 09:43 AM

The victims are not all sluts.
They were not all picked up on the streets late at night.
Those ones tended to be girls within the care system.
Girls from respectable families have given their stories of being enticed away from shopping malls in daylight.
Not all white either.
Just not muslim.
They are off limits to young muslim men.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 11 - 09:44 AM

Here is a German news report about this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMnDqolR34o

The journalist is Annette Dittart.
She studied politics, philosophy and German in Freiburg and Berlin. She worked in Warsaw, New York and London as foreign correspondent and bureau chief. In 2001, Annette developed and directed the documentary series Abenteuer Glück as special correspondent for which she received the prestigious Adolf-Grimme-Preis and an International Emmy nomination.

She states that this information is being suppressed here because it is ammunition for the far right.
The suppression is even worse ammunition for them.
It is them who uploaded this report.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 04:04 AM

Eight men have been charged over allegations of grooming and committing sexual activity with teenage girls in Rochdale, following a three-year investigation by police.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/08/men-charged-grooming-girls-prostitution

The alleged offences include rape, sexual activity with a child, prostitution, paying for the sexual services of a child, allowing premises to be used for prostitution, and conspiracy to commit sexual offences with children.

Four girls have been identified as potential victims but police have interviewed more than 40 people as witnesses. All the girls are aged 13 to 15.
http://menmedia.co.uk/rochdaleobserver/news/crime/s/1422855_men-are-quizzed-again-in-rochdale-child-sex-ring-probe

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 05:04 AM

Eight men have been charged over allegations of grooming"
Making your total score of examples - what?
Must be at least 100 now - big percntage of a population of 1.2 million - certainly an over-representation!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 05:13 AM

It is a minority group nationally, but overwhelmingly the majority in this rare type of crime.

I acknowledge the truth in your post Jim, that it is only a miniscule sub group of the community involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 06:31 AM

Then, unless you ar indulging in selective racist stereotyping, as I have said, this must be described as a Britsh white crime as it is indulged in mainly by white males in Britain - do I have tet right (from yeterdays paper btw.
Jim Carroll

Nursery worker pleads guilty to raping toddler in his care
A NURSERY worker in England has pleaded guilty to raping a toddler in his care and to a string of offences linked to the online grooming of more than 20 other young girls.
At Birmingham crown court, Paul Wilson admitted two counts of raping a girl aged two or three years old and a further 45 charges of making and distributing indecent images and inciting youngsters to engage in sexual activity on the internet. He was warned that he should expect an indeterminate jail term when he is sentenced next month.
Wilson (20), Nechells, Birmingham, was charged with rape in January after his arrest on suspicion of child abuse prompted an investigation into his employment at Little Stars Nursery, which was temporarily closed after the arrest but later reopened.
The investigation by West Mid¬lands police revealed Wilson's online grooming of young girls whom he threatened if they did not comply with his wishes.
One of Wilson's internet victims said she was left feeling shocked, violated and ashamed. The girl, who cannot be named for legal rea¬sons, said she now felt "pure hatred" for Wilson, with whom she communicated via MSN instant messaging and on the youth community site Netlog    The teenager initially engaged in normal conversations but was eventually pressured into exposing herself to Wilson via a web-cam. She was then told that the images would be distributed if she refused to follow his orders.
The girl, now 17, said she broke off her contact with the offender up to a year before his crimes were uncovered by police, and said she had not realised he had any hidden agenda.
Asked to describe her emotions when she discovered what the nursery worker had done to other victims, she replied: "I felt violated - it just betrayed all my trust. I felt quite stupid and ashamed that I had succumbed to what he had asked me to do. To know that it was the same person who I was talking to and felt that I trusted and had a relationship with - it just made me feel I had been violated."
She said Wilson had threatened to send images of her to her friends. "It was the choice of carrying on doing this - which I just did not want to do - or going through a few months of total humiliation from these images."
Eventually, the teenager got to a point where she "just didn't care" whether he distributed the images and she deleted him from her MSN account.
"It has really affected me in the way that I go on the internet now," she added. - (Guardian service)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 06:41 AM

The rare crime I was referring to was on street grooming and pimping by groups.

I acknowledge that they are under-represented in most or all other crimes, but they appear to be massively over-represented in this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 07:11 AM

Oh hell, here we go again. If I had the sense I was born with I should shut the hell up, or else I shall be accused by someone of not caring when nursery workers abuse 6-year-olds in Tooting & Mitchum or whatever.

But I haven't got the sense I was born with ~~ so

All the nationwide proportionate statisitcs & ratios you all keep producing are accurate & demonstrable. All the other nasty things you adduce as in Jim's last post are true too. But they do not contradict the vital statistic here

~~ that, in a specific area of the country where a particular offence is endemic & epidemic, an inexplicably enormous percentage of those committing it are of a particular demographic.~~

Those so offending are, of course, a small minority of that demographic, who also represent a higher %-ge of the local population thereabout than in other parts of the country {but still under 10%}.

BUT this statistic in itself must surely give concern to anyone but an ostrich: which concern must be multiplied manyfold by the attempts to conceal these facts that were made, in apprehension of the inevitable attempts that would occur to denigrate those compiling them by such as the ostrich-population of this forum; which apprehension is here multifold confirmed.

If you persist in remaining unalarmed by these facts, & that initial reaction to them, then I hope it is comfortable for you with your heads down there in the sand.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 07:52 AM

Keith's racist conclusions are based on no more than a couple of hundred criminals at most.
His selecting a certain method used in pimping is, as far as I'm concerned, an attempt to implicate the Pakistani culture as a whole in a crime that, as has been stated by his own sources, one which crosses all racial barriers, the vast majority being white British.
He has further stated that it is a cultural tendency which promotes paedophila in the Pakistani community.
This is blatent racist stereotyping of the most extreme kind - not stupid 'black men have big willies' nonsense, but hard-line racism.
He has cited one member of the Pakistani community (a member of the House of Lords), along with a couple of politicians and a comparatively tiny handful of cases; totally ignoring the outrage within the Pakistani communities that these accusations have elicited - why should the word of 1 British peer carry more weight than that of those still living in the communities?
If Keith's accusation is to be accepted, every Pakistani living in Britain is never again to be trusted within a mile of a child - that is the logical conclusion of his statement.
Please don't come wingeing about being accused of being a racist - your statement is a racist one, your continud attempts to prove British Pakistanis are cultural paedophiles is a racist act (a hard fought campaign, from the efforts you have put in here), and your cynical manipulation of non-existant research and the ignoring and editing of your own evidence makes you a classic racist.
This is Keith's opinion, no matter who else he attempts to hide behind, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make that clear on the appropriate thread, I'll leave you to your wallowing and get on with my life.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 08:14 AM

" conclusions are based on no more than a couple of hundred criminals at most."

Not true Jim. It is based on the testimony of many hundreds of child victims.

"He has further stated that it is a cultural tendency which promotes paedophila in the Pakistani community"

Not true Jim. How would you or I know what promotes it.
Also, it is suggested that children are targetted because they are easy meat, not because of paedophilia.

"If Keith's accusation is to be accepted, every Pakistani living in Britain is never again to be trusted within a mile of a child - that is the logical conclusion of his statement."
Now you are making yourself ridiculous Jim.
That is nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 08:34 AM

You said:
"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
Then you said (after fine tuning to slight:
"You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,
Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment."
For someone who has admitted to ignorance of the subject, I'm at a loss how you are able to discuss degrees of cultural inclination, but let that pass.
If a culture is inclined to sexual abuse, slight or otherwise, as you have clearly said - twice, then any member of that culture falls under suspicion of that crime and cannot be trusted - why is this ridiculous?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 10:10 AM

It seems that internal trafficking of teenage girls (rather than young children) is a crime almost exclusively committed by particular immigrant communities, including but not exclusively, Pakistani. Cultural factors can be an issue where immigrant groups from very traditional communities are concerned, particularly those where gender inequality particularly around sexual behaviours, is the norm. The issue here is arguably one not of sexual deviance, but of cultural differences which can lead to sexism and racism, and from such prejudice, thence to sexual exploitation. As a number of commentators I have read on the topic argue, education and work within the communities where this crime is occurring, is the key to controlling this crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 10:35 AM

Then you are agreeing with Keith that we have cultures in our midst whose members should never be trusted near children is that right?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 10:37 AM

I agree Lively.
And, it has to be acknowledged before it can be addressed.

Jim, I am not in a position to know how the culture might impinge on this issue, but we have all now read the opinions of knowledgeable people who think they do.

That is what I was asking you to accept.

(And Jim, conferring a title on someone does not exclude them from their community or turn them into aristocrats!)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 11:58 AM

"we have cultures in our midst whose members should never be trusted near children is that right?"

Cultural norms differ. Some traditional cultures have very different beliefs about women and how women should behave. Gender inequality can foster both prejudice against women and the abuse of women, both here and elsewhere in the world.

Indeed we have had plenty of such abuse in this country in the past.

Not ALL abuse of women is rooted in gender inequality, but a proportion is. Education is the key to eliminating abuse that may have it's roots in racist and sexist prejudices, formed from traditional beliefs about the role of women in society and how women should behave.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 12:04 PM

"Jim, I am not in a position to know how the culture might impinge on this issue,"
You said
"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
Then you said (after fine tuning to slight:
"You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,
Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment."- seems pretty authorative to me - and as racist as these statements come.
Why do you believe them if you don't understand them rather than the denials from members of the community that you are maligning?
Would welcome a reply when you get time Lively
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 01:00 PM

You must have missed this Jim.

Jim, I am not in a position to know how the culture might impinge on this issue, but we have all now read the opinions of knowledgeable people who think they do.

That is what I was asking you to accept.

I have come to accept it Jim, because they are highly respected people with an intimate knowledge of the culture, and no other explanation has emerged.
If you have a different explanation, I will give it full and unprejudiced consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 06:51 PM

""It is a minority group nationally, but overwhelmingly the majority in this rare type of crime.""

It is not a rare crime!

It has simply been reported together with other types of sex crime until this outbreak up North started, involving 56 originally, and now another 8.

If you understood the concept of statistical significance, you would know that any conclusions drawn from this size and make up of sample, are disastrously unreliable.

As to your ludicrous claims about hundreds of victims with NO arrests and NO convictions.........not worthy of consideration.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 10:05 PM

"As to your ludicrous claims about hundreds of victims with NO arrests and NO convictions.........not worthy of consideration."

You have not read, or you have forgotten, the accounts from the support workers, journalists and victims about why all those hundreds of cases never came to court.

That makes you and your posts not worthy of consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 02:54 AM

Have you forgotten that Cryer had families coming to her because the police refused to investigate?
Have you forgotten the senior officers who admitted they were afraid of being called racist?
The victim who wanted to go to court but her friend was too afraid of the gang? One child's word against the gang would not bring a conviction.

Or this quote?
Hilary Willmer, from the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping (Crop), said while she welcomes the new initiative, tackling internal trafficking would be hampered by a law that dictates girls over 13 should give evidence against their handlers in court - something they are rarely willing to do.

"It can happen to any child from any family," she said. "The men, the gangs have all the experience. The children, the families and the parents are bewildered, don't know what's happening.

"In practice, unless the primary victim is prepared to give evidence then it's very difficult to make charges stick. The men know this, so they often wait until the girls are 13 before actually having sex with them."
thread.cfm?threadid=135090&messages=2153#3108471 (slow mudcat link, 1 minute)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 06:38 AM

Jim, both Lively and MtheGM have accepted the over-representation and linked it to culture and/or customs.
You have sensibly not suggested that they are motivated by racism, but you have made that accusation against me for holding the same opinion.

Will you now withdraw that baseless accusation against me, and if not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 08:24 AM

"Will you now withdraw that baseless accusation against me, and if not, why not?"
To describe Pakistanis as culturally prone to paedophilia is blatent racist stereotyping, whether it came from, the pen of Martin Borman or was sung in three-part harmony by Paul Robeson, Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglas.
You have taken a tiny handful of examples in order to prove your case and have dragged it through this evil thread, over and over again and still have been unable to produce any proof whatsover to back up your racist claims.
You continually refer back to your 'experts' who, apart from the exception of Jack Straw, whose statement you sanitized with your blue pencil by removing the crux of his argument, are no experts in anything but their own tiny ponds. I suggest you look at Ahmed a little more closely, with his conviction for killing somebody while using a mobile phone while driving and his threat to invade parliament with 'thousands of Muslims'. Whatever the rights or wrongs of his case, (I certainly wouldn't disagree with his cause on that particular issue), he is no more than an off-the-wall politician (a highly trustworthy profession, no doubt!!!) offering a personal opinion based on no research and carrying no more weight than that of thousands of Muslims who found his ideas racist and who, unlike him, still live in these communities and have to bear the consequences of such statements.
You are a man on a mission to prove that Pakistanis are cultural perverts - which in my book makes you a racist of the worst kind.
You haven't even bothered to respond to the effects of your racist statemants would have on the Pakistani population in the obscure chance that they were ever to be taken seriously by anybody other than those racists who already embrace them - apart from first to deny you made them and then just to deny their possible effects.
In my book, by your own statements you are a racist and will remain so until you prove that;
A. You made the statements you did in a bout of drunkeness and you take it all back
or
B You show how describing a whole culture thus:
"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
and:
"You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,
Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment"
is not racial stereotyping designed to inflict harm on a British immigrant community.
Stet.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 08:39 AM

You say nothing about the over-representation.
Is it OK to believe in that now?
Do you believe in it again?

I keep telling you that I have no way of knowing its cause.
I am persuaded by those very eminent and knowledgeable people who link it to culture.

That makes me racist, but not them?

And Lively?
And MtheGm?

(Did you know that world leaders consult Ahmed on community relations?)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 08:45 AM

Lord Ahmed
As a resident of Rotherham, Ahmed has spoken on behalf of the communities in that region, particularly the families of the former steelworkers of the 1960s, from the Indian subcontinent who are now second or third generation British. He has expressed that he is anxious to see that these regions continue to live peacefully amidst the growing move towards the far right across Europe, and strives to encourage positive integration into society so that people of all cultures can live together harmoniously.

Born in the region, Ahmed has a personal interest in seeing a peaceful resolve to the ongoing bloody dispute in Kashmir and seeks international mediation to achieve this. As well as being an active figure in the Indian Subcontinent, he has worked on the plight of Muslims around the world ranging from the collapse of former Yugoslavia, especially to the Bosniaks and Palestinians. He has been on many delegations to the Arab world, the US, Eastern Europe, Africa, the former states of the USSR and the Far East, meeting with heads of state to discuss their respective problems and how he may be able to assist them.

Ahmed helps with various charitable causes and is on the board of several organisations from local groups such as his position as President of South Yorkshire Victim Support, to international bodies such as his board membership on the SAARC Foundation.

Ahmed was among the founders of The World Forum, an organization set up to promote world peace in the after math of the 9/11 with an effort to build bridges of understanding between The Muslim World and the West by reviving a tradition of Dialogue between people, cultures and civilizations based on tolerance

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 08:58 AM

"You say nothing about the over-representation."
The overall case for over-representation has not been proven - certainly not by your tiny hndful of perpetrators.
The cases you have presented are all in limited communities where all sorts of factors could be in issue, but we dwill never know that until we have the details of each community.
Your constant claim of over-representation is every bit as racist as claiming that the crime is in any way connected with the culture.
"I am persuaded by those very eminent and knowledgeable people who link it to culture."
And you continue to hide behind he opinions of others - they are opinions just as the thousands of objectors of these statements are opinions - you choose the racist option because it suits your preconceptions - show us the actual evidence on which these opinions are based (not a handful of examples from a population of 1.2 million).
They are neither eminent nor knowledgeable; some of them are dedicated field workers, others are time-serving politicians who have a vested interest (including hiding their own responsibility for the conditions existing in these communities).
All of which does not change the fact that describing a cultural/racial group as prone to paedophelia is blatent racism and anybody making it is a racist.
"And Lively? And MtheGm?"
Two of your supporters out of how many?
Stop hiding behind the opinions of others and have the courage to back up your own ideas with real, solid evidence. Not doing so makes you spineless as well as racist
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 09:16 AM

I am not lining up supporters Jim.

I am asking if Lively and MtheGM are racist because they acknowledge the over-representation and link it to culture/custom.

Either the 3 of us are racist, or none of us are.

Which is it Jim?

And please confirm that Pakistanis Ahmed, Allibhai-Brown and Mohammed Shafiq are all racist against Pakistanis on Planet Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 12:43 PM

I have yet to hear their opinion fully on the matter - I have certainly not heard Mike suggest that paedophilia is a built-in cultural trait and have yet to hear and debate Lively's views in full on the subject.
Isn't it somewhat spineless to attempt to implicate others in your agenda - neither of them have put your effort into proving that Pakistani culture causes paedophilia. Don't know how they feel about it, but it would piss me off no end.
"That Pakistanis Ahmed, Allibhai-Brown and Mohammed Shafiq are all racist "
I haven't read their views in full, nor am I aware that they have presented any evidence to back up their claims, nor do I know what facts their views are based on - when I find this out I'll beam down my opinion.
I certainly have no idea why their opinions should be any more valid than those still living in the communities who find their ideas offensive, perhaps you can enlighten us on that one?
You, on the other hand, have made your unequivocal statements without evidence, apart from hiding behind a handful of experts, without presenting in full what they have to say, and at tediously great length, without even having the courage so say on what grounds you hold your opinions.   
Now please tell us why Pakistani culture = paedophelia and why it is not racist to make such a suggestion.
You have yet to explain why the effect of your obnoxious views on the Pakistani community should not cause the damage I have outlined - please do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 01:51 PM

I am not implicating anyone.
Lively and MtheGM have both acknowledged the over-rep. and linked it to culture.
If it makes me racist but not others, it shows that it is just personal.
A baseless attempt to smear.

"neither of them have put your effort into proving that Pakistani culture causes paedophilia"

I have made no effort at all!
How could I? It is not provable.
The idea was put forward and reported in the press.
The people I mentioned were the only ones who have put up an explanation for the over-rep.
Or can you quote another Jim?
I have asked you that many times now

" hiding behind a handful of experts, without presenting in full what they have to say"
Lie.
I have quoted verbatim everything Straw, Allibhai-Brown, Cryer, Ahmed and Shafiq have said on this.

"Now please tell us why Pakistani culture = paedophelia"

I did not know it did Jim.
I would never suggest such a thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 02:36 PM

"And the music goes round and round........"
I think it's way past your bed-time, don't yu?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 03:12 PM

Don't run away Jim.

Why are Allibhai-Brown, Ahmed and Shafiq not racist, but I am if I repeat what they say?

Why are Lively and MtheGM not racist when they have said exactly what you call me racist for saying?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 05:36 PM

I think I must clarify up to a point.

My posts thruout this thread have been, and remain, interrogative, not assertive. I acknowledge the over-representation in these particular communities of northern England; and puzzle as to what its cause can be. I do not think, as Jim says, that I have linked it to any particular ··culture··, tho accept that it might, as others including many in their own community have suggested, be an outcome of certain customs relating to marriage which some young men brought up with expectations learnt from what is sometimes called 'the host community'* might find frustrating.

But my posts are intended to disagree fundamentally with those who assert that there is no such over-representation as there clearly is, and/or who accuse those regarding it as an evident problem, and endeavouring to assess reasons for it, of racism ~~ an accusation which seems to me to justify, at least to some extent, the initial reluctance of the police, the courts, and other authorities involved, to go public about the matter to any extent whatever, although the results of this evasion ultimately and inevitably merely exacerbated an unfortunate situation.

I reject as irrelevancies introduction to the argument of other offences committed by other demographics in other places [like e.g. Jim's entirely inapposite & confusing adducing of a nurse's abuse of a 6 year old boy, which, like the flowers that bloom in the spring tra-la, had nothing to do with the case!].

~M~

*{a usage I dislike as somewhat patronising & unwelcoming but I can't offhand think of an alternative

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 05:39 PM

Once again, apologies for the over-underlining. HTML has taken to fighting me for some reason ~~ I hate it when inanimate objects WILL fight me!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 02:04 AM

Thank you for the clarification.
I too only acknowledge the over-rep in those regions I was at pains to specify.
Acknowledging that over-rep makes me racist according to Jim.

You refer to certain customs prevalent in the culture.
I have referred to culture, but took it as obvious that not all aspects of the culture would contribute.
Just those customs related to courtship and marriage that Straw et al alluded to.
I have also stated that I do not know that is the cause, but accept it as the only one provided so far.
That makes me VERY racist according to Jim.

Jim, I blame you for this diversion, which is only of concern to us.
Suppose you really believe I am racist.
Why do you have to keep saying it?
That forces me to defend myself.
Why not just answer my arguments?
Is the problem that you can not?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 02:11 AM

Just those customs related to courtship marriage and attitudes to women that Straw et al alluded to.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 04:33 AM

Correct Keith, I have to say you are wrong on that Jim.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/118/279012493_0d7dd915cf_o.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 04:42 AM

"Jim's entirely inapposite & confusing adducing of a nurse's abuse of a 6 year old boy,"
Jack Straw made the point that paedophelia in Britain was an overwhelmingly white indigenous crime (removed by Keith in his quote).
I produced a current example of a case and could have, had I followed Keith's example and dredged the net, provided many, many more.
I then asked, following Keith's example, whether this could be described as a British white crime.
It seems somewhat ingenuous do describe my doing what Keith has done throughout this thread as 'inaposite'.
Also, your somewhat free interpretation of the piece of provided as "abuse of a six year old boy" seems a little watered-down - hope you haven't caught Keith's disease - or maybe that's what a fairy godmother does.
"Paul Wilson admitted two counts of raping a girl aged two or three years old and a further 45 charges of making and distributing indecent images and inciting youngsters to engage in sexual activity on the internet."
"Don't run away Jim."
I'm not running anywhere - you have made your 'cultural' statements over and over again, you have ignored every single point I have raised here and your stance;
"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
Then you said (after fine tuning to slight):
"You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,
Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment."
remains exactly as it was at the beginning.
My opinion is that you are a racist uttering racist commonplaces and stereotypes; prove them with collected and analysed data, not isolated examples.
Until you do, you remain a racist in my opinion and, I believe that of others on this thread.
As far as I am concerned, it is no longer of value trying to hold a conversation with a parrot who can only repeat what others have said, without explanation or understading.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 04:47 AM

OK then, Jim ~~ if that is what I am, then I adjure you to be a good boy, or you shall not go to the ball...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 04:59 AM

""But my posts are intended to disagree fundamentally with those who assert that there is no such over-representation as there clearly is,""

OK Mike, since you are being the voice of reason here, can you suggest any way in which Keith's comment that he believes that British Pakistanis are culturally "slightly predisposed to commit these offences", can be supported in the face of the complete lack of any cases in the one third (approx) of British Pakistanis who live in the south?

Keith insists that he can make assertions about all British Pakistanis while ignoring one third of them to skew the results.

There are of course many other ares where British Pakistanis live without cases of this type.

I would really like to know whether you believe, as Keith obviously does, that statistical results can be obtained from a skewed sample?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 05:33 AM

Jim, why do you ignore my answers.
I have repeatedly told you that I acknowledge that paedophilia is mostly a white crime.
That is why I left it out when reporting Straw.
It was not in dispute then or now.

Whatever the case with other crimes, there is an over-rep in this one in the specified areas.
If you call me racist for that, you are also accusing some well respected Mudcatters, even beyond MtheGM and Lively.

You and Don T also ignore the oft repeated FACT, that no assertion about why there is an over-rep comes from me.
True, I have come to accept the one proffered, because it is the only one, and the proponents are knowledgeable and eminent.
If they are not racist, nor are people who are persuaded by them.

JIM, ADDRESS THE ARGUMENTS, NOT THE SUPPOSED MOTIVATION FOR THEM WHICH YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 06:00 AM

Don T ~~ no, I can't; nor do I claim to be able to. I repeat that I am simply asking questions, not trying to supply answers. I find the fact of this regional over-representation alarming; and believe that no problem can be solved until its causes are established. As to what these causes may be, I have made one, very speculative {& by no means original with me}, suggestion as to a possible link with these young men's being dissatisfied with what their own community permits them in the way of pre-marital satisfactions in comparison with others of their age-group but of different demographics. That is all. Despite Jims' witty nomination of me for the post of fairy-godmother, I do not see it as any of my biz merely to echo what Keith sez, with not all of which I concur, naturally ~~ nor any of my function simply to echo what he may believe. He seems to me perfectly capable of taking care of himself. But I do feel he is not getting a fair hearing because of certain prejudices against him based on not-always- applicable to this instance comments he has made on other threads at other times; which IMO should have nothing to do with the present controversy.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 09:03 AM

"I repeat that I am simply asking questions, not trying to supply answers."
Then the gap between our positions is not as wide as I thought it to be.
Keith has based his "cultural" proposal on 'evidence' randomly selected from, as far as we can judge, unconnected cases in different parts of the North of England - areas of high unemployment, low esteem, poor housing and virtually non-existent facilities - that, along with the fact that they contain large immigrant populations, is the only things these areas have in common.
Don is, of course right, "the complete lack of any cases in the one third (approx) of British Pakistanis who live in the south?"
If culture had been an issue here it would have effected every single Pakistani community in Britain.
When this was pointed out earlier, Keith's response was that perhaps there were cases we were not aware of - a clear indication, to me at least, that he was prepared to accept purely speculative, non-existent 'evidence' to back up his claim - classic racist manipulation of 'facts'.
If any informed overall conclusion is to be reached about these incidents they have to be brought together and examined, along with every other possibly relevant factor, in the context of the 1.2 million Pakistani population as a whole, otherwise they remain isolated incidents of criminality, nothing more.
I have been involved in several threads discussing clerical abuse in Ireland.
If I or anybody suggested that these cases were "Irish" or "Irish Catholic" or even "Catholic" cultural incidents, I would be guilty of racism or sectarianism - they weren't, they were acts of criminality by clergymen. The only 'Catholic' conection was a church one, where the heirarchy aided and abetted the abuse by actively allowing it to continue - it had nothing whatever to do with the culprits being either Irish or Catholic - merely a case of situation and opportunity.
The cases Keith has put up here are acts of criminality by individuals who happen to be Pakistanis and are a tiny part of the general crime of paedophelia, and until they are proven otherwise, they will remain so and there is no evidence whatever of overall over-representation or any proven connection with Muslim culture.
"why do you ignore my answers."
Because you haven't given any.
Where have to told us why the opinions of a miniscule handful of so-called 'experts' living outside these communities carry more weight than the many thousands of Pakistanis and other ethnic groups, (and indigenous activists working in the field) including community leaders who find these statements offensive?
Where have you told us why you believe and are prepared to repeat these conclusions over and over and over again, apart from that they wer made by "eminent people"?
Where have you responded to the possible effects of your statements on the relevant communities?
And why did you remove a vital part of Jack Straw's statement rejecting your "cultural" or race conclusion when you put it up?
I could list dozens of questions you have been asked and have ignored, but these will do to be going on with.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 09:10 AM

I can't believe this argument is still going on...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Silas
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 09:15 AM

Oh, I can.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 09:28 AM

I have given answers Jim.
e.g. in my last post I answered, for certainly the tenth time, why I did not feel it useful to quote everything Straw said.
Did you miss it again?

On the question of the community in the South, I remember saying that I did not know.
I did not know about the Northern situation either before this.

I do not keep repeating those assertions by others.
I reported them once.
It is just that YOU keep challenging me on them.
I would be happy to stop discussing the explanation.
That is the only explanation that exists,

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 09:34 AM

That is the only explanation that exists, AND IT IS NOT MINE!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 01:52 PM

And your continuous lying and evasion more and more convinced that you are a dyed-in-the-wool racist.
You have answered nothing exept to onbviously lie about editing the Straw text
....why the opinions of a miniscule handful of so-called 'experts'...
....why you believe..... Your not knowing the situation in the south is enough to destroy your whole case totally how can yo make such a claim and not know thwe situation in one third of the Pakistani population?
....why the opinions of a miniscule handful of so-called 'experts.....
....possible effects of your statements on the relevant communities...
An obviously lying racist.
Case closed.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 04:25 AM

You should know by now that I never lie, never mind obvious lies!
Is it a lie that I have stated about 20 times since January that BPS and Muslims are under represented in other sex crimes?

Is it a lie that I quoted THAT ACTUAL BIT of Straw's statement on 2nd Feb 11.50AM?

Is it a lie that I said

"If you mean sex crimes in general, there may well be(there is a higher predisposition towards crimes of sexual abuse in white British society than in other elements of our society"
.
That part of Straw's statements was not in dispute and I do not fill my posts with irrelevancies.
OR LIES!

"why the opinions of a miniscule handful of so-called 'experts'..."

Simply because they are the only ones who have offered an explanation.
Anyway, I am only concerned with establishing the over-rep.
I have no interest in any explanation.
Why do you care since you don't believe there IS an over-rep?

As for the South, how would I know about it?
Without any evidence, how can I discuss it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 05:04 AM

"Without any evidence, how can I discuss it? "
And without knowing about it how can you generalise about a culture
As I said - stet
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 07:09 AM

I do not generalise about a culture.
I am just sayiing that there is ample evidence for an over-rep,in that region in that crime.
That is my whole case.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 11:40 AM

Jim...I noticed that you used my name a few posts ago.

Keith and I differ in our political opinions, but on this issue, I agree with him absolutely.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 02:32 PM

In all this thread you have offered no evidence of any other groups involved in this crime.
Just empty denials.
In desperation you try to denounce me as a racist, as if that would change anything.
And you could find no evidence for that either, because it is a lie.

Meanwhile, here is some of the evidence I have provided for the over-rep.

Jack Straw spoke about his own personal experience and contact with victims.
The Dando Institue report on On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that has resulted in at least two follow up studies of On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that found 95% BP perpetrators.
Ann Cryer said she had the same experience in her constituency.
Hilary Wilmer with her hundreds of cases, all BPs.
She corroborates all the previous.
Senior police officers, serving and retired.
Shafiq, Allibhai-Brown and Ahmed all tell the same story from BP perspective, and it corroborates all that has gone before.
Hindu and Sikh organisation who report hundreds of their girls have been victims too.
Perpetrators, all BPs

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 05:29 PM

"I am just sayiing that there is ample evidence for an over-rep,in that region in that crime.
That is my whole case. "

That isn't a case - that is a statement of the information that you accept.

You do not refer to other information as you are selective about which information interests you.

Your case, or to use your words "my theory" was to do with what this implies about Pakistani culture.

You made it very clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 01:25 AM

They did not get the theory from me Lox, I got it from them.
Do you dispute that Lox?

Your last post is a deception.
In this whole thread I said "my theory" only once, back in January.
But I also said,"I offer it as a plausible theory, and it is not my own."
Read the whole post.

25 Jan 11 - 10:23 AM

"If you are going to make such a claim then you need to provide a damn sound and well supported argument."

No I do not.
I offer it as a plausible theory, and it is not my own.
It has been put forward by two Labour politicians, one very senior, both of whom have worked for years with the Pakistani communities they represent, and are supported and respected by those communities.

It works like this.
I put up my theory and you should try to find fault and/or an alternative.
Just calling me names is not the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 01:55 AM

I was too nice to you Lox.
That was not a deception but a blatant lie.

You would have read the whole post during your searches, so you knew I never claimed the theory as my own.
But you put up a remark made about the general process of debate as if I had.
Nasty.

That theory was later endorsed by anti-racist BP campaigners, proving it was not racist anyway.
You and Jim see racism where there is none.
You use denouncing as a tool to silence people.
Like witch-finders.
Like McCarthey.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 08:22 AM

""I put up my theory and you should try to find fault and/or an alternative.""

Fault is it? OK:-

Your theory is that aspects of their culture predispose (slightly) young British Pakistanis to sex trafficking, and Paedophilia.

The faults, or flaws, in this theory are

1. Several other ethnic groups in this country have exactly the same cultural mores as Pakistanis (Indian, Sikh, etc.), yet have no such problem with their young men.

2. Out of 1.2 million British Pakistanis, only a handful in a very confined area of the country have been found indulging in this "cultural" aberration.

3. As has been said before, your claims of over representation stem from skewed statistics which no genuine mathematician would adduce as even indicating, much less proving a conclusion.

4. Even were the statistics more solidly based, any over representation cannot possibly support your "cultural effect" theory.

It is simply not tenable in the face of the minute proportion of the British Pakistani community involved.

The conclusion: Your extrapolation from a miniscule sample to a conclusion about the whole community is totally invalid.

The best you have, is a statistical anomaly arrising from a localised activity of a small number of sexual predators, who happen to be ethnic Pakistani.

In short, the only way in which you can manage to maintain your "theory" is by ignoring a whole body of cantrary evidence.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:48 AM

As I said , the theory is not mine.
I don't care if you accept it or not, but the proponents are much better informed on the subject than all of us here put together.

As for the over-rep, there is ample evidence of children abused, in this particular way, by BPs.
I have seen no evidence of other groups involved.
Clearly none of you have either or you would have mentioned it.

Here is some of the evidence.

The journalist Bindel after a rigorous investigation found large numbers of girls who had been groomed by BPs, but none by other groups.
The German video report, no longer on YouTube, found exactly the same.
Jack Straw spoke about his own personal experience and contact with victims.
The Dando Institue report on On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that has resulted in at least two follow up studies of On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that found 95% BP perpetrators.
Ann Cryer said she had the same experience in her constituency.
Hilary Wilmer with her hundreds of cases, all BPs.
She corroborates all the previous.
Senior police officers, serving and retired.
Shafiq, Allibhai-Brown and Ahmed all tell the same story from BP perspective, and it corroborates all that has gone before.
Hindu and Sikh organisation who report hundreds of their girls have been victims too.
Perpetrators, all BPs

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 04:22 PM

Absurd.

Keith decides that it would be helpful to offer an explanation.

He provides ONE possible explanation.

(a racist one)

He makes no attempt to draw our attention to any other explanations.

He just stands up for the racist explanation he has provided, whilst simultaneously claiming indemnity on the ground that it wasn't him who thunk it up.

All Keith ever did was fight to the bitter end to defend it on a public forum.

Spineless and dishonest ... you should become a politician.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 05:03 PM

As I said , the theory is not mine.

But you appear to support and agree with it.


I don't care if you accept it or not, but the proponents are much better informed on the subject than all of us here put together.

I don't care how "informed" these people are. Assuming what Don T has posted is accurate (and I've no reason to dispute it), the only conclusion I can draw is that the theory is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 05:39 PM

Lox.
"Keith decides that it would be helpful to offer an explanation."

True.

"He provides ONE possible explanation."

No he did not.
He reported the explanation given by Straw and Cryer, that was later endorsed by Shafiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown.

"He makes no attempt to draw our attention to any other explanations."

True.
For the same reason YOU did not Lox.
There isn't one!
If you have one now please share it.
DO YOU HAVE ONE LOX????????
Answer please Lox.

In any case, I do not care about any explanation.
I have not the knowledge to assess one.
Unlike Straw, Cryer, Shafiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown who have more knowledge than all of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 05:46 PM

Jon.
"But you appear to support and agree with it."

I have accepted this as the only explanation on offer.
I have no other reason to support it, but the proponents know rather more about it that you or Don!
Have you read what any of them have said, or just Don the folk singer from Kent?
Do you even know who they are?
Before you dismiss it out of hand I think you should find out and read their views first hand.
It is all in the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 06:05 PM

"I have accepted this as the only explanation on offer.
I have no other reason to support it, but the proponents know rather more about it that you or Don!"

In other words - keith doesn't want to think about it critically, he is ignoring the points made on both sides, and this is because his elders and betters have stated an opinion.

The lack of substance to support that opinion is of no concern to keith.

They are his betters and that is enough for him to bow to their greater wisdom.


But funniest of all, he states that he doesn't know enough to have an opinion, yet he clearly knows enbough to know that his elders and betters opinion is correct.


Hipocrisy, dishonesty, and twisted nonsense. all in the name of fighting to the death in the name of a racist hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,jon
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 06:07 PM

Do you even know who they are?

Is knowing who they are going to affect these observations:

1. Several other ethnic groups in this country have exactly the same cultural mores as Pakistanis (Indian, Sikh, etc.), yet have no such problem with their young men.

2. Out of 1.2 million British Pakistanis, only a handful in a very confined area of the country have been found indulging in this "cultural" aberration.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 09:23 PM

""Fault is it? OK:-

Your theory is that aspects of their culture predispose (slightly) young British Pakistanis to sex trafficking, and Paedophilia.

The faults, or flaws, in this theory are

1. Several other ethnic groups in this country have exactly the same cultural mores as Pakistanis (Indian, Sikh, etc.), yet have no such problem with their young men.

2. Out of 1.2 million British Pakistanis, only a handful in a very confined area of the country have been found indulging in this "cultural" aberration.

3. As has been said before, your claims of over representation stem from skewed statistics which no genuine mathematician would adduce as even indicating, much less proving a conclusion.

4. Even were the statistics more solidly based, any over representation cannot possibly support your "cultural effect" theory.

It is simply not tenable in the face of the minute proportion of the British Pakistani community involved.

The conclusion: Your extrapolation from a miniscule sample to a conclusion about the whole community is totally invalid.

The best you have, is a statistical anomaly arrising from a localised activity of a small number of sexual predators, who happen to be ethnic Pakistani.

In short, the only way in which you can manage to maintain your "theory" is by ignoring a whole body of cantrary evidence.

Don T.""

Taking a leaf out of your book Keith, and repeating what I have already said (but not to the excessive degree to which you do it), I think the above is clear, factual and accurate.

If you wish to retain any credibility, you need to respond to the points in that post.

To write me off as "Don the folk singer from Kent" shows the lengths to which you are prepared to go in avoiding dealing with any counter argument, and your unawareness of how little you actually know about any of us on the Cat.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: J-boy
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 12:26 AM

Muslims. Christians. Pagans. Buddhists. Mormons. Scientoligists.
I think all of them are delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 12:45 AM

My case is just that there is an over-representation.
I am not interested in any explanantion.
Don and Jon, you are taking this thread back 6 months.
I know you were ill then Don, but it is all there to be read.

I will supply what you ask for, but it will require long, multiple threads and it has all been posted before.
Don has put up most of those questions before too, and I have given anwers.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 12:51 AM

Jack Straw.
He served as Home Secretary from 1997 to 2001, Foreign Secretary from 2001 to 2006 and Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons from 2006 to 2007 under Tony Blair. From 2007-2010 he was the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and the Secretary of State for Justice, appointed as part of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's first Cabinet. Straw is one of only three people to have served in Cabinet continuously from 1997 to 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 12:56 AM

What Straw said.
Mr Straw told the BBC's Newsnight there was a "specific problem" in some areas and called on the Pakistani community to be "more open" about the abuse.


Mohammed Liaqat (left) and Abid Saddique, 27 were convicted of rape Mr Straw said: "Pakistanis, let's be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders' wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders.

"But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men... who target vulnerable young white girls.

"We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way."

Mr Straw added: "These young men are in a western society, in any event, they 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 and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically.

"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."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 12:57 AM

Lord Ahmed
As a resident of Rotherham, Ahmed has spoken on behalf of the communities in that region, particularly the families of the former steelworkers of the 1960s, from the Indian subcontinent who are now second or third generation British. He has expressed that he is anxious to see that these regions continue to live peacefully amidst the growing move towards the far right across Europe, and strives to encourage positive integration into society so that people of all cultures can live together harmoniously.

Born in the region, Ahmed has a personal interest in seeing a peaceful resolve to the ongoing bloody dispute in Kashmir and seeks international mediation to achieve this. As well as being an active figure in the Indian Subcontinent, he has worked on the plight of Muslims around the world ranging from the collapse of former Yugoslavia, especially to the Bosniaks and Palestinians. He has been on many delegations to the Arab world, the US, Eastern Europe, Africa, the former states of the USSR and the Far East, meeting with heads of state to discuss their respective problems and how he may be able to assist them.

Ahmed helps with various charitable causes and is on the board of several organisations from local groups such as his position as President of South Yorkshire Victim Support, to international bodies such as his board membership on the SAARC Foundation.

Ahmed was among the founders of The World Forum, an organization set up to promote world peace in the after math of the 9/11 with an effort to build bridges of understanding between The Muslim World and the West by reviving a tradition of Dialogue between people, cultures and civilizations based on tolerance

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 01:02 AM

What Ahmed said.

'They are forced into marriages and they are not happy. They are married to girls from overseas who they don't have anything in common with, and they have children and a family.

'But they are looking for fun in their sexual activities and seek out vulnerable girls.'

He said Asian men resort to abusing young white girls because they do not want meaningful relationships with adult white women.
'An adult woman – if you are having an affair – would want your time, money and for you to break up your marriage,' the peer added.

His comments come weeks after former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw provoked national outrage by saying that some Pakistani men look at white girls as 'easy meat' for sexual abuse.

Labour peer Lord Ahmed said: 'I get a lot of criticism from Asian people who ask, "How can you say this about Asian men?" But they must wake up and realise there is a problem.

'I am deeply worried about this as it has happened in my own backyard, and in Rochdale and Bradford.

'This didn't happen in my or my father's generation. This is happening among young Asians. While I respect individual choice, I think the community needs to look at marriages in the UK rather than cousin marriages or economic marriages from abroad.'

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 01:09 AM

Alibhai-Brown.
Ugandan-born British journalist and author of Indian descent. Currently a regular columnist for The Independent and the Evening Standard,[1] she is a well-known commentator on issues of immigration, diversity and multiculturalism.[2][3] She is a founder member of British Muslims for Secular Democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 01:13 AM

What she said about Ahmed's statement.
"It was time, he told the British Muslim ­community, to look more closely at the ­underlying causes of the crimes committed by such grooming gangs. Time for Muslims to do more to promote UK-based marriages.
For giving an honest, informed and ­heartfelt opinion, Lord Ahmed of ­Rotherham has been assailed, abused and ripped apart by the ­religious and cultural guardians of those ­communities in a reaction that has been utterly disgraceful.
So let me say loud and clear that the coerced marriages Lord Ahmed is talking about are inhuman. Those parents who enforce them claim they are legitimate and say they provide the only way to ensure their young remain linked to extended ­family networks and prevent them becoming 'westernised'

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 01:24 AM

Alibhai Brown.
Coerced marriages are inhuman yet enforcers tell me they are legitimate, the only way to keep the young confined within extended family networks, and never become 'westernised'. We know the dreadful tales of young girls and women handed over to cousins in Pakistan or to men they have never seen in Bangladesh and India. The problem is most widespread among rural Muslims, though a considerable number of Sikh families also believe their daughters should accept, without protest, husbands chosen for them. Females are goods, exchanged in transactions. Some try to escape; others kill themselves and get away that way. There is now a dedicated government Forced Marriage Unit ( FMU) which intervenes and rescues the victims.

However, as Ahmed points out, young men are also caught up in this vice. Vicious parents who believe in absolute control will not heed the choices and voices of their daughters nor sons. Tragically the plight of the men barely ever get attention and it is presumed that they collude with the oppressive system. Some undoubtedly do join in, and become masters of oppression. But there are many who yearn to be free. Today fourteen percent of cases dealt with by the FMU involve highly distressed men trying to flee from coerced marriages. There has been a 65 percent increase in reported case since 2008.

So what are the consequences of this tradition, for the men, their wives, and women outside their tight circles? Some Asian husbands trapped in loveless, dead relationships became frustrated and distorted, and, yes, as Ahmed says, prey on young white girls to grab perverse sexual satisfaction. Sex, for them, is never reciprocal or an act of consent- it is taken, from their wives and those they groom. One pimp told me in 1990:' It's flesh, halal or not. Does it make me happy? No. But I need it.' Munee was brought over from Pakistan to marry her cousin when she was seventeen. They were soon in a dark place she says:' It was like rape every time because he didn't want me and I didn't want him' She ran away and tells me he has a thirteen year old white 'girlfriend'. This in no way excuses their offences of grooming and exploitation but we must try to understand the psychological mess inside their heads which makes them into monsters.

Just as important is to look beyond the headlines generated by Lord Ahmed, at other stories.

Taher, now a charity worker, looks back with revulsion at his previous self: 'I was crazy- a young man with sexual needs married off to young virgin who was very sweet but there was nothing between us. I couldn't destroy her so would not sleep with her. That's when I started cruising with these guys looking for easy sex with estate white girls. There was one really sweet teenager whose mother was a drunk- she really got attached to me. She changed me- everybody had failed her and I was like a vulture- so I stopped all that. I still feel guilty and filthy. And I now want to help these families.'

There are also those decent blokes who fall in love with forbidden women and care deeply about their lovers but most have to carry on secretly, living in effect, tormented, bigamous lives. You might say what they do is unforgivable- indulging themselves with two women who have to oblige. But most of the mistresses understand and put up with it. Sandra, a teacher in Huddersfield, mother of two little girls whose father is Salman, son of Kashmiri immigrants. They have been together since they were teenagers. Now thirty eight she says:' I always knew that he couldn't marry me. I couldn't make him break up his family- I love him too much for that. So we have this- he has a wife he can't communicate with really, but he treats her well. And with me it's the real thing. He takes care of us. But most of the time he is so unhappy, guilty and just burdened.'

We are only now finding out that a number of Asian men run off to get away from forced marriages. Imran Rehman, from Derby tried that, was abducted, his legs shackled and locked up for two weeks. I know of other stories of savage sexual and physical abuse and emotional persecution meted out to rebellious sons. Imagine your precious rights being taken away like this by those who claim to have your best interests at heart.

Jasvinder Sanghera the brave woman who rejected a forced marriage and was made to suffer appallingly, runs Karma Nirvana, a helpline for women like her. In 2007, she tells me, they decided to support male victims too: 'So many were calling us. The terrible thing is there are no refuges for them, nowhere they can go, no provision. They are told "Marry the one we find and then play around, do what you want" They are supposed to keep up the family name, to be strong. If they disobey they are put under terrible pressure- physical and mental- their minds are played with.' Sanghera does not accept Ahmed's cultural analysis for Asian groomers, 'They are perpetrators, like the others' but agrees that in too many Asian families whites are thought to be morally corrupt and not worthy of respect.

Yet, even in the most authoritarian enclaves, you find men who courageously defy conventions and these prejudices and make independent choices. The number of marriages between Asian men and white women increases year on year- and many of the wives freely choose to convert to the faith of the husband's family and are embraced. I knew Iqbal in Uganda. Now living in a small town up north, he openly married his English girlfriend who did not become a Muslim. He tells me: 'My mum, a widow was dead against it, more worried about what other people would think rather than what her son would want. The family never met her. It's the ethos, ghetto thinking, their own ideas about honour. Said I was blackening our name. Why? Because I wanted a partner with whom I had intellectual, emotional and physical connection? That I wouldn't marry someone I didn't want and make her unhappy ' The marriage has lasted over twenty five years. Another man, Bashher an Indian Muslim, rejected the chosen bride and married Nasrin, his Muslim girlfriend. Outraged, his family cut him off. After their children were born there was an emotional reconciliation. Nasrin says their rebellion made her in-laws understand young people had rights and freedoms.

More families need to understand what their cruelty is costing their children and society. I am not hopeful. The grim news is that as the country gets more permissive and undisciplined, conservative ethnic communities seem even more determined to clip the desires of their young and make them conform to callous marriage rules. Though his remarks were stark and sweeping, Lord Ahmed was brave to unbolt community secrets and lies and to call for an honest debate on dysfunctional Asian men, their constrained lives and the harm they suffer and inflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 01:35 AM

About Straw.
Being avowedly a leftie liberal, anti-racist, feminist, Muslim, part-Pakistani, and yes, a very responsible person, I should be in the circle with these objectors – particularly as I can't stand the Rt Hon MP for Blackburn, his devious, shady politicking and moral expediency. However, just as when he criticised the full veil, I cannot condemn his views. How can I? Just before Christmas, I too wrote about these rapists and the anti-white cultural prejudices in some of their communities and families. It was a hard column to write, as is this one. Easier to pick your way barefoot through a dark park littered with broken glass. You need to think about every line, its effect, and know that you will step on the shard that will cut you, however carefully you tread.

I accept that on the basis of the evidence presented in court, this Derby gang was no different from that of the white grooming posse convicted in Cornwall in November. They too preyed on helpless, easily-pleased young white girls who were then used and destroyed. Most paedophiles in this country are white, and their victims too. Just because they harm their own doesn't make it less abominable or more acceptable. What does it matter to a young, white, rape victim whether her violator has pasty or dark skin? And it is gratifying that reputable figures like Barnado's Martin Narey and the judge in the Derby case have spoken out against wholesale racial scapegoating. We know extremists use race and crime statistics to stoke racial hatred against Britons of colour and from religious minorities. I have sometimes been a pin-up girl for the repellent BNP and English Defence League, whenever I criticise Muslims, or Asian values or black Britons who do wrong. You feel degraded and treacherous when this happens.

But I still say we need to expose and discuss more openly the underpinning values of the Asian criminal rings in many of our cities. If we don't, the evil will grow. Fear of racism should no longer be the veil covering up hard truths. What the Derby gang did has planted and raised more racism – possibly even among good, benign people – than my words ever could. I am sure recruitment to extremist parties has gone up too. Prominent anti-racists know that, but will not openly say so.

The criminals feel they did no wrong. These girls to them are trash, asking to be wasted – unlike their own women, who must be kept from the disorderly world out there. The whore and the virgin are both feared and severely controlled and abused. A 2005 study in the Netherlands of Muslim males found the same bifurcation, and identified deep sexism as responsible for both.

The conversations can be heard every day around dining tables and on streets; they are embedded in thought and language. I once interviewed the mother of a man who had been convicted of repeatedly raping his young wife, who came from a rural village in Pakistan. The head of the nursery school the couple's child attended had helped the victim report what was happening. In Urdu, the mother hissed: "How lucky was she to get my son? The dirty, ungrateful bitch – went to a white woman to complain. They sleep with everybody. She just didn't know how to make him happy. We have thrown her out. She can go on the streets like those whites now."

I have been writing about these culturally- sanctioned injustices for two decades, and have interviewed countless people. I will not melt the misdemeanours into generalities, and do not accept that ethnicity and sexual abuse cannot and should not ever be linked.

As a Muslim journalist who cares deeply about migrants and their progress. Let's ask questions we never ask, to find out more than we ever try to. Do these men have any idea of normal, pleasurable, healthy sex between a man and a woman? Are they maddened by their own frustration and fear of females? I am not impugning those Asian or Pakistani men who love women, but those who are too messed up to understand what that means; maybe those whose key choices, including their lifelong partners, have all been made by families operating as firms. And again, is this the most appalling pay-back for white racism? Black writers in the US, including Eldridge Cleaver, have written movingly about some of the unconscious, vengeful urges that impel black men to take up with white partners to assert power, sometimes to annihilate the person who trusts them.

Shouting down Jack Straw, busying ourselves with warnings about feeding the BNP, are displacement activities that will do nothing to stop Asian groomers, who, from childhood have developed distorted ideas about themselves, society, females, vice and virtue. Like Samura said, it is up to insiders to examine and reveal what lies beneath these crimes. We owe that to ourselves, to our future generations, and to the country we have made ours.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 01:38 AM

Mohammed Shafiq is the chief executive and a founding member of the Ramadhan Foundation, the United Kingdom's leading Muslim youth organization'.[1] The foundation is a moderate group aimed at helping young Muslims in the UK and fostering interfaith dialogue.[2]

As the Press Spokesman, he was able to become a regular face responding to Muslim issues. Some accuse him of being a "rent a quote" with strong views and that he does not think of the consequences of his actions, whilst others praise him for speaking out.[citation needed]

Shafiq has spoken out against extremism and terrorism, and was the first UK Muslim Leader to appear on BBC News to condemn the Glasgow terrorist attack.[citation needed]BBC News 24

He was the project manager for the international Muslim Unity Convention, held in the aftermath of the 7/7 attacks.[3]

He was appointed as press spokesman of The Ramadhan Foundation in August 2005 and made numerous statements on controversial subjects like forced marriages, honour killings, grooming of white teenagers, and drug dealers

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 01:40 AM

Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Muslim youth group the Ramadan Foundation said 53 out of the last 65 convictions for grooming had involved British Pakistanis.

"The reality is that there is an issue," he said. "There is a perception that these white girls have lesser morals and lesser values than women from Pakistani heritage.

"It's abhorrent and there needs to be debate."

However, he criticised Mr Straw for only raising the issue once he had left government, despite being warned about the problem two and a half years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 01:45 AM

Now, I am just a schoolteacher from Hertford.
I know not of what they all speak, but I suspect their understanding is deeper than Don's.

I think they are probably right, but I really don't care so do not ask me to defend or support them.
I am not qualified.
Is Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 04:33 AM

I don't know why you have bothered with all that, Keith.

The theory suggests that cultural attitudes/values within the British Pakistani community leads a small number into this sex trafficking.

At this point, while I might expect the crime to be to get sex for oneself rather than sell it, I am prepared to accept that any community might contain a small number willing to commit a particular crime and that frustration/inability to obtain legally may tip such a person over the edge.

As such, at this point, I'd just about be willing to consider the theory as plausible. My problem comes with the information that has been presented.

I would expect this behavioural pattern to be mirrored in other groups with a similar culture but this isn't happening. Why?

Perhaps even more importantly, I would expect the pattern to be consistent throughout the British Pakistani communities but this isn't happening. It appears to be confined to a few cities in the North of England. How can a British Pakistani cultural issue be confined just to selected groups of British Pakistanis?

With the statistics as they are, I find it impossible to accept the theory. If you can explain why to the above questions, I might be interested. If you can provide alternative national statistics, I might be interested. But I find a "Who's who" of no value whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 04:46 AM

I will verify my post by Mudcat midday.

Jon, I just wanted to establish that there is an over-rep in this specified crime, at least in those specified regions.

If everone now wants to discuss explanations for it, then that is achieved.

I have posted extensively about this idea from 23rd Jan onwards, and have no more to say about it.
I do not care who chooses to believe it or deny it.
I am persuaded, but will look with an open mind at any alternative ideas.
After five months however, there are none.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 04:55 AM

Jon, I just wanted to establish that there is an over-rep in this specified crime, at least in those specified regions.

Keith, I am prepared to accept that this over representation exists in the specified places. This "over-rep" in itself does not "prove" the theory though.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 05:34 AM

""Keith, I am prepared to accept that this over representation exists in the specified places. This "over-rep" in itself does not "prove" the theory though.""

Added to which, the "over representation" is such that, in addition to being statistically dodgy because of the sampling method and the sample size, it is just as likely to be a case of criminal activity of a localised group of interacting gangs who are Pakistani because gangs tend to consist of just one ethnic group.

This is a concept which Keith will not even discuss, but is a valid alternative to his "cultural predilection" theory, and about ten times as likely to be true.

And in addition, he has once again avoided a direct answer to any of my points because he HAS no answer.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 05:38 AM

it is just as likely to be a case of criminal activity of a localised group of interacting gangs who are Pakistani because gangs tend to consist of just one ethnic group.

Agreed.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 06:14 AM

"This "over-rep" in itself does not "prove" the theory though. "

Agreed.
The theory is not capable of being proved.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,keith
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 06:20 AM

Don,
1. Several other ethnic groups in this country have exactly the same cultural mores as Pakistanis (Indian, Sikh, etc.), yet have no such problem with their young men.

I don't know Don.
Lively has pointed out that other groups are involved in this crime though.

2. Out of 1.2 million British Pakistanis, only a handful in a very confined area of the country have been found indulging in this "cultural" aberration.

Agreed Don.

3. As has been said before, your claims of over representation stem from skewed statistics which no genuine mathematician would adduce as even indicating, much less proving a conclusion.

I dispute that Don.
There are hundreds of victims who say BPs were the perpetratores.
I have heard of none saying otherwise.

4. Even were the statistics more solidly based, any over representation cannot possibly support your "cultural effect" theory.

Agreed.
Any theory should seek to explain the over-rep, not the other way round.
That theory does do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 10:34 AM

Confirming last 2 posts mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 03:11 PM

Don, "it is just as likely to be a case of criminal activity of a localised group of interacting gangs who are Pakistani because gangs tend to consist of just one ethnic group."

The gangs involved in this crime (hundreds of child victims) are overwhelmingly BPs.
My case.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 03:21 PM

"If everone now wants to discuss explanations for it, then that is achieved."

But keith, only you have wanted to do that.

You have provided a racist explanation and defended it religiously.

And you have taken responsibility for it again on the 13th of june at 1.45am as follows:

"It works like this.
I put up my theory and you should try to find fault and/or an alternative.
Just calling me names is not the way. "

You called it "my theory" again.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 04:30 PM

"This "over-rep" in itself does not "prove" the theory though. "

Agreed.
The theory is not capable of being proved.

The theory is capable of being discredited though. This theory states "British Pakistanis" yet only appears to hold true for British Pakistanis in selected cities in the North of England. As such it is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 04:41 PM

3. As has been said before, your claims of over representation stem from skewed statistics which no genuine mathematician would adduce as even indicating, much less proving a conclusion.

I dispute that Don.
There are hundreds of victims who say BPs were the perpetratores.
I have heard of none saying otherwise.

So? Your argument does not address what Don said.

4. Even were the statistics more solidly based, any over representation cannot possibly support your "cultural effect" theory.

Agreed.
Any theory should seek to explain the over-rep, not the other way round.
That theory does do that.

But the theory indicates the over rep- should exist elsewhere but it doesn't. I don't know why this is so difficult...

Let's say I made 6 cups of tea, putting sugar in the 3 blue cups and none in the 3 red cups.

Someone could come up with a theory that tea is sweet because it is in a blue cup. After all the theory does work for the small sample.

Now lets say I make another 6 cups, this time round putting the sugar in the 3 red cups.

Would you still be saying the theory is right because it still works for the original sample or would you stop and think "hang on, this theory is not working for the larger sample. Perhaps the tea is sweet in certain cups for another reason?"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 04:42 PM

Jon, we are only talking about those selected areas.

Lox, you have made a twat of yourself again.
That was part of the January post, and it was about the process of debate, not the theory.
I had already stated in that post that the theory was not mine.

"You have provided a racist explanation"

No, I reported one provided by others.

" and defended it religiously."

Lie. I only said the proponents were of eminent stature and knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 04:45 PM

Jon, we are only talking about those selected areas.

I GIVE UP....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 04:50 PM

Jon, I did understand Don's point thank you.
I do not have an answer.
I know nothing about this stuff.
It is not my theory.
I merely posted it here.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 05:15 PM

Lox, you call it a "racist theory."
But, it is proposed by famously anti-racist Pakistanis.
How can it be a racist theory?
And, how can it be racist to report what anti-racists say?

And it is not me who wants to discuss the explanation Lox.
I keep telling you I have no interest in it, but you will not let it drop.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 05:28 PM

"And it is not me who wants to discuss the explanation Lox.
I keep telling you I have no interest in it, but you will not let it drop. "

Hilarious!

You posted it you fool!

Now why don't you try grappling with Jons child friendly illustration of your error using the red and blue cup analogy.

God knows what you teach kids if you can't get it.

By the way, a racist explanation is defined, not by who provides it, but by whether or not it discriminates on grounds of race.

In this case it discriminates on grounds of culture.

Racism as a political term covers that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 05:53 PM

This is a purveyor of racist propaganda according to Lox.
She is a journalist who has written for The Guardian, Observer, The New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The Evening Standard, The Mail and other newspapers and is now a regular columnist on The Independent and London's Evening Standard. She is also a radio and television broadcaster and author of several books. Her book, No Place Like Home, well received by critics, was an autobiographical account of a twice removed immigrant. From 1996 to 2001 she was a Research Fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research which published True Colours on the role of government on racial attitudes. Tony Blair launched the book in March 1999. She is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre. In 2000 she published, Who Do We Think We Are? which went on to be published in the US too, an acclaimed book on the state of the nation. Andrew Marr and Sir Bernard Crick among other reviewers found the book exceptionally wise and challenging. After Multiculturalism, a pamphlet re-assessing the multicultural ideology in Britain was the first critical examination by a social democrat of a settled and now damaging orthodoxy. She is also a regular international public speaker in Britain, other European countries, North America and Asian nations. In 2001 came the publication of Mixed Feelings, a book on mixed race Britons which has been praised by all those who have reviewed it to date. In June 1999, she received an honorary degree from the Open University for her contributions to social justice. She is a Vice President of the United Nations Association, UK and has also agreed to be a special ambassador for the Samaritans. She is the President of the Institute of Family Therapy. She is married with a twenty eight year old son and thirteen year old daughter.


In 2001 she was appointed an MBE for services to journalism in the new year's honours list. In July 2003 Liverpool John Moore's University made her an Honorary Fellow. In 2003 she returned her MBE as a protest against the new empire in Iraq and a growing republicanism. In September 2004, she was awarded an honorary degree by the Oxford Brookes University . In April 2004, her film on Islam for Channel 4 won an award and in May 2004, she received the EMMA award for best print journalist for her columns in the Independent. In September 2004, a collection of her journalistic writings, Some of My Best Friends Are… was published in 2005. Since that year, she has been seen on stage in her one woman show, commissioned and directed by the Royal Shakespeare Company as part of their new work festival. In 2005, she was voted the 10th most influential black/Asian woman in the country in a poll and in another she was among the most powerful Asian media professionals in the UK. In 2008 she was appointed Visiting Professor of Journalism at Cardiff University School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies and Visiting
Professor of Journalism at the University of Lincoln.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 07:32 PM

This is daft.

We are arguing with a five year old.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 01:16 AM

Let me put it simply for you.
Like you, Lox and Jim, I know little about Pakistanis.
Like you, I am not qualified to form an opinion about them or comment on one.

Like 5 year olds, you keep asking me for something I can not give.

What I can do is discuss the evidence for the over-rep.

Here is some.

When a campaign was targeted at the BP community in Blackburn, the incidence of this kind of child sexual abuse was eliminated.

The journalist Bindel in a rigorous investigation found large numbers of girls who had been abused by BPs, but none by other groups.
The German video report, no longer on YouTube, found exactly the same.
Jack Straw spoke about his own personal experience and contact with victims.
Ann Cryer said she had the same experience in her constituency.
The Dando Institue report on On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that has resulted in at least two follow up studies of On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that found 95% BP perpetrators.
Hilary Wilmer with her hundreds of cases, all BPs.
She corroborates all the previous.
Senior police officers, serving and retired.
Shafiq, Allibhai-Brown and Ahmed all tell the same story from BP perspective, and it corroborates all that has gone before.
Hindu and Sikh organisation who report hundreds of their girls have been victims too.
Perpetrators, all BPs

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 01:31 AM

Seven teenage girls – one as young as 13 – were groomed into child prostitution with offers of alcohol, drink and cash by nine men in a sex-trafficking ring which centred around a small Shropshire town, a court has heard.

Some of the girls were sold on to other men to be abused, and one 15-year-old girl was plied with drink, drugs and cigarettes to persuade her to have sex with others as a "favour" to her "pimps", the prosecution said
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/14/sex-traffickers-groomed-child-prostitutes

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 03:05 AM

Dozens of vulnerable teenage girls may have been rescued from the clutches of a paedophiles after a major police operation smashed a child sex gang.
Around 100 officers swooped on houses in a series of raids yesterday arresting 10 men suspected of grooming young girls for sex.
The victims were allegedly showered with gifts and then plied with drink and drugs before being taken to special 'sex parties' in Manchester and Salford.
At the parties the teenage girls – some as young as 14 - would be compelled to have sex with friends of the gang in what police say was a classic case of 'sexual grooming and entrapment.' Last night the men, all aged between 18-28, were being questioned by detectives at a number of different police stations across the North West.
They are the latest in a wave of arrests carried out by police investigating gangs of Asian men grooming underage white girls for sex.
A string of disturbing cases in the Midlands and north of England prompted the launch of a nationwide investigation to look into the phenomenon.
In January Former Home Secretary Jack Straw was accused of 'stereotyping after suggesting some men of Pakistani origin see white girls as 'easy meat'.
Last night police were confident they had smashed yet another alleged gang after arresting the 10 men – seven Asian, two white and one black – on suspected child sex offences.
http://m.dailymail.co.uk/mobile/news/article.html?articleID=2003317

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 04:21 AM

12:30am Wednesday 15th June 2011

A MUM whose 13-year-old daughter was plied with drugs and alcohol by a gang of Asian men who groomed her for sex has spoken of her 'nightmare' ordeal.
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/9082678.Grooming_victim_s_mum_speaks_out_at__nightmare_ordeal__in_East_Lancashire/?ref

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jun 11 - 04:46 AM

Child victims of sexual exploitation 'failed by the system'
Release Date: 15/06/2011

Thousands of children who are sexually exploited never see their perpetrators brought to justice, according to Barnardo's.
http://www.barnardos.org.uk/news_and_events/media_centre/press_releases.htm?ref=70223

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 03:16 AM

The call for a minister with direct responsibility comes as the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop) revealed the extent of the crime, with 21 of its 22 teams across the country having uncovered evidence of organised grooming and trafficking.
Barnardo's says it is currently working with more than 1,000 children who have been groomed, abused and trafficked for money, but that the number represents only 'the tip of the iceberg'.
The charity also warned that the grooming of teenagers was being overlooked as social workers were preoccupied with younger children.
Ceop has begun a study 'to identify any patterns of offending, victimisation or vulnerability' but is keen for the debate to focus on the welfare of the victims.
Anne Marie Carrie, Barnardo's new chief executive, said the children had 'been forgotten as discussion has focused on the ethnicity of perpetrators in high-profile cases.
'Children are being passed from man to man, home to home, city to city.
'It's the domestic trafficking of children for money.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 09:39 AM

As you seem to be holding a converation mainly with yourself - thought I'd point this out.
From your scan of the Barnardo report:
"the children had 'been forgotten as discussion has focused on the ethnicity of perpetrators in high-profile cases."
Which is what you are continuing to do here.
The Barnardo report, unlike you, makes no attempt to link abuse to any one race or culture, yet you continue with your crusade to make it a "British Pakistani cultural thing" - don't you read your own cut and pastes?
While you continue to make this a race/culture issue you are continuing to "forget" the fate of these children
The figure of 2,756 cases of abuse refers only to one year (2009) of abuse, which makes the around hundred or so examples over a number of years that you have produced so far as miniscule as it acutually is and puts the problem into context.
A report carried by the Guardian early this year made clear the attitude of Barnardos, Ceop and others in attempting to make this a racial issue.

"The sexual exploitation of children cannot "be simplified along ethnic lines", the head of the child protection agency said today.
Peter Davies was announcing that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) centre is to investigate "on-street" grooming, leading to abuse and exploitation.
He said: "Child sexual exploitation is not exclusive to any single culture, community, race or religion - it cuts across all communities. Neither can it be simplified along ethnic lines where the victims constitute one ethnicity and offenders another."
"We need to continue to build our understanding about the different types of threats faced by children across a range of environments."
Ceop's assessment would establish "whether it is accurate to identify any patterns of offending, victimisation, or vulnerability within these cases" as well as identifying how victims and offenders could be better identified.
Davies said the investigation was prompted by "recent events" including the conviction of Asian men in Derbyshire for abusing girls as young as 12, which sparked claims from Jack Straw, the Labour former home secretary, of a cultural problem in the Pakistani community.
Two men, identified in Operation Retriever as the gang's ringleaders, Mohammed Liaqat, 28, and Abid Saddique, 27, were sentenced on Friday to a minimum of eight and 11 years respectively at Nottingham crown court for raping and sexually abusing their victims. They would seek out and befriend girls in Derby as young as 12, often plying them with alcohol and drugs and groom them for sex, before passing the girls onto older men. The judge in the case said he did not believe the case was racially aggrevated, saying that the race of victims and abusers were coincidental.
However, Straw, the MP for Blackburn, sparked a furious backlash from MPs and children's groups after he told the BBC's Newsnight that vulnerable white girls were seen as "easy meat" by some Pakistani men. He said it was a "specific problem" within the Pakistani community which needed to be "more open" about it.
His comments were criticised by children's charity, Barnardos, Muslim youth group the Ramadhan Foundation and retired detective chief superintendent Max McLean, who led a previous investigation into sexual exploitation involving young girls in Leeds. All said he was wrong to highlight one community. Barnardo's chief executive, Martin Narey, said on-street grooming was "probably happening in most towns and cities" and was not confined to the Pakistani community.
Last week, authors of the first independent academic analysis into child sex trafficking within the UK, which focused on two police investigations in the North and the Midlands, also warned of the dangers of racial stereotyping amid claims of a widespread problem of Pakistani men exploiting underage white girls.
Keith Vaz, the chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, who had described Straw's comments as "dangerous", said Ceop will be asked to give evidence on its inquiry to the committee.
"A thorough and comprehensive national investigation on street grooming is urgently needed," he said. "A full investigation will give the police the information they need to target the criminals and criminal networks involved in this hideous crime."
Ceop said its findings would be made public within three to six months time."

Yesterdays Times includes the following about the 2009 figures, following on from online contact with their victims:

"For others, initial contact with their abuser happened in town centres, on street corners, in shopping malls, train or bus stations or outside school gates."
In other words - street grooming, which you have desparately attempted to make an exclusively 'Pakistani' thing, happens everywhere and includes all races and cultures.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 11:26 AM

Jim, Barnardo's is rightly concerned only with the child victims, and not at all with the ethnicity of their abusers.

You say,
""the children had 'been forgotten as discussion has focused on the ethnicity of perpetrators in high-profile cases."Which is what you are continuing to do here"

But, this debate is ABOUT whether ethnicity is a factor.
I am putting the case for an over-rep.
The quote acknowledges that ethnicity is an issue, at least in "high profile cases."
Also, quote from original BBC piece, "And, Narey of Barnados stated that there was an over-representation"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 11:31 AM

I am putting the case for an over-rep.

So how does your last copy/paste support your case?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 12:29 PM

My God is it not obvious that Pakistani men are over represented in these crimes.....do you not follow the news, read the newspapers?

In all the cases I have followed Pakistani menn are massively over represented.
Think about precentages please.

Denial does not answer Keiths point, when all the facts support with him.

Open your eyes and ears and forget your "liberal" ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 12:54 PM

"I am putting the case for an over-rep."
You can't pick and choose what your bit you believe if your 'experts are as esteemed as you claim them to be - (or, in your case, edit your cut-'n-pastes when it suits you).
You have put up the Barnados statement to back up your case - are they right or wrong in saying that:
"the children had 'been forgotten as discussion has focused on the ethnicity of perpetrators in high-profile cases".
Are you claiming to know better than Barnardo's who have clearly protested at the type of racist use you are making of the issue?
If they (and the others in the quote) are wrong on such a fundamental issue, can we put any faith whatever in such 'experts', or do we pick and mix to support our own perverted views as you are doing here?
You have persistantly attempted to claim Pakistanis are culturally inclined towards paedophelia (please don't make me put your quotes up again.)
There is no over-representation until you prove there is - you haven't, so there isn't - doesn't get much simpler than that
And the street grooming - where do you stand on that following the Barnados statement - are they wrong on that one too?
As far as I am concerned the racist issue is just that - a racist issue which you continue to peddle - making you - a racist.
Interesting to see that things haven't changed while I've been away - didn't expebct them to really - leaopards, spots and all that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 01:00 PM

Jon, it reveals the terrifying scale of this kind of child abuse and acknowledges that ethnicity is an issue at least in the high profile cases, which I take to mean cases involving large numbers of child victims.

Would you or Jim, or anyone have any response to all the other items I linked to?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 01:04 PM

My God is it not obvious that Pakistani men are over represented in these crimes

This does appear to be true in selected areas, yes.

Keith's theory however gives a UK wide "British Pakistani" cultural problem.

Keith has come up with absolutely nothing supporting this claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 01:07 PM

Open your eyes and ears and forget your "liberal" ideology.

?????

I've nothing against the possibility of a cultural issue being proposed or discussed. I'd just like to see a theory support the (whole) facts presented.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 02:20 PM

But Jon....Pakistani communities are not distributed evenly over the UK.

Where this type of crime appears, it is mainly British Pakistanis who are involved as perps
Keith is simply looking for an explanation of this phenomenon.

Just as I have been asking why are homosexuals so over represented in hiv/ aids figures?

Sorry if I was a bit short in my last post, it wasn't aimed at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 02:39 PM

Keith is simply looking for an explanation of this phenomenon.

On the information and suggestions posted here, I favour Don's
"a case of criminal activity of a localised group of interacting gangs who are Pakistani because gangs tend to consist of just one ethnic group."

---
Just as I have been asking why are homosexuals so over represented in hiv/ aids figures?

If you are getting at what I think you are, I probably agree with you.

While I do think one needs to be extremely careful in (I suppose) presenting theories, I think there can be a danger in being politically correct to the point of ignoring or not daring to look at something that could be important. It's not easy...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 02:49 PM

So we get no answer to this one either!
If Barnardos et al are wrong on this fundamental issue they should not be doing the job they have chosen (and are trusted by others) to do.
If they are right, then the welfare of these abused children is less important than Keith getting his racist message across and it doesn't matter too much that "the children had 'been forgotten".
And all those bucketfuls of tears really straight from the crocodile..
Which is it to be?
"Where this type of crime appears, it is mainly British Pakistanis who are involved as perps"
Not according to Barnardos, Jack Staw and others, it ain't.
"Keith is simply looking for an explanation of this phenomenon."
No he isn't; he's trying to prove (not very well), that British Pakistanis are cultural pervs.
"Just as I have been asking why are homosexuals so over represented in hiv/ aids figures?"
.... then add a little pinch of homophobia then stir well!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 03:02 PM

Jon, "Keith's theory however gives a UK wide "British Pakistani" cultural problem."
Keith does not have a theory Jon, as I have told you many, many times.

Jim, I do not believe Barnados are wrong.
They say it is not exclusive to BPs.
I am sure it is not.
They say that ethnicity is an issue.
They just have no reason to say if any particular group are over-represented.
They have said nothing to challenge the possibility of an over-rep.

Jack Straw said that there was an issue for BPs in this particular sex crime.
He also said that prisons are full of white offenders for sex crimes in general.
It was his indictment of BPs that started this furore. Remember?

Ake, you are wrong in one respect.
I am not looking for an explanation.
I just offered the one that was widely reported at the time, and said that I find it plausible.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 03:14 PM

Jon, "Keith's theory however gives a UK wide "British Pakistani" cultural problem."
Keith does not have a theory Jon, as I have told you many, many times.

OK, the theory that Keith supports and constitutes "his case".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 03:39 PM

"They just have no reason to say if any particular group are over-represented."
They have said no such thing, they protested at the issue being used by racists like yourself. that it is being sidelined by being made a racist issue.
Have you no pity on the poor victims you are using to get your racist message across? - listen to their cries for help (to take a leaf from your own book).
And your reply to Keith Vaz, Ceop, Jack Straw et al about it not being a problem connected wih any race in particular, but being multi-cultural.
And Barnardos statement on street grooming being a common problem not connected to one race?
Come on Keith - we have a right to an answer after all this, surely?.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 06:25 PM

Jon, I support no theory.
My only case is that the evidence for an over-rep seems overwhelming.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 06:49 PM

Barnados.
They said that ethnic groups were "over-represented"
They said there was an issue of "ethnicity" in high profile (many victim) cases.
It is not their business to identify any over-representation and probably do not even record the ethnicity of perpetrators.
I have seen no Barnados statement that refutes the over-rep.
Have you?

CeoP is currently carrying out a survey to see if there are any "patterns of offending, victimisation, or vulnerability within these cases" as well as identifying how victims and offenders could be better identified."

They have also not refuted an over-rep.They are due to report in less than a month now.

"Have you no pity on the poor victims you are using to get your racist message across? - listen to their cries for help "

I have paid heed to all the available information about the girls Jim.
All the 400 seen by Wilmer.
Everyone stated that BPs were their abusers.
I listen.
You do not.
All the victims seen by Bindel.
The same.
All the victims in the German report.
All the same.
The victims who recorded their statements.
All the same.
All the victims in the three current court cases aginst BP gangs.
Whether the BP gangs are convicted or not, the victims all accuse them.
Why will you not listen to them Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 11 - 06:59 PM

All the victims who went to their MPs, Straw and Cryer.
All abused by BPs.
All the victims of those convicted in the 17 cases in the Dando report.
95% BPs.
All the hundreds of Sikh and Hindu girls who went to their own support groups .
All abused by BPs.
What is your opinion of all those young girl victims Jim?
Do you call them liars?
Is that not a kind of abuse too?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 03:43 AM

"I have seen no Barnados statement that refutes the over-rep."
Have you seen one that supports your claims that there is; I have seen no report that they have even been presented with the question of over representation - where it came up in Straw's statement they were among the protesters, as was CEOP                                                .
Barnardos postition on race:

"The recent media and political focus on race issues within sexual exploitation cases could put more children and young people at risk, according to the new chief executive of Barnardo's.
"From our experience, we know that in some areas ethnicity is a factor, but in many other areas it isn't," Anne Marie Carrie told Community Care. Carrie takes over this month from chief executive Martin Narey.
If you focus on one model of sexual exploitation, children who are being exploited in different circumstances won't see that it's an issue for them as well. Young people who need support won't come forward because they don't fit the model that's being presented The recent media and political focus on race issues within sexual exploitation cases could put more children and young people at risk, according to the new chief executive of Barnardo's."

Far from heeding their advice that race was a diversion in all this, you have attempted to distort and use their statement to back up your racist hatred, diverting the spotlight away from abused children and making it part of your racist crusade - you really must hate Pakistanis.
They have made none of the claims you describe, and were among the protesters at Straw's 'culture' statement'            

They said openly that race, far from being an answer, was a hinderence in the fight against child abuse; despite this open statement, you deliberately distort their position and continue to use Barnardos as a platform for your hatred.

By doing this you have, in your own little way, become part of the abuse yourself, using the victims as a means of getting across your message that Pakistanis are cultural perverts - two birds with one stone - about as low as you can sink, but fits perfectly into the slime-pit you have pretty well single-handedly managed to make this thread - and doeesn't it make all those crocodile tears part of the slime-flow they always were.
Despite the pleas of Barnardos, you continue to make this a race issue, thus doing your bit to prolong the suffering of abused children.
CEOP has not made its report; a bit of a waste of their time and resources really - you've provided them with all the answers they need here - and all without the effort and expense of gathering proof.
Interesting to see the mind of a fanatic in action and up close though!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 04:12 AM

Jim, we are not the media.
Our discussion is not putting children at risk.
Anyway you need two sides for a discussion.
I will stop when you stop.

"From our experience, we know that in some areas ethnicity is a factor,"

If by that they mean an over-representation, and they previously described it as just that, that is my whole case.
If you accept it too we can stop there.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 04:12 AM

Professional association for social workers in the United Kingdom, the BASW, are holding an event.

BASW - Child sexual abuse - Intersections of Controversy - Race - Culture - GenderEvent Date: 24th June 2011

Location: Manchester

One of the "key themes"
"the cultural and gender context of sexual abuse"

Are they racists then Jim?
http://www.nationalworkinggroup.org/events/88-basw---child-sexual-abuse----intersections-of-controversy---race---culture---gende

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 04:05 PM

OK. I think this thread went over the top at about 8:20 AM today, and it became a name-calling match. I have deleted the 8:20 message and all subsequent messages. Please continue your discussion, but with a more civil tone (i.e., don't go calling people racist and such. Describe and refute what they say, if you must - but no name-calling).
Thanks.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 01:22 AM

Well, Joe, it looks as if you might at last have killed this thread off. Probably not before time: it was certainly getting a bit repetitive ~~ the one who called me a 'parrot' was being much more of a PrettyPolly than me, being apparently unable to do anything but endlessly iterate that 'name-call' you rubricate above.

I think, mind you, with all due respect to your moderating office, that maybe you are being a bit prissy. You have let some much more offensive sequences go without interference ~~ like e.g. that charmer who went on & on with no sort of provocation about all sorts of embarrassing physical disabilities my life was supposedly [but inaccurately] subject to. You let him just get on with it unimpeded, thought I protested at the time at your not having deleted those entries and taken some sort of action against him. Remember that?*
Still ~~ there it is. Goodbye Keith, Jim, Don, Ake, et al. It's been fun while it lasted.

~M~

*(A clue: think ~ I admit irrelevantly and mnemonically ~ of a pink delicacy usually eaten with black pepper and lemon juice.)

---

I respond to complaints, Mike. You don't really expect me to read all this unless I'm responding to a complaint, do you?
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 03:04 AM

"the one who called me a 'parrot"
I wasn't referring to you Mike.
I believe that everything that needed to be said was said at least four months ago and that this vile thread should have been put out of its misery then.
Byeeee.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 04:41 AM

Four monthts ago.
That is almost to the day when you came in Jim.
In all that time you only ever produced one arguement, and now you are deprived even of that.
Byeeee.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 06:09 AM

"""The sexual exploitation of children cannot "be simplified along ethnic lines", the head of the child protection agency said today.
Peter Davies was announcing that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) centre is to investigate "on-street" grooming, leading to abuse and exploitation.
He said: "Child sexual exploitation is not exclusive to any single culture, community, race or religion - it cuts across all communities. Neither can it be simplified along ethnic lines where the victims constitute one ethnicity and offenders another."""

Seems conclusive enough, and comes from one who has at his fingertips all the relevant data.

Keith, of course will continue to believe his so-called "sources", since he has never been one to let the facts get in the way of his culturally biased theories.

""The quote acknowledges that ethnicity is an issue, at least in "high profile cases." ""

This is the weakest comment yet. The only high profile cases are the group of cases upon which you based your original skewed theory, and those are the ones involving British Pakistanis.

My hat is off to you. The heads of CEOP and Barnado's are diametrically opposed to your point of view, having between them infinitely more experience than you and your "sources" added together, and you still produce the perfect circular argument to defend the indefensible.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 06:21 AM

"""From our experience, we know that in some areas ethnicity is a factor,"""

Please give us the rationale by which you got from this statement any hint of over representation.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 06:30 AM

""Professional association for social workers in the United Kingdom, the BASW, are holding an event.

BASW - Child sexual abuse - Intersections of Controversy - Race - Culture - GenderEvent Date: 24th June 2011

Location: Manchester

One of the "key themes"
"the cultural and gender context of sexual abuse"""

And your point is.............??

That is a headline with no indication as to the direction or content of the discussion.

In short, it gives no support to your claims.

Are you now reduced to quoting everything you see featuring the words "culture", "ethnic", or "sexual abuse", in the vague hope of rescuing your argument?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 01:29 PM

Don, my point was that Jim claimed it racist to consider child abuse in the context of culture or race, but they were doing just that.

Barnados said ethnicity was a factor, and they had previously stated that there was an "over-representation."

There is nothing in the CeoP quote that I disagree with, and nothing that refutes an over-rep.

It is quite wrong to describe me as being "diametrically opposed" to the stated views of either organisation. I am not.

I do think that Barnados are wrong to call for the media not to report the issue of ethnicity.
That gives ammunition to the far right who are already claiming that there is a conspiracy to keep these things secret.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 03:08 PM

"Jim claimed it racist to consider child abuse in the context of culture or race"
No I didn't - said it was racist to claim that paedophelia has anything to do with culture or race. Anybody who claims paedophelia to be part of British Pakistani or any ethnic culture is guilty of racist stereotyping .
Please do not distort what I have been saying for long enough for you to have grasped my meaning otherwise I will have to assume that you are doing it deliberately - perish the thought!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 03:49 PM

That was your shortest goodbyeee yet Jim, and you have had so many!
No-one here has ever claimed a link between paedophilia and culture.
In this issue, the suggestion has always been that young teens were targeted just because they were "easy meat."
How many times have I reminded you of that now?
At least ten.
Try to debate honestly Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 03:49 PM

"Barnados said ethnicity was a factor, and they had previously stated that there was an "over-representation.""
Over-representation of what?

" Barnardo's chief executive Martin Narey said street grooming was "probably happening in most towns and cities" and was not confined to the Pakistani community.
"I certainly don't think this is a Pakistani thing. My staff would say that there is an over-representation of people from minority ethnic groups – Afghans, people from Arabic nations – but it's not just one nation.""
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 03:58 PM

On the other hand:


"I certainly don't think this is a Pakistani thing. My staff would say that there is an over-representation of people from minority ethnic groups – Afghans, people from Arabic nations – but it's not just one nation."
Retired detective chief superintendent Max McLean, who led a previous police investigation into sexual exploitation involving the grooming and trafficking of young girls in Leeds, also questioned the suggestion of a cultural problem.
"I'm not suggesting, and I do not think anybody is, that it is a problem within a community," he told Today.
"What I am saying is that, when you take a crime type – street grooming – and see that the vast majority of people convicted are from a particular community, then there appears something we should do about those offenders.
"But that is the very danger, that we say that all street groomers are Asian men. What we have found is that our investigations have led to convictions, generally speaking, for this type of crime.
"That is a slightly different thing and it is incumbent on the police and professionals to engage with communities where we identify those offenders to see if there are preventative opportunities."
Share:   


Law and Order
News »

"I certainly don't think this is a Pakistani thing. My staff would say that there is an over-representation of people from minority ethnic groups – Afghans, people from Arabic nations – but it's not just one nation."
Retired detective chief superintendent Max McLean, who led a previous police investigation into sexual exploitation involving the grooming and trafficking of young girls in Leeds, also questioned the suggestion of a cultural problem.
"I'm not suggesting, and I do not think anybody is, that it is a problem within a community," he told Today.
"What I am saying is that, when you take a crime type – street grooming – and see that the vast majority of people convicted are from a particular community, then there appears something we should do about those offenders.
"But that is the very danger, that we say that all street groomers are Asian men. What we have found is that our investigations have led to convictions, generally speaking, for this type of crime.
"That is a slightly different thing and it is incumbent on the police and professionals to engage with communities where we identify those offenders to see if there are preventative opportunities."
Share:   


Law and Order
News »
Politics »
UK News »
Crime »
IN NEWS

Lord Stoneham's question on Goodwin super-injunction

Sian O'Callaghan murder

Night Stalker convicted

Map gives public view of local crime

Most dangerous neighbourhood identified by crime map

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 04:01 PM

Whoops
JC

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:20 PM

That is from that January Guardian piece that we have surely done to death already.

There is an over-rep, but not exclusively of BPs.
Lively said the same in her last posts.
It does not deny an over-rep of BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:32 AM

"That is from that January Guardian piece that we have surely done to death already."
These comments post-date and are responses to Jack Straw's statement which you have used throughout this thread to back up your argument (after careful editing).
You continue to claim that the Barnados article backs up your conclusions when it patently does not; on the contrary, Barnardos have made the point that using race and culture in the abuse debate diverts the issue and runs the risk of adding to the abuse of children, yet you continue to do just that
"Jim claimed it racist to consider child abuse in the context of culture or race"
Please withdraw this piece of misinformation and stop deliberately distorting what I and others have said - it is you who needs to debate honestly; nobody else here has edited threads to make their point.
You claim that we have put up no argument - yes we have and it is typical of your debating style that you have deliberately ignored what has been said - something that has been pointed out to you again and again, here and on other threads, Is time you stopped ignoring and distorting what other people have said.
"There is an over-rep, but not exclusively of BPs."
But you have been saying not only is there an over-representation of Pakistanis, but it is part of their culture - is this a change of direction?
"That was your shortest goodbyeee yet Jim,"
I will come and go here as I see fit - if you find my presence so disturbing that you need to comment on it, stop mangling what I have said.
And a reminder; as much effort as you have put into drifting this thread to prove Pakistanis are culturally perverted, it does not belong to you and those of us (and there are several, not just me) who have returned to it rather than allow you to continue to use it as a platform, will do so as often as we please.
It might help if you didn't distort what we have said when you thought it was safe to do so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:52 AM

Jon, I support no theory.
My only case is that the evidence for an over-rep seems overwhelming.

Keith, your stance appears to vary to me but perhaps I'm wrong and clarification is needed.

It seems clear that you believe there is an over-rep in certain areas. I've no argument with that.

I find your position with regards to the theory that the over-rep is explainable by aspects of the British Pakistani culture a bit of a puzzle.

Please state clearly whether you.

a) Do not agree with it.

b) Have no opinion on it.

c) Agree with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:04 AM

Jon, I have no way of judging it, but I have accepted it because no other theory has emerged and because those proposing it are reputable and have first hand knowledge and experience of all these issues.
Most of them are Pakistanis themselves.
So yes I do believe it but can not defend or support it, and I am not committed to it if someone can provide a more convincing alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:04 AM

Jon, I have no way of judging it, but I have accepted it because no other theory has emerged and because those proposing it are reputable and have first hand knowledge and experience of all these issues.
Most of them are Pakistanis themselves.
So yes I do believe it but can not defend or support it, and I am not committed to it if someone can provide a more convincing alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:12 AM

Jim, I do not say Barnados support my case, they are neutral.
They argue that the media should not discuss the issue.
I think that is wrong and dangerous, but anyway it does not apply to us dicussing it.
Narey stated that there was an over-rep, but said it was not just of BPs, listing other similar cultures.
My case that they are over-represented is quite consistent with that.
It has always been clear that none BPs are involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:25 AM

McClean is an enigma.
I found not later statements by him, and all other police officers who have been quoted were clear that there was an issue and it was huge.
This is from Times 5th Jan.

Fourteen years ago, Detective Chief Superintendent Max McLean, who has
recently retired, led what seems likely to have been the first British police inquiry
involving the grooming and sexual exploitation of white girls by a gang of British
Pakistani men.
It began with a plea for help from a Leeds mother whose young daughter was
leaving via her bedroom window whenever she was summoned by the beeping
horn of a private-hire car that would stop outside their house in the early hours of
the morning.
The investigation led to 23 arrests and the exposure of a sex-trafficking ring
involving a network of private-hire taxi drivers and the sexual abuse of at least 20
girls. The victims had been groomed, held captive and some were driven as far as
Newcastle upon Tyne to be used for sex by older men.
In 1997, after the two ringleaders were jailed for kidnap, rape and assault, Mr
McLean warned that what police had uncovered was the tip of an iceberg. He
alerted forces across England to the possibility that similar networks were
operating in their communities.
Looking back now, his strongest memory is of the girls' extreme vulnerability and
of the pleasure that their abusers so clearly took in exercising power and control
over them. "The men held those young girls in extremely low esteem; they thought
that this somehow justified the violation that was taking place. As the years have
passed, the message should have gone out long ago that to ignore the scale and
nature of this problem is to bury your head in the sand."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 06:18 AM

The Times piece contains some very relevant information.
Please read.
http://www.sasorg.co.uk/docs/Muslim%20Grooming/%E2%80%98Some%20of%20these%20men%20have%20children%20the%20same%20age.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 07:16 AM

And still you deal with isolated cases in specific areas - in no way backing up your claim of 'culturally influenced phaedophelia'.
Why aren't the effects visibly throughout the Pakistani poulation as a whole rather than the most deprived areas?
That larger numbers of immigrants appear in crime figures of any sort in areas with a high immigrant population was accepted right at the beginning of the debate - nobody but you has claimed a "massive over-representation".
One of the tendencies of British culture is to blame "foreigners" for the ills of our society rather than examining the real causes, poverty, poor housing, lack of amenities, high unemployment; these are facts that are as old as Dickens, Fielding and Defoe.
In my youth it was the 'Windrush generation' from The West Indies who were corrpting our women and spreading their filthy habits - now, it appears, it's the 'Pakis'.
You appear to want to defuse McLean's statement because it is delivering the wrong message, yet fall back on Straw, who, as Home Secretary, did nothing to clean up Thatcher's 'two nations - north and South' mess - little wonder he tried to lay the blame on the culture rather than the foul conditions he did nothing about.
And Ann Cryer - the genius who suggested that speaking English should be a condition of entry into Britain.
And a cossetted member of the House of Lords who kills people with his mobile phone - and then is let off.
We can all do that if we've a mind to, but what's the point?
Rather than hiding behind 'experts' why not work it out for yourself?
Suggesting that paedophelia is culturally connected is racial stereotyping and if made on the media or in the press as persistantly as you have made it here, would be open to prosecution under the incitement to racial hatred laws.
And still you have not answered mine or anybody's points, but continue to pretend they haven't been made.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 08:51 AM

Jim: This is a public forum, accessible at the click of anybody's mouse, so just as liable to the various Race Relations legislations as any of the more widespread media. So why not put your principles where your keyboard is and try reporting Keith for a breach of the Race Relations Act (& me too, I should cocoa ~~ you know I think he is largely right & has made no such assertions as you persist in attributing to him, & am to whit his Fairy Godmother [whatever the hell that is supposed to mean]), and see how far you get? Go on. Let's see you try it. I await the knock on the door and the jackboots on my stairs at 3 in the morning with bated breath!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 11:15 AM

So yes I do believe it but can not defend or support it, and I am not committed to it if someone can provide a more convincing alternative.

OK Keith, one thing at a time...

as far as I can make out the theory goes along the lines:

"Cultural attitudes/values within the British Pakistani community leads a small number into sex trafficking."

Is that a reasonable representation?

If not, could you explain it to me in your own words.

If it is, would you agree or disagree that a statement of this type implicates Pakistani communities throughout the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 11:57 AM

Jim, I do not and have never made a " claim of 'culturally influenced phaedophelia'."
I have told you that many times but you persist with the pointless lie.
"Suggesting that paedophelia is culturally connected"
BUT I DON'T JIM!
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I TELL YOU?

All I claim is that BPs are over-represented in this specific crime in the Midlands and the North of England.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:04 PM

Jon, Straw said it happened because BP young girls are off limits to them.
Cryer said it the same and said that they had to wait for arranged marriages. She said older girls would know this but young ones could be deceived into believing they had a future.
Ahmed blamed it more on the number of unhappy marriages and Allibhai-Brown thought all the above relevant.
Shafiq put it down to the low esteem they hold for non-muslim girls.
You should really read what they actually have written.
Do you need help finding it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:16 PM

Jon, Straw said it happened because BP young girls are off limits to them.

Cryer said it the same and said that they had to wait for arranged marriages. She said older girls would know this but young ones could be deceived into believing they had a future.

Ahmed blamed it more on the number of unhappy marriages and

Allibhai-Brown thought all the above relevant.

Shafiq put it down to the low esteem they hold for non-muslim girls.

Which of these do you agree with or accept?

And using "it happened because BP young girls are off limits to them", would you agree that implies a nationwide problem whereever there are British Pakistani's?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:57 PM

"Jim, I do not and have never made a " claim of 'culturally influenced phaedophelia'."
Yawwwwnnnnn

"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
Then you said (after fine tuning to slight):
"You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,
Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 01:04 PM

Whoops - went off before I finished
Mike
"So why not put your principles where your keyboard is and try reporting Keith for a breach of the Race Relations Act"
You know as well as I do that the internet is available to every scumbag who wishes to peddle whatever filth they wish without fear of prosecution.
Was fascinated to see that you equate enforcing the incitement to race hatred laws with jackboots on the stairs at 3 in the morning though - they are a bit of an inconvenience, aren't they?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 01:35 PM

Jim, I keep telling you that I do not regard participation in this form of abuse as evidence of paedophilia.
It is suggested, and I agree, that young teens are targetted just because they are easier to ensnare than over 18s.
"easy meat."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 01:39 PM

Jon, I have no reason to doubt any of them.
It all sounds plausible, at least the way they put it.
If it does not lead to these offences in all communties, that is good.
I do not know what factors are involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 01:46 PM

Here is the whole post that Jim keeps citing in various colours.

Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:27 PM

You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,"

Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment.
It is a factor that most groups do not have to deal with, and it is only a suggestion.

How can you be certain (CERTAIN!!) that men, made to marry late but deprived of any intimate relationships, might not be, just very slightly, predisposed?

We are all individuals, with individual weaknesses.
The over representation is a fact.
This de-racialises it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 01:59 PM

It all sounds plausible, at least the way they put it.
If it does not lead to these offences in all communties, that is good.
I do not know what factors are involved.

OK Keith, it's probably time for me to leave this thread but it does seem to me that you are accepting statements which by my way of thinking do implicate British Pakistanis throughout the UK with very little to do go on and without leaving me with the feeling you have considered other suggestions.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 02:12 PM

Jon, do you hold that Allibhai-Brown, Ahmed and Saffiq are guilty of that?
Anyone who knows what they stand for would regard that as preposterous.
There are no other theories Jon, unless you know of any?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 02:31 PM

Mike
"So why not put your principles where your keyboard is and try reporting Keith for a breach of the Race Relations Act"
You know as well as I do that the internet is available to every scumbag who wishes to peddle whatever filth they wish without fear of prosecution.
Was fascinated to see that you equate enforcing the incitement to race hatred laws with jackboots on the stairs at 3 in the morning though - they are a bit of an inconvenience, aren't they?+++
,,,,
No I don't know anything of the sort, Jim. There is no legal immunity to prosecution for anything posted online in a public forum ~~ is there, Richard? If you reported it, the police would have to follow it up ~~ if you think a prosecution could lie: but you know as well as I do that there would be no case to answer here under Race Relations legislation: you are exaggerating about the racism, just as I was about the jackboots ~~ except that I was clearly talking facetiously but I have a horrible feeling that you mean these baseless accusations seriously.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 03:36 PM

Jon, do you hold that Allibhai-Brown, Ahmed and Saffiq are guilty of that?

I'm not aware that I've attempted to discuss the issue with them, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 03:43 PM

"You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,"
Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment.
It is a factor that most groups do not have to deal with, and it is only a suggestion.
How can you be certain (CERTAIN!!) that men, made to marry late but deprived of any intimate relationships, might not be, just very slightly, predisposed?"
You have put this up as a definitive statement - how can you be certain (CERTAIN!!) that it does predispose.....?
How do you even know that the men involved have been made to marry late - you have no idea whatever of their ages, backgrounds, personal circumstances - still racial stereotping I'm afraid.
However, it in no way explains this:
"This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.
There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
You don't pull any punches there - it is you that is lying - to take a leaf out of your book.
And you still have not answered any of my (or anybody else's) points - including your gross misrepresentation of my opinion that brought be back to this cess-pit this time - more lies - as you would put it.
"If you reported it, the police would have to follow it up"
Having followed the Wikileaks saga with some interest, I very much doubt that Mike.
I believe that the lengths Keith has gone to to make his case would breach the incitement to race hatred laws, but I would have thought it was the site administrator's job to have nipped this interminable thread in the bud, if for no other reason than to prevent bringing this forum into disrepute - I've seen it done here before now.
"but I have a horrible feeling that you mean these baseless accusations seriously."
Then you apparently reserve the right to talk "facetiously" for your sole use.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:11 PM

"How can you be certain (CERTAIN!!) that men, made to marry late but deprived of any intimate relationships, might not be, just very slightly, predisposed?""

As I said in that post, it was just a suggestion from me.
No certainty.

"How do you even know that the men involved have been made to marry late - you have no idea whatever of their ages, backgrounds, personal circumstances - still racial stereotping I'm afraid."

Are you disputing the accuracy of that Jim?
I did put up some source material from a German University to show that it was accurate.
And all those BPs quoted on here seemed to be aware of it.
Are you saying you are better informed on these issues Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:50 PM

"but I have a horrible feeling that you mean these baseless accusations seriously."
Then you apparently reserve the right to talk "facetiously" for your sole use.
Jim Carroll ===

You seem here to be admitting that your assertions are facetious, then, Jim. Is that precisely the point you intended to make here?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:58 PM

"How do you even know that the men involved have been made to marry late - you have no idea whatever of their ages, backgrounds, personal circumstances - still racial stereotping I'm afraid."
,,,,,
This is an undisputed matter of common knowledge, Jim. I am afraid your arguments are getting a bit desperate.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:22 PM

Jim, you are wasting your time asking me about the reason for the over-rep.
The reasons given are not mine and I can not defend or support them.

My case is that there is an over-rep.
I have put up ample evidence to support the fact of the over-rep.
You have put up nothing against it.
Do you have any argument at all against it?
Time for another byeee?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 09:08 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:12 AM

-snip-""It has always been clear that none BPs are involved."" -snip-

Certainly not what your comments suggest.

Two examples below. Would you like me to produce the dozens more in which you said point blank that no other ethnic groups had been found committing the same offences?

14th June 6.20am -snip- ""There are hundreds of victims who say BPs were the perpetratores.
I have heard of none saying otherwise."" -snip-

15th June 01.16am -snip ""When a campaign was targeted at the BP community in Blackburn, the incidence of this kind of child sexual abuse was eliminated.

The journalist Bindel in a rigorous investigation found large numbers of girls who had been abused by BPs, but none by other groups.
The German video report, no longer on YouTube, found exactly the same.
Jack Straw spoke about his own personal experience and contact with victims.
Ann Cryer said she had the same experience in her constituency.
The Dando Institue report on On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that has resulted in at least two follow up studies of On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that found 95% BP perpetrators.
Hilary Wilmer with her hundreds of cases, all BPs."" -snip-

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 09:21 PM

""Jim, I keep telling you that I do not regard participation in this form of abuse as evidence of paedophilia.
It is suggested, and I agree, that young teens are targetted just because they are easier to ensnare than over 18s.
"easy meat."""

You really can't decide unilaterally to change the definition of a crime.

The act of sexually abusing underage girls is by definition Paedophilia if the abuser is an adult.

So Jim is absolutely correct in his assertion about your comments on a cultural predisposition to abuse of underage girls as Paedophilia.

No amount of bluster and fudge will will change that.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 11 - 01:08 AM

Paedophilia is not a crime Don.
It is a condition.
I do not think these offenders are driven by it.
Just ordinary lust directed at the easiest meat available.

It has always been clear that non-BPs are involved.
The Dando survey found only 95% of perpetrators were BPs.
The rest were non-BPs Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 11 - 01:33 AM

Jim, Lox, Don et al.
You were all wrong.
You may say it is racist to suggest an over-rep, but it happens to be true anyway.

2,000 victims but child sex grooming is 'hidden issue'
Richard Ford Home Correspondent
Child sex grooming in Britain is a "hidden issue" that police, social services and charities are failing properly to investigate, a damning report for ministers has concluded. More than 2,000 victims identified over the past three years are likely to represent a fraction of the total, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) will say in the first assessment of the extent of grooming, to be published next week. Despite growing concern among children's charities, one of the main findings of the inquiry is that "it is not being identified as an issue", The Times has learnt. There are also fears that the report will provoke a race row over its findings on the ethnicity of perpetrators. The results of the five-month investigation show that 20 per cent of those identified are of Asian origin. Although it concludes that child grooming cannot be associated with a particular ethnic group, meetings have been held with…

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 20 Jun 11 - 08:45 PM

Keith,

I'd love to see you answer these questions.

"And using "it happened because BP young girls are off limits to them", would you agree that implies a nationwide problem whereever there are British Pakistani's? "

and

"would you agree or disagree that a statement of this type implicates Pakistani communities throughout the UK? "

Don't you understand them or are you unable to answer them without blowing your case wide open?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 01:53 AM

A question for you first Lox.
Remember all your posts sternly telling me that no-one, especially not CeoP, regarded street grooming as a separate issue?
A five month investigation and 2000 identified child victims in just 3 years says you were totally and completely wrong and should have listened to me.
Right Lox?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:08 AM

Lox, 20% Asian men.
Asians are about 6% of pop, so that suggests over 300% over-rep.
BPs are concealed in the description "Asian"
All the cases that came to light were overwhelmingly BPs.
They are only 2% so the over-rep is potentially 1000%.
Then, 40% of perps did not have ethnicity recorded.
If as seems likely, that was omitted for the same reason investigation was omitted,(to avoid racial tension) then the over-rep is many times higher even than that.

Now this was a nation wide survey so maybe it does happen in all BP communities, and they were just more successful is suppressing reporting elsewhere.
Or maybe it is a north/south thing.
English communities are culturally distinct, which may be a factor.
Perhaps the BP communities are too.
There could be any number of factors that you and I are unaware of.

As I keep telling you, I have no opinion about the cause of the over-rep, which for 5 months you have stated was a racist lie.
You have made a complete arse of yourself.
But don't hide away like Jim.
Keep it up Lox!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:09 AM

"A question for you first Lox."
So that you can avoid answering the question you have just been asked and all the others that you have avoided throughout the course of tis thread.
You first - answer the question we have been asking for
The Ceop report has not been published yet and already you are drawing conclusions from it - a little bird in Ceop passing on information, no doubt?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:22 AM

Jim too!
Good man.
Pleas keep coming forward and making a complete are of yourself as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:36 AM

And still no answer to the questions - have they told you that the abuse is the result of 'cultural flaws' yet?
You never got round to explaining why you made the claim that you claimed you didn't make - do we have t wait for that one too?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:43 AM

Lie.
I never claimed that.
Do you really think Straw and the others got the idea from me?
Arse!
It was their idea, and I only reported it.
I explained to you many times that I had not the knowledge to either form or hold such an opinion.
Was I lying Jim?
Am I secretly an expert on BP culture?
Keep it coming Jim!
Arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:28 AM

Will confirm in 5 hours.

Question for you Jim.
How do you explain the massive over-rep, and how do you know, with such certainty, that it is not due to attitudes to women and marriage practice?
And why are those anti racist Pakistanis, racist against Pakistanis for suggesting it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:47 AM

& while about it Jim, answer please the qustn I asked you on 19 Jun 0450 re "facetiousness"? You have dodged it thus far, as Keith sez, by staying away. Come out, come out, wherever yo are. & Answer Answer, as the parliamentarians cry.

Cheers

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:54 AM

No lie Keith - you have had your own words given back to you over and over again and you have persistantly denied having said them; the two quotes are your words, nobody else's and, as with other statements you have made and later disowned, are a matter of record.
You even began to explain why you made them, and now you are back to claiming they are somebody else's.
                                                             "As I said in that post, it was just a suggestion from me."
More than a suggestion - and as you rightly point out, all your own work - or are you going to deny you wrote that one as well?
Whatever the contents of the report next week, it changes not one iota the way you have attempted to use child abuse to attack British Pakistanis as a racial group by describing them as culturally inclined to paedophelia.
Up to next week, the information you will have based your attacks on have been a handful of examples gathered randomly and used selectively
We can assume that the Ceops report has been based on properly gathered evidence which hopefully can now be used used to find the real causes of child abuse, and not the 'wannabe solutions' you have been providing us with over the last months.
Unless you can provide us with an answer as to why your 'cultural flaw' theory has not affected all of the communities sharing that culture in Britain, you have no case and you never have had.
Answer the question please.
It will be interesting to see if the Ceop report contains any reference to cultural tendencies, and if it does, what evidence it has been based on - you continue to provide none to the extent of denying your own statements.
You "keep it coming".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 05:21 AM

Jim. I have been saying since January that it is not my theory.
Even in the post you quote I point out it is just a suggestion and not mine.
They did not get it from me you fool, I got it from them.

Ceop was looking for patterns in offending, and found the over-rep which should have come as no surprise.
Like me, they will not be trying to explain it.

You forgot to tell us your explanation, and why those anti racist Pakistanis are anti Pakistani racists.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 05:53 AM

Now this was a nation wide survey so maybe it does happen in all BP communities, and they were just more successful is suppressing reporting elsewhere.
Or maybe it is a north/south thing.
English communities are culturally distinct, which may be a factor.
Perhaps the BP communities are too.
There could be any number of factors that you and I are unaware of.

Perhaps we are getting somewhere on one point at last, Keith.

With the many "unknowns" that YOU acknowledge, do YOU (not Straw or anyone else) consider a "British Pakistanis do... because... " type statement reasonable?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 06:27 AM

Confirming Guest Keith was me.

Jon, I see no reason not to believe them.
They have knowledge and experience of, or are part of, the BP community, and no-one has suggested anything else.

I believe them but am not in a position to support their views.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 07:49 AM

Well it seems you've avoided the tricky questions again Keith.

As for the report - would be be a good lad and provide the link ...

... thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 08:12 AM

I have not intentionally missed any question Lox.
Just put it up if I have.

The report is not published yet.
The Times got an advance copy.
You have to buy or find yesterday's Times.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 08:48 AM

Lox, perhaps you could remind Jim that he has ignored all questions, and you yourself did not answer my question to you this morning.
Just saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 08:54 AM

You can pay £1 and view it on Times on line.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 01:24 PM

"Jim. I have been saying since January that it is not my theory."
It becomes your opinion when you put it up as your opinion.
Take responsibility for what you posted - if you put it up because you didn't agree with it you should have said so.
In putting it up YOU have linked paedophelia with Pakistani culture - take responsibility for having done so.
It will be interesting to see if the report makes that link.
It will also be interesting to see if they have found a "massive" over-representation as you have been claiming (I make it 37 times to date)?
And it will be interesting to see if they describe the crime under discussion as overwhelmingly 'British Pakistani'.
"Lox, perhaps you could remind Jim that he has ignored all questions,"
No I certainly have not - it is you who have either refused or ignored questions put to you throughout this thread.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:03 PM

"I have not intentionally missed any question Lox."

Well then I guess it must have been an accident.

Scroll back to Jons last 3 or 4 posts and my last 2 or 3 and you'll find the question that you accidentally overlooked.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:40 PM

"It becomes your opinion when you put it up as your opinion."

I never have Jim.
It is the theory of Straw and the rest, not me.

I have answered every question.
You just choose to ignore my answers.

You have not answered,
How do you explain the massive over-rep, and how do you know, with such certainty, that it is not due to attitudes to women and marriage practice?
And why are those anti racist Pakistanis, racist against Pakistanis for suggesting it?

The report, like me, does not consider explanations.
It only refers to Asian men, not specifically Pakistanis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:56 PM

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 02:03 AM

Lox,
The idea is not mine remember.
It is the belief of two intelligent people who have spent years working with and for their large local BP communities.

I though it reasonable, and posted it here when the subject came up.
What is so wrong with that Lox?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:39 PM

: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 04:26 AM

Lord Ahmed did, and it was implicit in the others.
I have no knowledge except what I have learned from those eminent, reputable people with all their knowledge and experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:45 PM

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 02:49 PM

That BPs are massively over represented is a fact.
An explanation is required.

You are asking me to repeat what has been explained several times now.
Lox or Don would just say "Read the f*****g posts!"
(Except that they had never posted any explanations!)

BP men marry late and are not allowed intimate relationships before marriage.
Ahmed says that even after marriage sex is a problem for many BPs.

Repressed sexuality can be expected to predispose some, a minority, to deviant behaviour.
That would be true of any ethnic group.
This theory is not mine.
People on my list provided it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:48 PM

Me 25th Feb 6.49AM

"ARE YOU NOT CLAIMING THAT THE MUSLIM RELIGION INEVITABLY LEADS TO GROOMING, PIMPING?"
No.

"IF YOU ARE NOT SAYING THIS, WHAT IS YOUR POINT IN MAKING THE STATEMENTS YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY REPEATED."
I am repeating the views of people with impeccable credentials.
I have no cause to doubt their veracity.
Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 04:09 PM

mm hmm - very nice.

meanwhile, back to your answers to jons questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 05:03 PM

I answered in the very next post.
You have still not answered my question to you, and Jim has not answered mine to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 07:35 PM

""Although it concludes that child grooming cannot be associated with a particular ethnic group, meetings have been held with…""

You really need to read what you cut 'n paste Keith.

Tell me, where is the reference specifically to British Pakistanis?

The above clip from your own chosen source directly refutes your claim about them.

What part of "child grooming cannot be associated with a particular ethnic group" do you find it impossible to understand, or is it simply that your desperation to prove your point makes you blind to anything that does not support your bias?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 07:46 PM

""Do you really think Straw and the others got the idea from me?
Arse!
It was their idea, and I only reported it.""

You didn't only report it, you supported it too, edited out part of it which contradicted your view, and falsely represented it, and no matter how many lies you tell, you can't get over the fact that your posts are there for anybody to read and are regularly highlighted by Jim, Lox, and myself.

Out of respect for Joe's wishes, I won't descend to your level of ad hominem content, I'll merely thank you for confirming what we already knew about your character and attitudes.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 08:00 PM

""Added to which, the "over representation" is such that, in addition to being statistically dodgy because of the sampling method and the sample size, it is just as likely to be a case of criminal activity of a localised group of interacting gangs who are Pakistani because gangs tend to consist of just one ethnic group.

This is a concept which Keith will not even discuss, but is a valid alternative to his "cultural predilection" theory, and about ten times as likely to be true.

Don T""

You have repeatedly claimed that nobody has put up any alternative suggestion to explain what happened in a localised area of Northern England

Re-posted above is my own oft repeated answer to that.

One direct question with a yes or no answer. Is my alternative possible, YES or NO?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 08:22 PM

""Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox - PM
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:03 PM

"I have not intentionally missed any question Lox."

Well then I guess it must have been an accident.

Scroll back to Jons last 3 or 4 posts and my last 2 or 3 and you'll find the question that you accidentally overlooked.""

It is neither Lox.

He has admitted several times that he doesn't bother to read posts which contain more than two or three sentences, and also demanded that we ask no more than two questions in any one post.

If it weren't on such a serious topic it would be laughable.

1. He espouses a theory which fits his particular prejudice.
2. He presents it as gospel and will defend it to the death, while claiming that it isn't his opinion and disclaiming any responsibility for it.
3. He demands answers to his questions, but answers others' questions in true politician style, by deliberately misunderstanding them and repeating his responses as detailed in point 2.
4. He freely uses epithets descriptive of opponents, calling them whatever names he sees fit (latest favourite being "Arse"), while reacting like a Victorian maiden aunt to the use of epithets not even aimed at or descriptive of any person (i.e. read the f***king posts).
5. He ignores a moderator's request to stop the name calling because rules don't apply to him, only to the rest of us.

I've asked him a direct yes or no question, but I've little hope of seeing a sensible answer.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:13 AM

Don's first post.
I have always acknowledged that it is not just BPs.
My case is just that they are over-represented.

Don's second post.
This post is wrong.
A lie.

Don's third post.
The idea that all those cases of BPs offending was a statistical fluke and a huge, ongoing coincidence was laughable.
Back then we had many hundreds of victims.
We now have 2000 in 3 years.
The idea that it was simply that the gangs involved just happened to be BP gangs, was my case too.

The FACT is Don, that I have given my honest and considered answers to every question put to me.
If I have missed any, put them up and I promise to answer, but I do not think you will find a single one.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 03:43 AM

You continually refuse to take responsibility for your own postings .
Question - do you believe that British Pakistani culture in any way contributes to these crimes as stated here?

"There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

Who put this statement on this thread if not you, and if you don't believe it, why put it up in the terms that you have?
Nowhere have you indicated that this is a quote from elsewhere - your words entirely.
"How do you explain the massive over-rep."
To date, there is no convincing evidence of "massive over-rep" - show us where there is - that is your interpretation alone.
Your rag-bag of anecdotal and circumstantial 'evidence' and personal opinions do not in any way merit the description 'convincing' especially when they are accompanied by your claims of cultural degeneracy.
I and others have been saying this from the beginning; the fact that you have chosen to ignore it is typical of the way you have behaved on this thread.
Even Mike, who has supported you throughout this, makes no such outrageous claims of "massive" anything.
                                     WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF "MASSIVE, OR EVEN MASSIVE,MASSIVE OVER-REPRESENTATION BY BRITISH PAKISTANIS"
If next weeks release produces such evidence then we may have something to talk about, but the early reports, such as that in the Times, indicate no such claims.
Having said that, I have suggested that - and I reproduce what I have written and repeated several times over:

"We know two things for certain about them (British Pakistanis);
a. That they are four times more likely to be harassed, persecuted and assaulted, thanks to the endemic nature of racism in Britain – look it up.
b. That they are almost certainly the most impoverished of all the social groups in Britain (with one possible exception) – look it up.
The outcome of both of these facts are (a) that they have been forced to move into ghetto-like communities, largely for self-protection.
And:
(b) The places they have settled in are low-priced and run-down, with sub-standard housing and poor general amenities, in areas of high unemployment and low spending power and political influence– Thatcher's legacy to the North of England.
The politicians who created these holes and continue to allow them to exist without improvement, including ex Home Secretaries like Jack Straw, have made few attempts to change conditions for the better in these places and have only shown an interest at election times or when certain events attract wider attention and become an embarrassment"

Again, you have chosen to ignore this and claim we have not answered your question - we have - you (conveniently and typically) haven't been listening.
I certainly don't believe this to be the sole reason, I very much doubt if there is a single cause, and even if there was, I don't know of anybody who has done the work to enable them to reach a conclusion, certainly nobody here.
My suggestions go some way to explaining the different situations in the impoverished communities in the North and those more prosperous ones in the south - a fact that drives a double-decker bus through your suggestion that Pakistani culture contibutes in any way to these crimes.
Whatever the results of the survey which will be revealed next week, thanks to your landslide attacks on the British Pakistani people and their culture (five pages-worth reproduced earlier in this thread) and the despicably vindictive and dishonest way you have made them, your contribution here will in no way have added to our understanding of the situation and, as the Barnardos statement made plain, is far more likely to have added to the suffering of abused children because it has been made in total and self-confesssed ignorance, and with an agenda.
"and how do you know, with such certainty, that it is not due to attitudes to women and marriage practice?"
I don't; neither do you; neither of us are qualified to make such a judgement but it is you that has put it up as a statement, not me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:22 AM

Jim, you admit that you don't know with certainty that it is not due to attitudes to women and marriage practice, so you must accept that it might be true.
So it can not be racist then.

"Where is the evidence?"
Be honest Jim. I have put up a lot.
Would you like to see it again?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:31 AM

The full quote
"This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.
There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

It was in reply to, and in agreement with Lox who in the previous post stated "It is not a Moslem problem"

Even here I state that the information comes from " people in a position to know." and not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:45 AM

"I answered in the very next post."

Nope - you danced, or should I say stumbled around it.

"You have still not answered my question to you, and Jim has not answered mine to him."

I can't respond to a report that hasn't been published.

If yesterdays 'exclusive' times article were reliable the story would have been taken up by other newspapers today.

So you have no question to answer.

Meanwhile, do you or don't you agree that if a theory based on Pakistani culture is true then it should apply nationwide and not just in selected areas?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 06:11 AM

I would expect it be nationwide Lox, but there may be factors I am unaware of.

Why are you and Jim OBSESSED with the explanation.
The explanation is unknowable.
I can not know what it is.
There has only been one proposed, and it does seem plausible, and the proponents are certainly credible.
Even Jim says he can not be certain it is wrong.
None of us can be certain, and you can not say it is mine.

My case is just the over-rep.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 07:09 AM

"so you must accept that it might be true. So it can not be racist then."
What kind of twisted logic is that?
We have no information of any kind as to what sort of pressure the perpetrators of these crimes have experienced - and once again - why isn't every single male member of the British Pakistani population a potential paedophile - or are ALL male Pakistanis potential child molesters and if not, why not?
An the answer to my question?
Do you stand by the statement put forward by you that British Pakistani culture in any way contributes to these crimes as stated here?
"There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
And a response to the rest of my posting - do we put them on the shelf along with all the other ignored unanswered questions.
I take it that it goes without saying that you don't withdraw your accusation that nobody has come up with a reply to your statements.
"The explanation is unknowable."
Then why have you made statements implicationg Pakistani culture as a whole if you don't know the answer to one of the most obvious contradictions to your conclusions?
"Be honest Jim. I have put up a lot."
You be honest - you have put up nothing but anecdotally reported incidents and the opinions of a number of people who have in no way qualified those opinions, and you have used those to mount an attack on the British Pakistani community as a whole.
"Why are you and Jim OBSESSED with the explanation."
Because it totally contradicts your case of this being culturally connected. If you don't know the answer you have no grounds for even suggesting that this is a "British Pakistani" problem, let alone that it in any way connected to the culture.
"My case is just the over-rep."
No it isn't; your case from the beginning is that the male Pakistani population in Britain are all potential child rapists because of their culture.
You or anybody have yet to prove the over-rep - not forgetting the "massive and the massive, massive over-rep".
If evidence is given for such next week it will have been gathered responsibly and does not come as part of a not-very-well-hidden agenda.
And now - your answer please - to believe or not to believe?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 07:26 AM

Again Keith you spectacularly miss the point.

Are Pakistanis overrepresented, or are they only overrepresented in a select area.

If Pakistanis are overrepresented in this crime then that should be apparent everywhere.

But they aren't - its only in areas where Pakistani organized crime is prevalent that ... er ... pakistanis are prevalent in organized crime ...

Is that your case?

If you narrow down the analysis to areas where Pakistanis are overrepresented then you find that they are ... er ... overrepresented?

Its not a very enlightening or revealing case ...

In my home, little girls are overrepresented in not going to bed on time ... but then I don't have a son, only a daughter ... so my "case" is true ... but utterly meaningless.


As is yours.

Thats because it isn't a case - it is a supporting argument in favour of Jack Straws comments and an integral part of a racial hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 08:23 AM

Lox, I only claimed an over rep in a large, specified area of England.
Many other intelligent and reputable national figures have done the same.
I have supplied a very large amount of evidence for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 08:32 AM

Jim, you said you are not certain it is false.
I am not certain it is true.
That makes us close to agreeing.

I keep telling you that I am NOT postulating paedophilia.
Why do you keep on about it?

"Then why have you made statements implicationg Pakistani culture as a whole "
I have not Jim.

My case is just an over-rep.
I will drop the "massive" if it brings us into agreement.

You may find the odd ambiguous statement, but there are enough unequivocal pronouncements by me that it is not my theory.
I AM TELLING YOU IT IS NOT MINE!
How can I make it clearer boys?
I am not lying when I tell you I do not know enough about the culture.
Are you suggesting I am secretly an expert?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 08:38 AM

Jim, why do you think you can tell me what my case is?
I am telling you, my case is just the over-rep.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 10:37 AM

Confirming ident.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:00 AM

""I am not lying when I tell you I do not know enough about the culture.""

We know you aren't lying as to your ignorance of the culture, but we also know that you ARE lying when you claim not to have
1. Laid the responsibility for grooming of underage girls (Paedophilia, by definition) squarely and solely at the door of the British Pakistani Community, whom you have insistently dehumanised by use of the term BPs.
2. Blamed the Pakistani culture for those crimes.

The evidence is there in black and white for any objective observer to decide exactly where your agenda lies.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:17 AM

""The idea that all those cases of BPs offending was a statistical fluke and a huge, ongoing coincidence was laughable.
Back then we had many hundreds of victims.
We now have 2000 in 3 years.
The idea that it was simply that the gangs involved just happened to be BP gangs, was my case too.""

Another disingenuous response from our resident wriggler.

The original hundreds (according to you) of victims are what we are discussing here. They are the small number of localised cases known to be the responsibility of Pakistani gangs.

Those new figures, which you so blithely use to bolster your distorted view, have not yet adduced a shred of evidence to suggest a large, let alone disproportionate, involvement of any particular ethnic grouping.

Knowing that, I would like a response to my question:-

Is my suggested alternative possible, YES, or NO?

I am entirely uninterested in whether you choose to believe it, just answer honestly, for the first time on this thread, the question you were asked.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:31 AM

1. Laid the responsibility for grooming of underage girls (Paedophilia, by definition) (NO IT IS NOT) squarely and solely at the door of the British Pakistani Community (LIE), whom you have insistently dehumanised by use of the term BPs(ABREVIATIONS DO NOT DEHUMANISE KA).
2. Blamed the Pakistani culture for those crimes.(I HAVE NOT. OTHERS HAVE)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:33 AM

Your question.
"They are the small number of localised cases known to be the responsibility of Pakistani gangs."

If you change small to large, yes I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:27 PM

"overrepresented?"
WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE F OVER-REPRESENTATION AT THE PREENT TIME AND THERE WAS CERTAINLY O RELIABLE EVIDENCE WHEN YOU BEGAIN TO MAKEYOUIR PRONOUNCEMENTS OF "MASSIVE OVER-REPRESENTATION"
"Why do you keep on about it?
"
Because you've said it, I and others have proved you've said it by reproducing it over and over again, and you have not the bottle either to acknowledge it - you are openly lying about what you have written on this thread.
"That makes us close to agreeing."
Stop being crass.
"Jim, why do you think you can tell me what my case is?"
You've made your case clear - we are repeating what you have written.
"I will drop the "massive" if it brings us into agreement."
A little late don't you think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:43 PM

"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."
Did somebody else write this Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 02:36 PM

I wrote that Jim.
I keep telling you that I believe them.
I believe them because of who they are.
I just do not care if you or anyone else believes them.

My case is just the over-rep.

I believe Hawkins about black holes, but his theory has nothing to do with me either.
Do you hold me responsible for black hole theory?
I do not care if you or anyone else believes in black holes.
I can not support or defend the theory.
I believe Hawkins because of who he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 02:44 PM

Reminding you of the over-rep evidence so far Jim.


All the victims who went to their MPs, Straw and Cryer.
All abused by BPs.
All the victims of those convicted in the 17 cases in the Dando report.
95% BPs.
All the hundreds of Sikh and Hindu girls who went to their own support groups .
All abused by BPs.
Barnados.
They said that ethnic groups were "over-represented"
They said there was an issue of "ethnicity" in high profile (many victim) cases.
All the 400 seen by Wilmer.
All stated that BPs were their abusers.
All the victims seen by Bindel.
The same.
All the victims in the German report.
All the same.
The victims who recorded their statements.
All the same.
All the victims in the three current court cases aginst BP gangs.
Whether the BP gangs are convicted or not, the victims all accuse them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 03:43 PM

"I keep telling you that I believe them."
Then you have been lying about not saying it about not saying it - that's that one cleared up.
You believe who; which 'expert' has claimed a "culturally implanted tendency", David Irving? Can we have the quotes please?
"evidence so far Jim."
As I said - anecdotal, circumstantial and unqualified opinions which give us no clear idea of what percentage of Pakistanis from a population of 1.2 million are involved - mainly a British Pakistani crime my arse,.
Only you have talked about it being "massive" or even, "massive - massive" - at least forty times - your description alone.
The Barnardo report does not make a claim of "over-representataion," but as well as saying that concentration on race could possibly further put further victims at risk, they have also said; "decent Pakistani men will now be looked at as potential child abusers", and "This is not just about Pakistani men, and not just about Asian men. And it is happening all over the country."
The CEOPs report will possibly throw some light on the real situation next week, but up to now you have distorted and faked non-evidence to make your point that Pakistanis are cultural paedophiles -                  
          YOU HAVE MADE IT UP FROM ISOLATED CASES IN MAINLY ONE PART OF THE COUNTRY - IT IS ALL YOUR OWN WORK - YOU SHOULD BE VERY PROUD.
Is that what they call "creative writing"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 03:53 PM

I believe them and Hawkins, but I am not making their case.
It is not my case.
I don't care if you believe them or not.

"You believe who; which 'expert' has claimed a "culturally implanted tendency"

Straw said they do it because their own girls are off limits.
Cryer said the same, adding that only young girls can be deceived into believing a proper relationship is on offer.
Shafiq said they do it because of the low esteem held for females.
Ahmed said they do it because their arranged cousin marriages are often unfulfilling.
Allibhai-Brown endorsed all the above.
I believe them because of who they are, but I am not making a case of it.
It is irrelevant to me if you believe them or not.
I am just making a case for an over-rep.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:20 PM

"Straw said they do it because their own girls are off limits....."
Which is a thousand miles from saying that "I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"
Can you please give us the quote where Jack Straw said anything like this?
You are once again openly claiming that all British Pakistanis have a cultural inclination towards paedophelia:
"and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."
which they have to suppress.
Isn't it time we sent them all back to where they came from - they are obviously a danger to our children - not to mention taking our jobs and houses!!
As I said - anecdotal evidence.
Keith Vaz was "the first Asian Member of Parliament since the 1920s and remains the longest standing Asian Member of Parliament
Other positions currently held include as an elected member of the National Executive Committee and as the Vice-Chair of Women, Race and Equality Committee of the Labour Party. He has held both of these positions since March 2007. Since 2000, he has been a patron of the Labour Party Race Action Group and in 2006 he was appointed the Chairman of the Ethnic Minority Taskforce."
He was one of the many Asians and non- Asians to protest strongly against Straws statement.
As an Asian who has worked officially on the race question in parliament.
Why is his word any less acceptable than Straw's on the question of race unless it is because Straw's 'sort of' fits your own agenda?
Are we now to believe that you are admitting to claiming a "cultural tendency" and that you have been telling porkies when you said you hadn't?
Just like to know which particular twist in the road we have arrived at!!
"culturally implanted tendency".
Now once again - who has made such a claim - certainly not Jack Straw - remember the poor "testosterone driven young men" you cut out of his statement.
And why do you continue to use Barnardos as a witness when they have said exactly the opposite to what you have now admiitted you are claiming.
Also, why are you still making a 'race' case of it and putting the safety of the children they are trying to protect in danger to make your racial stereotyping case - have you no pity for them - are they not "expert" enough experts for you to listen to their advice?
As I said racial stereotyping bollocks.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 01:29 AM

Jim I am sure that huge numbers of BPs are perfectly balanced and normal people.
Probably most of them. The great majority probably.
I have no way of knowing either way, and certainly do not want to make a case about it.
I don't care what you think of the opinions of Straw and or anyone else.

Narey said what he said.He used the expression "over-representation" and he or another official referred to the racial issue in high profile cases.

Keith Vaz spoke against Straw but did not refute an over-representation.

The rest of the evidence all good?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 02:44 AM

The full post selectively quoted by Jim.

: 13 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM

Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things.

Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb.

Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 04:21 AM

The review found agencies were ill-prepared for the scale and complexity of the abuse exposed by the police investigation. It also found issues of culture, ethnicity and identity were a feature in both the victims, who were mostly white, and the perpetrators, who were of Asian heritage, and called for national discussion on this issue.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/25/care-agencies-missed-chances-abuse-victims

Internal trafficking of white girls among Pakistani men, mostly in the North of England, is not a new phenomenon. There have been a string of other grooming trials. It is a sad reflection on the impact of political correctness that it is so difficult to talk about the obvious ethnic and cultural links between these crimes. However if we continue to ask the important questions in a spirit of honesty and integrity, we may be able to reach the heart of the matter soon.
http://www.honourmission.net/tag/internal-trafficking/

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 05:44 AM

"Probably most of them. The great majority probably."
That's "massivly" kind of you to say that Keith -I'm sure the Pakistani population are extremely grateful to have received your approval!
You have described every single Pakistani as a potential paeodophile after strenuously denying having done so and calling those who pointed it out to you "liars".
You have moved on from argument to propaganda in order to paint ALL Pakistani males as potential sexual perverts.
I have been told by the adjudicator not to put words to my opinion of what I believe you to be, so I won't, but rather than persuading me otherwise, my opinion of you remains as it was.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 06:00 AM

"in order to paint ALL Pakistani males as potential sexual perverts"

But I have not done this Jim.
I just reported others who have blamed it on culture.
I don't know Jim.

I keep telling you I know nothing about the culture, and you keep ignoring it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 06:08 AM

A serious case review, quoted without comment in the Guardian.

"It also found issues of culture, ethnicity and identity were a feature in both the victims, who were mostly white, and the perpetrators, who were of Asian heritage,"

Racist Jim?
They say it.
I just report it.
How does that make me racist?

You are again using that smear instead of any argument, because you have none.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 07:29 AM

"But I have not done this Jim."
Yes you have and you continue to do so.
This latest turn is sheer patronising and deeply insulting garbage aime at Pakistanis.
Thanks for clarifying your position.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 07:34 AM

None of it comes from me.
I just report it, as does, Guardian, BBC etc.
I am no more racist than they are.

I do not know anything about their culture.
Just what is reported.
Was The Guardian racist and wrong to report that last piece Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 04:18 PM

No Keith - No Keith - your posting, your words, your opinions = your responsibility.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you are not a radio or television station or a newspaper, you are someone taking part in a debate and passing on YOUR opinions.
I have asked you to provide to your source for the creepy phrase "cultural implant" and the nearest I got was "cochlear implant" coincidentally from Pakistan.
If they are not you, perhaps you might supply direct sources for "cultural implant" or massive over-representation.
The phrase CI, along with all its racial implications, (which could have come straight from Nineteen-Eighty-Four or The Manchurian Candidate), along with "massive (or massive, massive) over-reprentation, is entirely your own work expressing all your own opinions - 'be a man, my son, face up to your responsibility.'
"Was The Guardian racist and wrong to report that last piece Jim?"
Nope - the Guardian is a newspaper delivering the news in a balanced, responsible way, sadly lacking in your postings - I used to be a regular reader.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 05:35 PM

Jim,
"you are someone taking part in a debate and passing on YOUR opinions."

No Jim. I am someone in a debate passing on the opinions of better informed people.

Jim"I have asked you to provide to your source for the creepy phrase "cultural implant" "

It was coined by Don T.
That is why it was in quotes Jim.

And you always cut my sentence in half Jim.
The second half was, "but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."

It was not my theory Jim.
I know nothing about BP culture or black holes.
If I am discussing either I will draw on the opinions of experts.

You yourself have said you are not certain the theory is wrong.
You say it is not racist for The Guardian to report it.
But if I quote The Guardian, or a famously anti racist BP, I am racist?

I am not racist, I am just making a case you can not answer.

Your accusations are just vindictive and nasty, because I have shown you to be an ignorant fool.
In a few days Ceop will confirm that Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 11 - 05:39 PM

The massive over-representation IS my theory, based on the overwhelming mass of evidence that I have presented.

I have no opinion on why.
Others have.

Subject: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,John Orford
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 12:03 AM

Google found 435 returns for "cultural implant". Not exactly loud applause. The whole effect of this exchange is sad - it seems English people can no longer live with their neighbours. Many confuse local culture with the teachings of Islam. The Quran teaches that women are equal with men, though not identical. So some Muslims forget this? True; some Christians forget "love thy neighbour" too. Presumably the atheists have no guidance except themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 01:55 AM

John,
"it seems English people can no longer live with their neighbours."

This issue shows that the exact opposite is true.

Britain has welcomed in millions and has become an extraordinarily mult-ethnic and multi-cultural nation.
It is probably the most tolerant nation on Earth.

It is in fact misguided tolerance that has allowed this crime to continue unreported and uninvestigated for so many years.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 02:57 AM

Speaking of tolerance, I should not have called Jim an ignorant fool.
He is neither.
He is vindictive however, and my outburst was born of weariness and frustration with having to constantly refute his groundless jibes of racism.
But what else can he say?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 03:21 AM

BBC TV last night.

Children's Minister, Tim Loughton, claims that "closed communities" have sometimes hampered investigations into child sexual exploitation.

Mr Loughton made the comments in an interview for the BBC Politics Show in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, which has been investigating claims that girls as young as 12 have been targeted by organised gangs.

Tim Loughton told me: "In many cases we are dealing with some closed communities. Closed in terms of things being able to go on under the radar and away from the public glare."

Children's Minister Mr Loughton acknowledged that child grooming was not a problem exclusively associated with one particular community, but added: "I think that political correctness and racial sensitivities have in the past been an issue.

"I want to send out a message loud and clear that although we have to be aware of certain characteristics of various ethnic communities and be sensitive as to how we deal with them, a BME (Black Minority Ethnic) tag is not an excuse for us not to investigate vigorously any abuse that may be going on."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13879584

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 01:45 PM

Nowhere does this MP mention over-representation or cultural deformity - that remains your analysis.
A reminder of your own stated position in your own words
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 02:33 PM

""It was coined by Don T.
That is why it was in quotes Jim.""

That is an out and out LIE!

You coined the phrase after my taking issue with your misquote of Jack Straw's statement, and I took issue with it because you were referring somewhat indiscriminately to "BPs, Muslims, etc.

Your initial statement re "a cultural, not religious or racial tendency" has been quoted several times.

Incidentally, all of this went considerably further than any of your so-called sources did in attributing this to the Pakistani culture, so I am at a loss to understand how you can ask anybody to accept your alibi that you merely report others' words.

The fact is that you hooked yourself on a biased theory and have spent several months wriggling vainly to get of that hook.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 04:43 PM

Don, I never lie.
That phrase "culturally implanted" first appeared in your post of 12 Feb 11 - 07:52 PM

Jim, as I said, I only believed that because it was being stated by people who know far more about it than we do.
Not my idea.
Not an idea I could ever have come up with.
My case was just the over-rep.

"Nowhere does this MP mention over-representation"
No, but why was he making a statement at all Jim?
What was the point of it Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 04:54 PM

I can not make the link work.
Hit the "google search" button on this link please.
It is dated 2008 and gives a breakdown of which groups are over-represented in which areas, for this crime.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-545289/Muslim-leader-accuses-police-cautious-stopping-Asian-gangs-pimping-white-girls.ht
His comments come as Professor David Barrett of University of Bedfordshire also raised deep concerns about the issue in the BBC1 programme.
He claimed evidence suggested that those operating the practice were "absolutely" likely to get away with it.
The programme will controversially reveal the ethnic pattern of the crime which is largely Asian in northern England, Afro-Caribbean in the West Midlands and elsewhere white, Turkish and Kurdish.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-545289/Muslim-leader-accuses-police-cautious-stopping-Asian-gangs-pimping-white-girls.html#ixzz1QEGBkQhF

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 05:24 PM

"No, but why was he making a statement at all Jim?"
He (who has previously claimed immigration is too high) actually said "we have to be aware of certain characteristics of various ethnic communities"
He (unlike you) doesn't state which ethnic communities, nor does he (unlike you) attempt in any way to link it with culture.
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb"
We have suggested that the reason for such crimes may be linked to the social and economic conditions of these communities - nowhere does your example contradict this.
YOU HAVE YET TO TELL US WHICH knowledgeable people have suggested a culturally implanted tendency - can you please do so now This is a statemeny you have said you believe? - nobody else has made such a racist statement - if they have, can you plese tell us who?
Yes you do lie - you have been claiming throughout that you never suggested that the Pakistani culture links them to paedophelia - your statement here proves that you have lied - it is your statement - nobody else to hide behind.
Your final example suggests Asian- Afro Carribean Kurdish Turkish.... - you have targeted Pakistanis.
This is racist stereotyping.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 03:02 AM

"Yes you do lie - you have been claiming throughout that you never suggested that the Pakistani culture links them to paedophilia"
I do not lie.
Your statement IS a lie.
I have stated repeatedly, since January, that I do not regard paedophilia as an issue in this.

Jim, if I say I do not have knowledge of their culture to form an opinion about it, who are you to challenge me on it.
I know better than you I think!

"YOU HAVE YET TO TELL US WHICH knowledgeable people have suggested a culturally implanted tendency"

Yes I have Jim.
I have listed people who say this behaviour comes from aspects of the culture.
Then I did make an assumption that the whole community is exposed to that culture.
If that is wrong Jim, I will withdraw that bit.
Is it wrong Jim?
Are some not aware that their own girls are off limits?
Are some not aware of the marriage practices and of the family and community pressure to abide by them?

If, as the listed people state, culture is an issue, will it not be an issue for everyone in that culture.
If you can show that to be wrong, I will reconsider.
You said that you are not sure it is wrong remember.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 03:09 AM

"Your final example suggests Asian- Afro Carribean Kurdish Turkish.... - you have targeted Pakistanis.
This is racist stereotyping. "

Asians includes (conceals?) BPs.
That piece was the first I have found linking other groups in other regions.

It was made by the Panorama programme, the oldest current affairs programme in the world and the flagship of BBC investigative journalism.

Should we not consider their findings Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:15 AM

OH NO!
You have done it AGAIN Jim.
Turned this into a discussion about me not the issues.
STOP!

I say there is an over-rep in specified area for this crime.
Why do you think there is not?

I do not have an opinion on why.
That is a FACT and not up for discussion.

The listed people linked the offending with aspects of culture.
You and Lox and Don said that is an attack on whole community.
If it is, it comes from listed people not me.
I do not link offending with culture, because I lack the knowledge.
That is a FACT and not up for discussion.

Tell us your opinion on the over-rep idea, and on the listed people.
Not on me please.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 06:47 AM

"Turned this into a discussion about me not the issues."
No; I am discussing what you have said which is In your own words "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" smearing every singly Pakistani in Britain
"I say there is an over-rep in specified area for this crime."
No - you say there is a "massive" or even "massive - massive" over-reprentation. Even if it were to be proven, which it hasn't to date, this is a deliberate and calculated "over-representation" on your part, again to smear the Pakisani people.
"You and Lox and Don said that is an attack on whole community."
It is - when you have written ALL as you have.
"You said that you are not sure it is wrong remember. "
No I didn't - you have proposeed a hypothesis which I have always rejected as racist - it is up to you to prove it is true, otherwise we could all go around claiming the moon is made of cheese - where is the evidence for your claim (and now you will scurry behind experts).
As you say - the over - rep is an "idea" - I don't accept it until it is proven, which it might be, but until it is WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE.
As many experts as you can produce there are far mor who reject the idea as racial stereotyping.
You continue to refuse to produce evidence for your "ALL" and yiour "MASSIVE"
AND YOU EVEN CLAIM YOU DON'T TELL LIES AFTER IT HAS BEEN PROVED WITH YOUR OWN WORDS THAT YOU DO
As the song says
It's a lie, it's a lie,
It's a lie, lie, a lie.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 07:16 AM

"and how do you know, with such certainty, that it is not due to attitudes to women and marriage practice?"
I don't;

That was your answer Jim.

I have only accepted what has been said on the culture thing.
THEY linked it to culture.
YOU say that accuses the whole community.
I am not involved.

If and when the over-rep is proved true I am vindicated.
You have denied it from the start, and accused me of racism for believing in it.
You will be proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 09:13 AM

You have failed to explain where the Pakistani implant statement came from
You have failed to explain why such a statement is not racist stereotyping
You have failed to explain where the "massive (and massive-massive) over-representation came from.
You have failed to explain why pointing these and other anomolies in your behaviour to you is lying
You have failed to explain why you have not been lying throughout this thread by disowning something that you have written, when it has been brought in front of us all.
You have failed to explain why editing texts to make your case is not racist manipulation
You are now trying to create a diversion by claiming something I have not said and I do not believe
You are, as Don has pointed out, attempting to wriggle off a hook your of your own making that yur own statements have put you on
You are now desperately clinging to the hope that next week's report might substantiate your case that Pakistainis are massively over-represented in these crimes, that every Pakistani male is a potential paedophile due to his culture, which, in some way their culture has made them do it (despite the fact that this flaw does not seem to affected Pakistanis in other parts of the country - which you have also failed to explain) - let's see, shall we??.
All a bit of a mess really!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 11:57 AM

"You have failed to explain where the Pakistani implant statement came from"

Don made it up.
The 3 of you said that any cultural explanation meant that.
I reported such an explanation, but it was not mine.

If it is "racial stereotyping" I am glad I did not say it.

"You have failed to explain where the "massive (and massive-massive) over-representation came from."
Not true.
I have given loads of evidence, chapter and verse.

"You have failed to explain why pointing these and other anomolies in your behaviour to you is lying"
You said I accused BPs of paedophilia.
That was and is a lie.
I never did, and don't.

"lying throughout this thread by disowning something that you have written,"
I stand by all my posts.

"You have failed to explain why editing texts to make your case is not racist manipulation"
Dishonest Jim.
I left out something that was not in dispute.
I had quoted THAT ACTUAL PASSAGE both before and after that incident.

"You are now trying to create a diversion by claiming something I have not said and I do not believe"
I quoted you verbatim Jim.
Here it is again,
"and how do you know, with such certainty, that it is not due to attitudes to women and marriage practice?"
I don't;

"You are now desperately clinging to the hope that next week's report might substantiate your case that Pakistainis are massively over-represented in these crimes (QUITE CONFIDENT), that every Pakistani male is a potential paedophile due to his culture,(NEVER CLAIMED OR BELIEVED BY ME) which, in some way their culture has made them do it (THAT CAME FROM EXPERTS)(despite the fact that this flaw does not seem to affected Pakistanis in other parts of the country - which you have also failed to explain (I CAN NOT)) - let's see, shall we??.(LOOKING FORWARD TO IT JIM!)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 02:02 PM

"Don made it up."
What Don said exactly was:
"However small the number of those who succumb to the temptation, and however slight that tendency may be, it does not alter the fact that you believe that all male Pakstani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency toward paedophile rape."
You confirmed his statement with:
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb"
He summed up your attitude to British Pakistanis - you confirmed that was the case = you hold racist views - full stop.
"If it is "racial stereotyping" I am glad I did not say it."
He put it as a hypothesis - you confirmed = it is your view of British Pakistanis - full stop.
"I have given loads of evidence, chapter and verse."
You must now to have used the term "massive over-representation around 50 times. Whenever you have been asked to produce a ource of the statement you have cringed behind the excuse that it is not your statement but qualified "experts".
Nobody has claimed there to be 'massive over-representation' - that is your statement and yours alone = unless yo can produce an expert who has claimed there to be "massive" (or even "massive, massive") over-representation, you have made another racist statement = you are guilty of deliberate exaggeration to make a racially stereotypical point - feel free to show this is not th case.
"You said I accused BPs of paedophilia."
You are lying - I said you have represented ALL BRITISH PAKISTANIS AS POTENTIAL PAEDOPHILES which is, in fact worse - you can recognise a paedophile by his behaviour, a potential paedophile remains a hidden threat until he "succumbs" to his "cultural" perversions (the quotation marks are deliberate - they indicate your openly expressed opinion).
The fact thatyou continue to distort and lie about what I and others have said only serves to confirm me in my views that not only have you no honest argument, but you know you have none and continue to mainipulate as you have from the beginning.
"I quoted you verbatim Jim."
We have asked you to explain why, if Pakistanis are culturally inclined to paedophelia, the "massive, massive" over- representation and that the crime is overwhelmingly a "Pakistani" one is not found throught Britain; you say you "don't know", yet persist with your argument; why?
I have always believed such generalisations to be racial stereotyping - if the forthcoming report is based on nationwide research involving Pakistani communities throughout Britain and it comes up with your "cultral" explanation it will provide food for thougth, but until then, my opinion will remain the same as it has always been. Whenever you have been asked to produce proof you have cowered behind experts, not bothering to explain their expertese and not even acknowledging that there ar just as expert "experts" who find these conclusions not only wrong but racially offensive.
Your 'evidence' from 'experts' has been carefully selected and sifted to fit your own preconceptions, and even then yo have felt necessary to remove vital contradictions, such as:
"Straw added: "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."
"NEVER CLAIMED OR BELIEVED BY ME"
And you continue to lie when the evidence:
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb".
That is what you said - if it doesn't mean that every Pakistani male is a potential paedophile due to his culture - what else can it possibly mean
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 02:23 PM

Jim, I said,
"but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people"
That is the only reason. I believe them.
According to you three that accuses the whole community.
OK, but it is not me doing the accusing.
It is those who say culture is responsible.
And that is not me Jim.
I state this as fact.
I DO NOT HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT IT.
FACT.
NO DEBATE.

Jim, " I said you have represented ALL BRITISH PAKISTANIS AS POTENTIAL PAEDOPHILES"
You did and it is a Jim lie.
Say it again and I will put up the proof of your nasty lie.

Enough about me now Jim.
Back to the debate.
I say there is a massive over-rep and have provided lots of evidence.
You say there is not but do not say how you know this.
Will you please tell us so we can discuss it.

Please do not ask me about why there is an over-rep. as you know I have no opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Jun 11 - 04:03 PM

Jim, "Say it again and I will put up the proof of your nasty lie."
Please do - from your protestations it should be very easy to show me why:
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency....." does not implicate every male Pakistani in Britain.
Of course it does, you stupid, stupid man - if a person is culturally inclined to something then it is possible he will "succumb" to it; YOUR OWN WORDS:
"only a tiny minority succumb", which makes tham all untrustworthy where underage young women are concerned; THAT IS THE DIRECT INFERENCE OF WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN
"but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people"
Why is their knowledge any more knowledgeable than all the other 'knowledgeable' people who have objected strongly (Keith Vaz for instance, who has is an Asian who has served on committees specificaly dealing with the problem,unlike Straw, whose job it was as Home Secretary to listen to what they had to say.
You have used the fact that some of your 'expers' originated from the communities; why not Vaz, or all those community leaders living and working in the communities?
Can you specify what your experts have put forward to convince you of their superior knowledge - other than the statement its in with your own opinions?
"It is those who say culture is responsible."
You say the culture is responsible - in black and white
I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency....."
isn't that what you wrote, does that not say that you believe all male Pakistanis have a tendency towards paedophelia, have I suddenly developed dyslexia, did somebodty else write it, are you a victim of your own behaviour of sending false postings under a different identy - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW "ALL" DOES NOT IMPLICATE EVERY BRITISH PAKISTANI.
We have questioned your analysis of information coming from mainly outsiders - Straw's statement gave deep offence to the communities concerned because it generalised the behaviour of the whole culture, but even then he drew back from making it racial stereotyping with his "testosterone" and "white paedophiles" qualification which you carefully removed.
Stop lying - I have carefully taken everything I have said in since you went running to the adjudicator from your own statements - show me where I have not.
"I say there is a massive over-rep"
And I say there is not - certainly not from the miniscule number of examples from a population of 1.2 million.
"You say there is not but do not say how you know this."
I have said from te beginning that the randomly collected anecdotal and circumstantial rag-bag of gatherings that you have dredged up, and certainly the unqualified opinions does not constitute evidence.
Let's see if next week's report claims that all British Pakistanis are culturally inclined to paedophelia as you are claiming, making them a risk to all underage women within their reach, or that he findings come up with a "massive" or "masive-massive" over-representation
You have still no answered any of my requests for clarification - please do so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 02:44 AM

Jim,
It was you three who said that to blame culture was to accuse ALL.
I was agreeing with you, perhaps going too far to find common ground.
Others, not me, stated that culture was to blame, thus accusing all according to you..
I accepted what they said only because of their knowledge, stature and eminence.
It did not, and could not come from me.
Anyway, I am telling you that I do not have an opinion on this.
End of discussion.

Please quote Vaz or anyone denying an over-rep or a cultural explanation.

Instead of debating, you just try to present me as a racist.
I have asked you to stop.
MtheGM has asked you to stop.
Joe has asked you to stop and removed your posts.

You just carry on obsessively.

Enough about me.
The over-rep. How do you know it is false?

We are about to find out anyway.
The report will not be saying why any group is over-represented, just establishing the pattern of offending.

"anecdotal and circumstantial rag-bag of gatherings"
Wilmer? Bindel? Allidhai-Brown?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 04:12 AM

"I was agreeing with you, perhaps going too far to find common ground."
WHAT!!!! Utter bloody nonsense.
You have accused ALL (not some, not a few... ALL) Pakistanis of having a "genetic implant"; we responded to what YOU said, not the other way round. It is your opinion and it is racist stereotyping which involves the whole culture and would put them all under suspicion if it were to be taken seriously - it is a small-minded, nasty attack on an ethnic group who have enough to put up with without all this shit.
"Please quote Vaz or anyone denying an over-rep or a cultural explanation."
Why - you don't take notice of what people say unless it fits your own preconceptions - you show me who has suggested MASSIVE over-representation - that is your opinion and yours alone (on this thread anyway - easy enough to find in racist literature.)
"Instead of debating,"
You have had your debate from everybody (the majority) who has opposed you on this thread and you've ignored the points made, then accused people of not making any - now you are whining about being described as racist - THE POINTS HAVE BEEN MADE - READ THEM AND ADDRESS THEM INSTEAD OF SKULKING BEHIND CAREFULLY SELECTED (And misquoted) EXPERTS.
There is nothing more cowardly than defending arguments with "It must be true - somebody told me" - which is the whole basis of your defence of your misrepresentations and gross overstatements.
Explain how your "ALL PAKISTANIS" is not a racist statement.
"Enough about me."
Once again - it's not about you; a perfect example of how you totally ignore what people have said.
"The report will not be saying why any group is over-represented"
You mean they will not be claiming a "genetic implant" and you will be alone in your wisdom - again?
Can you predict whether they will be giving us a "massive" over-representation
This is becoming pathetic - again - answer some questions instead of trying to wriggle off your hook.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 04:52 AM

I have expressed my own opinion on the over-rep,citing copious objective evidence in support.

Evidence for a cultural cause can only be subjective.
I have accepted the subjective evidence of eminent people with knowledge and experience.
I have no subjective experience of my own to call on.
I can not and do not hold an opinion on that, however much hysterical shrieking you throw at me.
Sorry, but what else can be said on it Jim?

You are not certain yourself remember.
"How do you know with such certainty....."
"I don't;"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 06:47 AM

"Sorry, but what else can be said on it Jim?"
Nothing, until you start to listen what others have to say, I've been surfing through past postings and the number of people who have said this to you nearly, (but not quite) outnumbers the number of time you have crawled behind the words of others to avoid taking responsibility for your own statements.
Until you do you remain a sad induividual who appears to have no existance other than the self-important image you appear to have constructed at the keyboard.
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jun 11 - 07:04 AM

Another JimPost.
Not one word about any issue under discussion.
The whole post is about me, and nothing else.
You are a sad, obsessed man Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 03:17 PM

""I do not link offending with culture, because I lack the knowledge.
That is a FACT and not up for discussion.""

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

""I do now believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency.....""

One of these statements is true, and the other is a LIE!!, and it doesn't even matter which is which.

You made BOTH statements.

You later stated ""I DO NOT LIE!

You give the most convincing imitation of a liar in the history of the English language.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 04:56 PM

Don, you cut my sentence in half.
That is so deceitful it is tantamount to a lie.

""Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb".

It was you, Don, who claimed that blaming culture was to accuse all.
I went along with you because it could not apply to me.
I did not blame culture.
Others did.

So all those anti-racist Pakistanis are really anti-Pakistani racists according to you, but it still has nothing to do with me.
I am telling you, I have no opinion on the cultural cause.
No-one can dispute that.
End of discussion.

It is amusing that you think I might really be an expert on BP culture, and just lying about my ignorance!

You are becoming as deranged as Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 05:06 PM

Don, that post you and Jim keep quoting was made way back in frosty February.
On the 13th.
Out of the hundreds of my posts you have to seize on one because it looks bad if you edit out the crucial part.
On the 11th of Feb I posted this.
"I suspect, based on the testimony of knowledgeable people, that there is a cultural explanation."

On 14th Feb I said,
"Lox, how can you claim I am making a racial hypothesis?
I am not making it, and it is about a culture within a racial group."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jun 11 - 05:10 PM

Enough about me Don.

Have you reconsidered the reality of the over-rep based on the copious evidence I have provided?
How massive do you think it might be?
On what do you base your opinion Don?
Lox?
Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 03:12 AM

Don, challenged to discuss the issues instead of just trying to smear me, you suddenly have nothing to say.
Just like Jim.

I would really like to know how you are certain that the over-rep is not linked to negative attitudes to females and repressive marriage practices.
Even Jim is not certain, but he brands me a racist for just accepting that it might be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 04:29 AM

"you suddenly have nothing to say."
There really is no point Keith.
Whenever you are challenged you refuse to take responsibility for your statements and blame them on somebody else.
Your statements are racist because it is racist to depict "all male Pakistani Muslims" as having "a culturally implanted tendency".
Wheoever else may have said this (the fascist press is full of such statements)| - you have said it here, it is your opinion, it is racial stereotyping of the Pakistani Muslim culture, it is a racist opininion supported by you.
Whoever puts forward such a statement without providing proof to back it up (that all male British Pakistanis are culturally inclined towards paedophelia), without knowledge (as you have freely admitted) and without proof (which you have not provided) is guilty of making a racist statement.
Generalising on a whole community's culture in this way is extremely dangerous and has led to the discrimination, persecution and even death - again - ask the parents of Stephen Lawrence if you doubt it.
"suddenly have nothing to say."
I suggest you count the number of people who have participated in this thread, have argued with you and now have "nothing to say", not because you have won your argument but because you do not listen to others - something that has been obvious on every thread I have been involved with you on, and a constant complaint of other participants.
Prove your point (that all male British Pakistanis are culturally inclined towards paedophelia), not with the argument that it must be true because such-and-such-a-person said it, but with facts you have gathered and with knowledge of your own.
For every 'expert' who has supported the idea in the examples you have provided, there are hundreds with on-the-spot experence and a claim to 'expertise' who have objected to it as 'racist'.
NOW TELL US WHY YOU BELIEVE IT.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 05:20 AM

I have taken responsibility for my belief in the over-rep, and supplied objective evidence.

I have never stated that the cause is cultural.
How could I know?
There must be a cause, and what else might it be Jim?
Answer please.

I reported the opinions of people, known to be totally anti racist, that it does derive from culture.

What is wrong with them forming that opinion from their own personal first hand experience?
What is wrong with me restating it here?
Who are these people you claim to exist who disagree?

Answers please Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 05:20 AM

And I forgot
Whenever somebody points out the logical conclusions and the consqences of yur argument you squeal "victimisation".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 05:37 AM

No Jim.
I think it unacceptable to use labelling and name calling in place of argument.
Your post today does not challenge any opinion in any way except to say that it is racist.

That is the only argument you have.

Suppose the cultural explanation were true.
Is it still racist?
You are not sure yourself it is not true.
How can non racist people propose a racist opinion?

Try to discuss this issue without using the word "racist" Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 05:51 AM

Suppose the cultural explanation were true.
Is it still racist?

Keith, if the UK wide statistics were collected, studied and the case was proven, it would be fact.

Arriving at this type of explanation without that is, at best, dangerous speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 06:04 AM

""I would really like to know how you are certain that the over-rep is not linked to negative attitudes to females and repressive marriage practices.""

You need treatment for that selective deafness Keith.

The over rep, as you call it, is purely your own idea. None of your "knowledgeable sources" have commented on it as yet.

When working on statistics you need to be aware of certain basic facts.

Statistics only work if they are based on a sufficiently large, and representative, sample.

In this case you have neither, rendering the conclusion which you have drawn suspect in the extreme.

Your oft repeated "massive over representation" is based upon flawed thinking and flawed mathematics.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

""Don, you cut my sentence in half.
That is so deceitful it is tantamount to a lie.

""Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb".""

However any reasonable person reads that post, the sense is the same. You are confirming YOUR belief in the concept which I have underlined, and your reasons for that belief are irrelevant. IT IS YOUR BELIEF you are expressing!

then we have the following from you:-

""I do not link offending with culture, because I lack the knowledge.
That is a FACT and not up for discussion.""

Those statements are mutually exclusive, so tell us please which one is the lie?

Finally, please remember that I have a life outside of Mudcat, so if it takes a couple of days to get the answers your attention seeking needs, it is not because I have nothing to say, but because I have, at the time, better things to do than boost your ego.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 06:45 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Jun 11 - 04:43 PM

Don, I never lie.
That phrase "culturally implanted" first appeared in your post of 12 Feb 11 - 07:52 PM

""Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:28 PM

This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.
There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for.""

In point of fact, I joined this discussion on 25th January, so could not by any means have "invented" the cultural link. You did that for yourself. The first post in which I directly challenged your viewpoint was 28th January 0624.

Would you now be honest for a change and admit that 24th Jan precedes 12th Feb, that you did indeed LIE? And would you now withdraw that untrue statement and apologise?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 07:14 AM

OK Don, I will ask you again in a couple of days when even you will not be able to deny it.

Jon, the people who gave their opinions on this were responsible, intelligent, eminent people.
Not dangerous people.

Don, it is not a lie that I lack knowledge of BP culture.
Are you seriously suggesting I am secretly an expert?
On 22nd June you said "We know you aren't lying as to your ignorance of the culture, "

I accept what the experts say because of their authority on the subject Don.
As with black holes.
I believe they exist because people like Hawkins say so.
I believe the cultural link exists because people like Straw, Cryer, Saffiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown say so.

Do you dismiss the opinions of Hawkins and them Don?
On what grounds?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 07:33 AM

"I think it unacceptable to use labelling and name calling in place of argument."
Describing racial steroetyping as racism is neither labelling nor name-calling - it is telling it like it is
Please tell us why claiming "all male Pakistani Muslims" as having "a culturally implanted tendency".... is not racial stereotyping.
"Your post today does not challenge any opinion in any way except to say that it is racist."
The challenges I have made throughout this thread have been repeated over and over and you have ignored them - all that is left to us (and I am not alone here) is to describe them as the are.
"Suppose the cultural explanation were true."
If it were proven beyond doubt it would not be racist, but it would have race implications; that is why it should not be made irresponsibly or maliciously, without proof; no such proof has been offered.
"You are not sure yourself it is not true."
I am not a sociologist so I cannot prove it to be true or false, so I would not dream of making such a claim.
You are not a sociologist and have admitted your ignorance of the subject of this thread, yet you have offered it as your opinion without proof, and as you say, without the knowledge to back your claim up.
It goes against everything I believe about race and culture and everything I have come to believe from reading and from personal experience of the Pakistani people.
Your statement, if taken seriously, would effect every single member of the Pakistani population in Britain, male, female, old, young.. all would be effected if it was thought that every man in their community was culturally a potential paedophile not to be trusted near children.
If it were, as you describe, a cultural trait, then it would have manifested itself throughout every Pakistani community throughout the world, never mind Britain - it has not, therefore I believe it to be the piece of racist nonsense I have always thought it to be.
You have put it forward as your opinion - without proof and without even offering a suggestion why you believe it has not appeared elsewhere - why? (and please don't hide behind the opinions of others, they are not here to make their case, nor are the people, (including those from the ethnic minorites who took offense at the statement)?
"How can non racist people propose a racist opinion?"
If they make racist, unsubstantiated statements, then they are racist - you have made racist statements and failed to substantiate them...... A claim to be non-racist needs to be proved, not just claimed.
Pakistanis in Britain are both the poorest and the most likely to be abused; your atatements can only add to these facts.
Your own attempt to produce a witness, Barnardos has warned of the dangers of making this a racial issue - this time not to the commnity as a whole, but to the victims of abuse, yet you persist in doing so - I ask again, are they not experts enough to have their opinions regarded, or even acknowledged by you.
"Try to discuss this issue without using the word "racist" Jim."
If it's got horns, moos and gives milk, it's probably a cow.
I suggest you address youself to the points raised here by Jon and Don and everybody else on this thread who has put up reasoned and lucid arguments against your claims, and answer them, for yourself if not for the rest of us.
If the forthcoming report backs any claim you have made here it might dent our egos and make us re-think some of our ideas, and I am sure you will take great pleasure in gloating over it, but it will hopefully be the result of serious research and not random and unsubstantiated agenda-driven anecodtal and circumstantial incidents and personal opinions, and will not in any way exuse your behaviour on this thread, which has been to target one specific cultural group - the dangers of which many of your own 'witnesses' have been keen to point out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 07:33 AM

Never mind a couple of days.
"The ethnicity of around half the offenders was not known but in the remainder a quarter of offenders were Asian and 38% were white."

Asians make up just 6% of population.
That means an over-rep of over 400%.
If Asians means BPs, as in all the cases we have discussed, they are only 2% so the over-rep is up to 1200%
Also, if the reason ethnicity was not reported in the other half of cases was racial sensitivity, it is many times higher.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 07:44 AM

Jim, it is preposterous to say that Jasmin Allibhai-Brown is a racist.
If that is what your case stands on, you are lost.

They gave their opinion, and I agreed with them. Why not?
They are in a position to know and no-one but you three are arguing.

That opinion was reported in all the quality press and media, BBC, Guardian, Observer, etc.
All racist?

It was you three who stated that to link culture was to claim a "cultural implant"
Don's actual words.

It is nonsense.
It was a mistake to go along with you on that.
I should never have agreed with you, only with experts.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 09:17 AM

"Jim, it is preposterous to say that Jasmin Allibhai-Brown is a racist"
It is certainly not preposterous to say Jasmin Allibhai-Brown is capable of making a racist remark but that is not the point - nowhere has she or anybody claimed that "all male Pakistani Muslims" have "a culturally implanted tendency" - except you. You have done so seriously and in the context of attempting to prove a "massive" over-representation in a crime - and it is this which sets you apart from all your 'experts - it is damaging racist stereotyping, and it is your opinion.
Unless you can explain why this 'cultural tendency' hasn't manifested itself throughout the whole of the Pakistani population (1.2 million) you have no case for 'cultural corruption' which is, in fact what you are claiming.
Stop hiding behind others to make your point.
Likewise, nobody but you has claimed a "massive" over-representation, only you, and this is what makes your opinion dishonest and IMO agenda-driven.
"They gave their opinion, and I agreed with them. Why not"
You have taken their opinions out of context and grossly exaggerated them, even to the point of misrepresenting them by removing crucial statements.
In making the remarks you have, you have implicated the whole of the Pakistani population rather than the isolated examples you have provided.
"Why not"
You have embraced their statements where they accord with your own view and dismissed the opinions of others equally qualified, when they do not - when the statements of others become your opinions it is then your responsibilty to defend them rather than "somebody else told me, so they must be true.
"It was you three who stated that to link culture was to claim a "cultural implant"
No it was not - this is a blatent lie.
Don put it forward as a summing up of how he saw your views - you reproducd his summing up and prefixed it with "I now believe" - don't you dare to try and pass it on to us - it is your stated opinion.
"That means an over-rep of over 400%."
Are you really claiming a %400 over-representation of Pakistanis in a population of 1.2 million?
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 10:48 AM

"Jim, it is preposterous to say that Jasmin Allibhai-Brown is a racist"
From her bio on Wiki.

"On 25 August 2008, she (Jasmin Allibhai-Brown) appeared on Five's The Wright Stuff discussion programme. In a discussion about an employment issue relating to white men, Yasmin Alibhai Brown said "Take his advice. Don't apply. It would be great if you lot just went away; white, middle class men. We'd just walk in wouldn't we." When challenged by the host for the day, Richard Bacon, "Is that not a racist comment?" she replied "Of course"
From the mouths of babes.....
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 11:12 AM

Or this:

"The journalist and broadcaster, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who arrived here from Uganda in 1972, was on the board of the Runnymede Trust when the report was released.
This is how one high profile immigrant expresses her gratitude to those who gave her sanctuary:
"There is an underlying assumption that says white is right. There is a white panic every time one part of their world seems to be passing over to anyone else. But it's foolish to panic about it. So what if we do become a majority? What difference does it make? The empire strikes back really.
There was this extraordinary assumption that white people could go and destroy peoples and it would have no consequence. It astounds me."
"The making and remaking of any nation is not an easy task, and you need real guts and conviction to press on with it. This country has never appreciated the extraordinary contributions of immigrants... the need to make a new social contract between all the citizens and the state so that we know what we stand for".
"Hundreds of thousands of true sons and daughters of this great nation stormed into London to sound off about how deprived they are and how they feel victims of prejudice so bad that, according to the Prince of Wales, they are even worse off than blacks and gays. How intolerable! My heart breaks at the thought of those poor, flushed apple cheeks of country Brits as they watch us blacks and those queers overtaking them in the gallop to privilege...
Oh I hear you yelping all right... Are those who object to my thinking absolutely sure that the Countryside Alliance really would like multiracial Britain to invade its pure little village? Would they welcome a beautiful temple or mosque to stand with the small church spires if a substantial number of us did manage to sneak in by cheating estate agents?... Most shameful of all have been the recent outbursts over asylum centres in countryside locations."
"Bit by bit, the very essence of Britishness is being transformed... I will... spend my life helping to make a more inclusive and dynamic new nation, instead of making do with the decaying remnants of a long gone past."
"Xenophobia and imperial arrogance lurk inside most white Britons".
"Until the people of this country can apologise for their imperial past, none of us can move on".
"Jack Straw... has said something that one can almost agree with... On GMTV last Sunday, Mr Straw asserted that much of the disgraceful behaviour of English hooligans abroad came out of a distorted sense of patriotism bound up with the 'baggage of empire'."
"Once, I'd have applauded anybody who publicly humiliated the English. Now, I feel more disquiet than wicked delight".
"The numbers of refugees coming to Britain has been going down substantially since 1997." (As of 2005, during the previous six years, Britain had taken in an average of 157,000 known immigrants every year. This does not include around 350,000 foreign "students" or the illegal immigrants that we don't know about)
"We must never underestimate the power of racism and xenophobia to influence resentful whites left behind in this bright, new, zappy digital age."
And yet, the lady can admit to this:
"Rightly or wrongly quite a lot of us (Asian women) believe that in order to fulfil our lives it just won't be possible if we marry an Asian man who however egalitarian before marriage very often becomes extremely sexist afterwards... More and more black and Asian and Chinese people will be marrying whites and each other.
There is no stopping this, it seems to me."
After this acknowledgement of the merit of "whites", she goes on to say:
"I hope it makes this country become more comfortable with its hybridity as a national characteristic."
In other words: "Bring on the melting-pot, sister. Let's get those Anglo-Saxon coils shuffled off!"
And then there was this:
"If I were a white pensioner living on a street in Bradford where Asian men, braggarts and brawlers, pimps and dealers, had taken over, of course I would reach out for the meanest part of me and hate the whole lot of them.
The endless stories of Albanian and Turkish warring gangs; of black men and gun crimes; of hideously deformed mullahs who think they have the right to incite, in the house of God, young Muslim men to hate; and Algerians accused of making poisons and killing policemen, have created a new anger and hostility to our presence across British society".
Finally, during the 4th of June, 2006, edition of Dateline London, Gavin Essler posed this question:
"What's wrong with white guys, by the way?"
To which Alibhai-Brown replied:
"I don't like them. I want them to be the lost species in 100 years".
The Brit-loathing Asian immigrant is pictured below alongside one of her books which features a black Queen on the front cover."

Not commenting on her views but pointin out her "non-racism"
So what have we got for your impeccable "experts"; a member of the House of Lords who klls people while using a mobile phone, and threatens to invade Parliament with "thousands of Muslims", a Labour MP who believes that speaking English should be a condition of entry into Britain; an Ex Home Secretary who, during his term of office, did nothing to alleviate the conditions in these areas under discussion, and so needs to cover his own arse by finding a scapegoat for his incompetence - oh, and an organisation that points out that making abuse a race issue is running the risk of putting the victims in even more danger than they already are.
Any more for the Skylark,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 11:38 AM

""Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:28 PM

This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.
There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for.""

The above is the first mention of a cultural connection which Keith persistently claims I made up nearly three weeks after this post from him

Here's the whole of my post which, as anyone can see does not refer to a "cultural implant", a phrase I have not used, but reports Keith A's confirmation that he believes in a "culturally implanted tendency". (the underlining is mine)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 12 Feb 11 - 07:52 PM

""Don, you cut the next line from my post you just quoted.
It was,
"If it did give rise to just a slight predisposition, then only a tiny minority would succumb.
And that is exactly what is found."""

I cut the line because it is irrelevant to the point at issue in my conversation with DeG, in which he said ""I have not heard Keith say that all Pakistanis (of whetever nationality) are child molesters."".

When asked the question ""their culture inspires a slight predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls. Can you confirm that that is your opinion of British Pakistanis?"", you replied ""It is my opinion that it is a reasonable suggestion.
The over representation is a fact that requires an explanation.
Something is predisposing them, and it is more likely to be something sexual in the culture than your alternative list. (wild generalisations?)"".

However small the number of those who succumb to the temptation, and however slight that tendency may be, it does not alter the fact that you believe that all male Pakstani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency toward paedophile rape.

Your obdurate refusal to give more cautious and balanced suggestions the slightest consideration merely accentuates the degree of prejudice in your view of this section of Society.

Don T.

Later he confirmed again that belief.


Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM

""Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things.

Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb.

Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us?""

Complete posts, with nothing removed.

So Keith resorts to nit picking in an attempt to cover up the truth of my statements, by focussing attention on on phrase that is not even present.

Economical with the truth is a generous view of our friend Keith's contribution.

It's a bit like trying to debate with Tweedledum and Tweedledee, only less productive.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 11:53 AM

The "racist" Alibhai-Brown.
Commission for Racial Equality special award for outstanding contribution to journalism 2000
GG2 Leadership and Diversity award Media Personality of the Year 2001

In April 2004, her film on Islam for Channel 4 won an award and in May 2004, she received the EMMA award for best print journalist for her columns in the Independent. In September 2004, a collection of her journalistic writings, Some of My Best Friends Are… was published in 2005.

From 1996 to 2001 she was a Research Fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research which published True Colours on the role of government on racial attitudes. Tony Blair launched the book in March 1999. She is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre. In 2000 she published, Who Do We Think We Are? which went on to be published in the US too, an acclaimed book on the state of the nation. Andrew Marr and Sir Bernard Crick among other reviewers found the book exceptionally wise and challenging. After Multiculturalism, a pamphlet re-assessing the multicultural ideology in Britain was the first critical examination by a social democrat of a settled and now damaging orthodoxy. She is also a regular international public speaker in Britain, other European countries, North America and Asian nations. In 2001 came the publication of Mixed Feelings, a book on mixed race Britons which has been praised by all those who have reviewed it to date. In June 1999, she received an honorary degree from the Open University for her contributions to social justice.

Read more about this racist here.
http://www.alibhai-brown.com/about.php

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 12:27 PM

So what you are saying is:
A    She never said what it is claimed she said.
B    That you agree with what she said.
c    That she is only an 'impeccable source' when she says the things you agree with.
D    That when she admits that what she has said is racist ("Bacon, "Is that not a racist comment?" she replied "Of course""):
she is telling lies.
Which is it to be?
I know very well what her track record is - I pointed it out to you earlier.
I'm not supporting or criticising her views; just challenging your suggestion that she couldn't be a racist.
And your answer to Don's question is.....?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 12:28 PM

Straight back to discussing me again!
Oh dear.
I did not quote my "experts" out of context Jim.
I gave large verbatim quotes.
Shafiq did say it was linked to attitudes to white girls.
He is still saying that.
Ahmed and A-B did blame it on repressive marriage practices.
Do you deny that Jim?

Do you deny arguing that any cultural explanation accuses the whole community.("blatant lie!??)
They must all be accusing the whole community including themselves then.

Believing them is the total of my contribution here.
I have never claimed a cultural link.
I believe in one, BUT ONLY BECAUSE OF WHAT THE "EXPERTS" SAY.
I make no case about it.
I have not the knowledge to do so.

Now can we discuss the issues.
What reasons do you suggest for the over-rep?
If you are not sure it is not cultural, why is it racist to be not sure it is?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 12:31 PM

Don's question?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Brian May
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 01:04 PM

Having left this alone for some time, I saw the results of a survey saying that 25% of those responsible for the grooming of young girls for sex, were Asian.

These same people probably are down the mosque every relevant time period and are all sweetness and light in their own community. Protected by UK race relations law.

Considering that Asians do not represent 25% of the UK population (yet), they represent a disproportionate threat.

They are still 'masked' by an inability of the 'average' Brit being able to comment on it because they can STILL play the racist card.

Nothing's changed, it's just more obvious now. Perhaps this country's law makers are finally waking up.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 01:25 PM

"Straight back to discussing me again!"
NO I AM NOT - I AM QUESTIONING THE TOTAL DEPENDENCY YOU HAVE PLACED ON YOUR SOURCES
Stop crying victimisation and answer the question
And once again - you implication that ALL Pakistanis are linked to paedophelia via their culture does implicate ALL Pakistanis - your statement.
Where does your impeccable that ALL Pakistanis are implicated?
Address Don's points and answer my question
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 02:31 PM

I am not claimimg victimisation.
I am objecting to you making it about me instead of the issues.

It is not about me.
I do not know anything about it, except what is published.

What is published strongly suggests an over-representation, and a cultural explanation for it.

Let's discuss that, not me.

And, what is this question of Don's?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 02:49 PM

"On 25 August 2008, she (Jasmin Allibhai-Brown) appeared on Five's The Wright Stuff discussion programme. In a discussion about an employment issue relating to white men, Yasmin Alibhai Brown said "Take his advice. Don't apply. It would be great if you lot just went away; white, middle class men. We'd just walk in wouldn't we." When challenged by the host for the day, Richard Bacon, "Is that not a racist comment?" she replied "Of course"
=======

Richard Bacon was being light-heartedly provocatively facetious, Jim. She was playing along in conformity with the tone & the context of the programme. That is obvious. It was a joke. You know: J·O·K·E ~~ you've heard of them? People make them when exchanging banter on discussion programmes.

You will really have to do better than that if you are to discount Keith's citing of Alibhai-Brown as an anti-racist, you know.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 03:08 PM

"I am objecting to you making it about me instead of the issues."The "issues" are about the way you refuse to give a straight answer,
And now you have the reason why nobody wants to talk to you Keith - you don't answer questions, you hide behind other people's statements, you squeal victimisation when you are challenged.... everything I said earlier today. Let's see if you can do any better now Tinkerbell is back
Not a joke Mike, though your role of apologist might be described as such.
There are plenty of others saying similar things, and one of your lot proposed she should be stoned - was that a "middle England" joke that I didn't understand?
She even accepted the charge of 'racism' herself after she made a near-the-nuckle statement - j-o-k-e as well, no doubt
I have nothing bad to say about the lady, but it's interesting to see Keith's reaction - or non-reaction - as the case may be.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 03:13 PM

"do not represent 25% of the UK population (yet),"
And then there were three !! - loved the "yet"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 03:29 PM

Jim I will answer any question, and I believe I have already.
But Jim, why are they all about me and not the issues?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 11 - 05:22 PM

If A-B joked about being racist against whites in favour of BPs, that is evidence of how anti racist towards her own BP community she is.

Ahmed was in a fatal traffic accident and was using his 'phone at the time.
That is a serious offence, but it does not make him a racist, and his title does not make him an aristo.
While he worked during the week-day as a greengrocer in a local market, he began his political career as a local councillor, with most of his activity centred around the North of England. He founded the British Muslim Councillors' Forum in 1992.

As a Muslim peer, Lord Ahmed took his oath on the Qur'an. Much of his activities relate to the Muslim community, both at home and internationally. Ahmed led one of the first delegations on behalf of the British Government on the Muslim pilgrimage of the Hajj, to Saudi Arabia and has advocated legislation against religious discrimination, international terrorism and forced marriages.[citation needed]

At home, Ahmed speaks on wider equality issues, and has spoken several times on issues of race, religion and gender. He is seen as one of the leaders of the Muslim community in Britain. He claims to have tried to calm tensions following the aftermath of the 11 September attacks in 2001.


As a resident of Rotherham, Ahmed has spoken on behalf of the communities in that region, particularly the families of the former steelworkers of the 1960s, from the Indian subcontinent who are now second or third generation British.

He has worked on the plight of Muslims around the world ranging from the collapse of former Yugoslavia, especially to the Bosniaks and Palestinians. He has been on many delegations to the Arab world, the US, Eastern Europe, Africa, the former states of the USSR and the Far East, meeting with heads of state to discuss their respective problems and how he may be able to assist them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazir_Ahmed,_Baron_Ahmed

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 03:02 AM

"Jim I will answer any question, and I believe I have already."
No you won't and you haven't - and personally I don't give a toss.
Your efforts to move this thread into your own comfort zone (a debate on a - to date - unsubstantiated over-representation) and away from your claims of an ethnic minority corrupted by its own culture.
Your denials of first having not made such a suggestion, then claiming you took it from somebody else, and now apparently saying it was Don's idea and not yours, underlines what a waste of time it is debating with you (or rather, your absent 'evidence providers', as you refuse to come out from behind them).
Now you want us to debate the merits and de-merits of your 'impeccable sources' - no takers.
I have no idea whether Jasmin Allibhai-Brown intended to express racist views - she claims to have done so - go and argue with her; my sole interest is in your crass suggestion that she couldn't possibly have expressed one - I have shown that she could and has.
My point is that you have proved that you don't have the balls to defend your own arguments and insist on cowering behind 'eminent' others.
Are you really saying that you are so ignorant of this subject that you can't explain why you support the statements you have made and have to rely on the 'eminence' and 'expertise' of others?
It is your own statements you need to debate - have the courage to do so.
Show us your reasons for claiming that the British Pakistani people have a culturally implanted tendency towards paedophelia (yes, you have made such a claim) - show us why, if this is the case, it is not apparent throughought the whole population - not a scholarly analysis; a suggestion will do, show us why such a claim is not a clear incitement to race hatred aimed at an entire ethnic minority - show us your evidence for a "massive, massive over-representation" of paedophiles among the British Pakistani population (I notice that your attempts to back-pedal on this one by removing the "massive" has now been abandoned as a lost cause) - show us why you put up an organisation in your support, then totally ignore their suggestion that making this a race issue is likely to damage already damaged victims, doesn't their knowledge of child protection include such aspects, or do you know better?.
There have been arguments put against your outrageous and dishonest statements - you have ignored them and then claimed they have not been made - trawl through them and answer those points - its never too late.
The only reason I can think of for continuing to debate with you is to allow you to continue to show yourself for what you are - but you can have too much of a good thing; you've already more than satisfied us on that score.
Our week long traditional music school is about to start here - I think I need the fresh air of that joyful event rather than ploutering around this particularly foetid and impenetrable swamp - will look in from time-to-time.
Until you come up with something we can honestly debate - good luck with your quest.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 03:39 AM

I have promised to answer any question/point.
Hold me to it if I have missed any, but I think not.

"Your efforts to move this thread into your own comfort zone "
Fair comment.
I would like to discuss the issues, not me!

"Now you want us to debate the merits and de-merits of your 'impeccable sources'"

Not true.
You started a smear campaign against them and I countered it.

The only claim I have made is about the over-rep.
Any "statements" are the reported statements of others more knowledgeable than any of us.

"tendency towards paedophelia (yes, you have made such a claim) "
That is a lie Jim.

Massive.
This is substantiated.

"massive over-representation" of paedophiles among the British Pakistani population"
NOT paedophiles, but "localised grooming" offenders.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 04:49 AM

I said I would expose your lie if you used it again.
Here is every use of a word beginning "paed" by me in connection to BPs in this thread.
(except when quoting you 3 who use it in nearly every post, so desperate are you to make the smaear stick.)

24th Jan. Paedophilia is not endorsed,(by Islam)

22nd March Lively, I agree about it not being necessarily paedophilia

25th March The offenders were not viewed as paedophiles but had picked the girls 'because of their malleability'

21st April The contention is that children are easier meat than older girls, not that the offenders are necessarily paedophiles.

21st April Jim, I just told you that paedophilia was not a contention!

9th June Also, it is suggested that children are targetted because they are easy meat, not because of paedophilia.

11th June I have repeatedly told you that I acknowledge that paedophilia is mostly a white crime.

14th June Most paedophiles in this country are white,

18th June No-one here has ever claimed a link between paedophilia and culture.

19th June Jim, I keep telling you that I do not regard participation in this form of abuse as evidence of paedophilia.

20th June Paedophilia is not a crime Don.
It is a condition.
I do not think these offenders are driven by it.

22nd June I keep telling you that I am NOT postulating paedophilia.
Why do you keep on about it?

25th June I have stated repeatedly, since January, that I do not regard paedophilia as an issue in this.

25th June You said I accused BPs of paedophilia.
That was and is a lie.
I never did, and don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 05:05 AM

"Massive. This is substantiated."
Maybe you should read this morning's Times
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 05:22 AM

I have it in front of me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 05:25 AM

From the Guardian:

But Peter Davies, the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), which carried out the research, warned against jumping to conclusions on the ethnicity of offenders because the data gathered by his investigators was incomplete, not nationwide and of poor quality.

"I would send a note of caution about trying to extrapolate anything from this. Looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours," he said.

[...]

The data was so poor that reliable details of ethnicity were available only in 940 of the 2,379 cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 05:34 AM

"the data gathered by his investigators was incomplete, not nationwide and of poor quality."

One might wonder what point there was in attempting to investigate the matter at all if the data gathered is supposedly so poor that the investigators only conclusions are that no conclusions can be drawn from the data collected. How much money did this meaningless exercise cost?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 05:36 AM

Jon, yes they were disappointed that people chose not to record ethnicity in most cases.
We know that political correctness and racial sensitivity has been an issue.

Of the cases where it was recorded, 26% Asian.
450% over-rep.

Of the 31 Asians whose ethnicity was recorded, 30 were BPs.
If that was representative, over 1000% over-rep.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 05:46 AM

Keith, I will try one of your favourite types of argument:

Surely the as the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop) who wrote the report, Peter Davies should be among the experts you value so highly? Surely he is better placed to asses the value of its data than "you or I"?

Why is it that you choose to ignore:

"I would send a note of caution about trying to extrapolate anything from this. Looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours,"

Do you know better than he?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 05:47 AM

Well, bar "more needs to be done" one thing that the Ceop report has confirmed is that all the 'mere anecdotal' reports made by field workers, police and other victim advocates that currently recorded figures of specifically street based sexual grooming of young teenage girls, represent a "tip of the iceburg", appears to have been substantiated:

"Solomon said the figures represented "a scratching at the surface" of what was the hidden problem of vulnerable children being targeted, groomed, internally trafficked and subjected to extreme forms of sexual abuse and violence on British streets."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 05:49 AM

One might wonder what point there was in attempting to investigate the matter at all if the data gathered is supposedly so poor that the investigators only conclusions are that no conclusions can be drawn from the data collected.

Well I suppose one could hope that it could be used to persuade others not to jump to hasty conclusions...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 06:03 AM

Jon, I accept all that is said about the limitations of the data, but that is what we have.

Of the gangs whose ethnicity was recorded, 40% Asian.
500% over-rep, or 1500% if the Asians were BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 06:04 AM

Sorry,
Of the gangs whose ethnicity was recorded, 40% Asian.
650% over-rep, or 1950% if the Asians were BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 06:07 AM

No Keith, you are ignoring the expert advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 06:36 AM

The expert advice is that the evidence is incomplete, not that it is wrong.
This evidence may not be totally conclusive, but it does not stand alone.
You were convinced Jon.
This new evidence can hardly unconvince you!

All the victims who went to their MPs, Straw and Cryer.
All abused by BPs.
All the victims of those convicted in the 17 cases in the Dando report.
95% BPs.
All the hundreds of Sikh and Hindu girls who went to their own support groups .
All abused by BPs.
Barnados.
They said that ethnic groups were "over-represented"
They said there was an issue of "ethnicity" in high profile (many victim) cases.
All the 400 seen by Wilmer.
All stated that BPs were their abusers.
All the victims seen by Bindel.
The same.
All the victims in the German report.
All the same.
The victims who recorded their statements.
All the same.
All the victims in the three current court cases aginst BP gangs.
Whether the BP gangs are convicted or not, the victims all accuse them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 06:40 AM

Keith, you are ignoring the expert opinion and following your own agenda which to me is looking increasingly suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 06:44 AM

"Massive. This is substantiated."
Maybe you should read this morning's Times
Jim Carroll =====
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
It is open in front of me, Jim. It says that 26% of offenders in the CEOP 6-month survey were from Asian backgrounds, and that between 4 & 6% of the British population as a whole are estimated to be from Asian backgrounds.

And [let's leave aside the emotive adjective 'massive'], I would call that a considerable over-representation. It appears you wouldn't. I suggest you learn to read, and to count.

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 06:49 AM

You were convinced Jon.
This new evidence can hardly unconvince you!

What are you referring to, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 06:53 AM

And be aware that these are national figures.
They have chosen not to do a regional analysis even though it was in their remit.
It has always been clear that the over-rep was concentrated in the Midlands and the North of England.

Last week The Times published an accurate preview, and said there were to be discussions on how to present the data to minimise racial tensions.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 06:54 AM

Jon, you previously accepted the over-rep.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 06:59 AM

Jon, you previously accepted the over-rep.

Kieth, I believe you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have been saying.

With the information available, I am prepared to accept that there is an over-rep in certain cities in the N of England. My position is unchanged on this.

I however believe it is very dangerous to attempt to use such patchy stats to reach a "national conclusion". My position is unchanged on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 07:23 AM

Jon, I too have only claimed an over-rep in a specified area, i.e. towns and cities of Midlands (less W Mids), Derbyshire, Lancashire, Yorkshire and Greater Manchester.
That is my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 07:32 AM

"were from Asian backgrounds,"
And not from Pakistani backgrounds which has been the claim from the beginning of this racist thread-drift - racial stereotyping (or maybe they all look the same to the individual(s) who made this a racist bunfeast (and their cheerers on from the sidelines).
Those wishing to claim some sort vindication for their racism from this report will do so anyway, as will those who only stand and act as apologists.
"But Peter Davies, the Ceop chief executive, cautioned against the assumption that street grooming was simply an ethnic problem. He said that the incomplete nature of the data meant that the report fell short of being a comprehensive national picture.
He added: "It has to be a possibility that there is a disproportionate level of offenders from one section of the community but it is not certain ... Approaching this issue through the lens of ethnicity can be distracting.
"Offenders do not come from any particular background and any child can be sexually exploited. Child sexual exploitation is child sex abuse no matter who carries out the act, no matter what the background of the offender."
The report said that the difficulty of obtaining accurate and comprehensive data meant that its figures were a "significant under-representation of the true scale of child sexual exploita¬tion in the UK". The limited data found that 38 percent of the offenders were white,, 3 percent were black but that the ethnicity of 33 percent was unknown or other."
Perhaps, as merely the Chief Executive of CEOPS, his voice doesn't carry far enough for Keith to take any notice, as with Barnardos
And the beat goes on......
Jim Carroll
PS And still no sign of "cultural implants"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 07:37 AM

Jon, I too have only claimed an over-rep in a specified area, i.e. towns and cities of Midlands (less W Mids), Derbyshire, Lancashire,
That is my case.

So you do you agree that it would be unreasonable to make any statement that implicates British Pakistanis (or other culture) on a national level?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 07:43 AM

Jon,
"So you do you agree that it would be unreasonable to make any statement that implicates British Pakistanis (or other culture) on a national level? "

It would be unreasonable of me to make any such claim, but not unreasonable for me to report such a statement made by authoritative persons.

Jim, Asians includes BPs.
Where the ethnicicity of the Asian offenders was recorded, 96% were BPs

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 09:27 AM

It would be unreasonable of me to make any such claim, but not unreasonable for me to report such a statement made by authoritative persons.

I've got a pet a bit like that...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 09:30 AM

Honest?
Cautious?
Modest?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 09:38 AM

Just weasel like.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 09:47 AM

I think that is unjust Jon.

If we were discussing black holes, I might post something I had read by Hawkins.
If challenged on one of his equations, what possible response could I make other but the one I have given here.

I am not an expert on black holes or BP culture.
What do you people expect from me?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 10:10 AM

I am not an expert on black holes or BP culture.
What do you people expect from me?

I don't expect you to repeat theories and stats and when questioned, respond "it wasn't me sir".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 11:23 AM

Again very unjust Jon.

My case was just the over-rep.
I put up published pieces that supported that, but unfortunately they also suggested reasons for it, and that is all you people want to talk about.
I have nothing to say about those suggestions.
I have not any knowledge to support or refute the suggestions.
They are not mine, and I do not care if anyone believes them or not.

My case is just the over-rep.
I can't be what I am not Jon.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 12:59 PM

Again very unjust Jon.

Implicating the all Britsh Pakistanis without evidence is just, Keith?

(I know, you only quote others...)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 02:22 PM

My opinion was/is the over-rep.
The other thing never was mine.
Sorry.
Would you all be happier if I had claimed it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 02:41 PM

"Of course I believe that there is a sound scientific basis to what the experts have said re "over rep"

There is plenty of objective evidence for the over-rep.
You can only have subjective evidence for the explanation, and I have never been subject to any of it.
Sorry.

Using an abbreviation does not constitute racism to rational people.
Using BP saves me 15 key strokes.
At half a second each and given I must have used it over a thousand times, is about two and a half hours of solid unnecessary typing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 04:02 PM

"Would you all be happier if I had claimed it? "
"I have never claimed a cultural link."
"I believe in one, BUT ONLY BECAUSE OF WHAT THE "EXPERTS" SAY."

Now this is what Keith didn't say:
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."

Of course he wasn't referring to Pakistanis or their culture, and it wasn'r him saying it anyway - so stop talking about him all the time.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 04:14 PM

Yes Jim, I believe it because I believe them.
I also believe Stephen Hawkins on black holes, though I would be less sure if other astrophysicists did not agree with him.

I could not refute or support either theories.
Why is it so important to you Jim?
It is like an obsession.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 04:56 PM

A bit more from the Guradian link I gave earlier:

The data was so poor that reliable details of ethnicity were available only in 940 of the 2,379 cases.

Of the 940, 26% of the offenders were recorded as Asian. The breakdown was 30 Pakistani, one Bangladeshi and 217 recorded as "Asian unknown", reflecting the poor quality of the data available.

The report said: "We cannot draw national conclusions about ethnicity because the data is too inconsistent.

"Further research is needed to examine whether the ethnic breakdown reflects issues that need to be addressed within a community context, local demographics of the areas from which data is drawn, an unconscious bias among agency responses or other factors."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 06:19 PM

Wampum, I think your argument is that I must be a racist so I can be dismissed.
That is a lot easier than actually challenging what I say, right?

Some name Wampum.
Samir Mathur of Ohio State University in Columbus and his colleagues showed that if a black hole is modelled according to string theory - in which the universe is made of tiny, vibrating strings rather than point-like particles - then the black hole becomes a giant tangle of strings. And the Hawking radiation emitted by this "fuzzball" does contain information about the insides of a black hole (New Scientist print edition, 13 March).

Curt Cutler, a physicist at the Albert Einstein Institute in Golm, Germany, who is chairing the conference's scientific committee. "I haven't seen a preprint [of the paper]. To be quite honest, I went on Hawking's reputation."

Cambridge colleague Gary Gibbons, an expert on the physics of black holes who was at the seminar, Hawking's black holes, unlike classic black holes, do not have a well-defined event horizon that hides everything within them from the outside world.

In essence, his new black holes now never quite become the kind that gobble up everything. Instead, they keep emitting radiation for a long time, and eventually open up to reveal the information within. "It's possible that what he presented in the seminar is a solution," says Gibbons. "But I think you have to say the jury is still out."

theoretical physicist Kip Thorne of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena made with John Preskill, also of Caltech.

They argued that "information swallowed by a black hole is forever hidden, and can never be revealed".

"Since Stephen has changed his view and now believes that black holes do not destroy information, I expect him [and Kip] to concede the bet," Preskill told New Scientist. The duo are expected to present Preskill with an encyclopaedia of his choice "from which information can be recovered at will".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 07:54 PM

""
    But Peter Davies, the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), which carried out the research, warned against jumping to conclusions on the ethnicity of offenders because the data gathered by his investigators was incomplete, not nationwide and of poor quality.

    "I would send a note of caution about trying to extrapolate anything from this. Looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours," he said.

    [...]

    The data was so poor that reliable details of ethnicity were available only in 940 of the 2,379 cases.""

EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR MONTHS!! and from an authority better equipped to draw conclusions than any quoted by Keith A.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 08:07 PM

""The expert advice is that the evidence is incomplete, not that it is wrong.
This evidence may not be totally conclusive, but it does not stand alone.
You were convinced Jon.
This new evidence can hardly unconvince you!""

You accuse others of leaving out relevant portions of your rants. Well your post above DOES NOT STAND ALONE!

Why did YOU mention that information was incomplete, while deliberately leaving out the two comments below?

1. ""not nationwide and of poor quality.""
2. ""The data was so poor that reliable details of ethnicity were available only in 940 of the 2,379 cases.""

I'll answer that for you if I may.

Those comments were inconvenient in the extreme because they destroyed your carefully constructed and fanatically defended denigration of the whole British Pakistani community.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 08:16 PM

""I would call that a considerable over-representation.""

Would you like to point out the word Pakistani in the passage you are quoting Mike?

You can't, because it isn't there, and the theory which you are supporting is Keith's contentious claim that the Asians referred to ARE BRITISH PAKISTANIS.

In other words you are supporting an unproven theory from one who has shown ample evidence of his biased agenda, and steadfastly continues to do so, in spite of warnings against that specific conclusion by authorities much better equipped than those he clings to and blames whenever he is challenged.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jun 11 - 09:16 PM

""Jon, I too have only claimed an over-rep in a specified area, i.e. towns and cities of Midlands (less W Mids), Derbyshire, Lancashire, Yorkshire and Greater Manchester.
That is my case.""

So, let's see.

You have only ever claimed an over rep in a specified area, in which a limited number of gangs led by Pakistani criminals, turned out to have predominantly Pakistani members, so you extrapolated from this information the following:-

""Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:28 PM

This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.
There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for.""

This gem of illogical reasoning you posted one day before I made my first contribution to this thread, and at least three days before I addressed you directly, yet you claim that I invented the theory of a culturally implanted tendency for all British Pakistani males to commit these crimes. You make that claim based on my use of the phrase "culturally implanted tendency" which is an accurate and truthful representation of your above post.

You further pour scorn upon my suggestion that like tends to gravitate to like, meaning that Pakistani gangs would have mainly Pakistani members.

Yet you claim to have no opinion on the matter.

YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY FOR THE LIE, and members may judge YOUR integrity, or lack of integrity, by your refusal.

As for this thread being about YOU, just count the posts. You MADE it about you!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 01:42 AM

Don, I discussed the Asian/BP issue yesterday in posts timed 5.36 and 6.04 AM.

I had assumed wrongly that you had worked out the culture thing.
Sorry.
Here is the reasoning. Feel free to correct it.

Those five people all attributed the behaviour to aspects of the culture.
So prominent are they that their opinions were universally reported by all the media, including all the quality broadsheets and national broadcasters.
No detractors have been similarly reported and no other theory has been reported at all.

Was I in any way wrong to assume that all within that culture would be exposed to those aspects of the culture?

If it caused the behaviour in some, as claimed, I would expect the distribution of effects to be a continuum from actual offending down to zero inclination.
Agree?
We know that the spectrum is skewed towards non offending as only a minute minority offend.

That is my assumption but social psychology is not my field.
I am open to correction.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 02:07 AM

Wampum, please send the £50 to support the work of St.Andrew's Church, St.Andrew's Street, Hertford.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 03:28 AM

"Why is it so important to you Jim?!"
It's important because of the dishonest and evasive way you have vacillated to make your case on cultural corruption; from claiming that you didn't say it:
"I have never claimed a cultural link."
to admitting that you did:
"Yes Jim, I believe it because I believe them."
and then, to top it off with the magnificent:
"I could not refute or support either theories"
In the space of half-a-dozen postings you DIDN'T say it, you DID say it and believe it because somebody told you, to, you COULDN'T POSSIBLY GIVE AN OPINION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER - not bad for somebody who has set out to prove a whole community to be culturally inclined towards paedophelia!
It's important because racism, like any other disease, should not be ignored. This is your stated theory, nobody elses, and you have posted it as such.
It was hard not to notice that the report did not appear on prime-time television news last night; I watched with interest to see how it would be handled - nothing; in the BBC news index - nothing.
It can't be that it wasn't considered important enough to have been covered, surely?
I find it distressing that a subject as important as this is considered unapproachable.
There can't be too many here stupid enough to believe that the British establishment is so supportive, or so frightened of the immigrant communities as to keep silent about such a crucial issue.
It seems obvious to me that it is attitudes like Keith's that are far more responsible for keeping the lid on the situation than the PC that usually takes the blame.
Virtually all the statements on this issue by responsible individuals and organisations (including CEOPs) have come with a health warning against using the behaviour of criminals to malign whole communities, but there are those among us who appear to know better than their own 'experts', and apparently won't be happy until Powell's "rivers of blood" are flowing through Britain.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 03:36 AM

Jim, there is a difference between "claiming" "supporting" and just believing.

I generally believe the weather forecast every day, but I make no claims about it nor do I support the met office.

Why do I believe these people?
Those five people all separately attributed the behaviour to aspects of the culture.
So prominent are they that their opinions were universally reported by all the media, including all the quality broadsheets and national broadcasters.
No detractors have been similarly reported and no other theory has been reported at all.

I believe them, but I make no claims about their ideas and am not supporting them.
If someone comes up with a more convincing theory I will believe that.

OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,old guy
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 04:00 AM

This has been a very interesting debate.

Jim - calm down.   Here are some questions
"racism, like any other disease". How is racism a disease?

"There can't be too many here stupid enough to believe that the British establishment is so supportive, or so frightened of the immigrant communities as to keep silent about such a crucial issue." Why is it stupid to believe such a thing?

"It seems obvious to me that it is attitudes like Keith's that are far more responsible for keeping the lid on the situation than the PC that usually takes the blame." I don't follow your logic.

"there are those among us who appear to know better than their own 'experts', and apparently won't be happy until Powell's "rivers of blood" are flowing through Britain." I think you're saying that if Powell was right, the people to blame will be the ones who expressed their concerns that it might happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 04:32 AM

No detractors have been similarly reported and no other theory has been reported at all.

Keith, you are just choosing to ignore it. Here is one version

But Peter Davies, the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), which carried out the research, warned against jumping to conclusions on the ethnicity of offenders because the data gathered by his investigators was incomplete, not nationwide and of poor quality.

"I would send a note of caution about trying to extrapolate anything from this. Looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours," he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 04:41 AM

By "detractors" I meant people refuting that those aspects of culture alluded to exist, and refuting that they might give rise to certain behaviours in a few individuals.
That is what the 5 all said.
Who is refuting that and on what grounds please?
How can you be certain that all 5 are wrong?
Jim is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 04:51 AM

How can you be certain that all 5 are wrong?

All Keiths might be incapable of understanding elementary statistics. Can I be certain that is wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 05:04 AM

"Jim, there is a difference between "claiming" "supporting" and just believing."
Not when you put it forward as your opinion in a debate - you have made it quite clear that you support the ideas you have put forward - you have said so and argued for them - then hidden behind others rather than defend hem
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 05:19 AM

No I have not Jim.
I refute that I have and tell you again now that I only believe for the reasons I have just stated, and I make no claims about it nor do I support it in any way.
Can we drop it now please?

Enough about me, have you had any more thoughts about why the over-rep and if it is real?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 06:33 AM

"nor do I support it in any way"
Are you mad?
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"
"How is racism a disease?"
A metaphor OG.
More later
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 06:39 AM

..I do now believe... but only because...

No claims
No support.
Just belief, as in the weather forecast and black holes.

Perhaps Jon could explain it to you in terms of different coloured cups.

I tell you again now that I only believe for the reasons I have just stated, and I make no claims about it nor do I support it in any way.

Why are you so obsessed.
I should know, right?

Can we move on from me to the issues please Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 06:46 AM

I note some apparent inconsistency in the use of the term "refute".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 06:47 AM

MORE LATER!!!???

Oh no!
Please let it be about the issues and not me Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 06:54 AM

""Was I in any way wrong to assume that all within that culture would be exposed to those aspects of the culture?""

If there were the slightest vestige of sense in that assumption, one would predict with confidence that there would be some such activity wherever that culture was found. There is no such activity in the south of England, where one third of all British Pakistanis reside. Your assumption is flawed, and needs re-consideration.

""If it caused the behaviour in some, as claimed, I would expect the distribution of effects to be a continuum from actual offending down to zero inclination.
Agree?""

And I would expect that continuum to appear wherever that culture was found
AGREE?

BUT IT DOESN'T!!
AGREE?

""We know that the spectrum is skewed towards non offending as only a minute minority offend.

That is my assumption but social psychology is not my field.
I am open to correction.""

We also know that the spectrum is skewed towards all offenders belonging to a limited gang structure in a very small and tightly grouped part of the country, and to zero offences elsewhere.
AGREE?

You are not apparently open to rational argument, let alone correction.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 07:13 AM

""Enough about me, have you had any more thoughts about why the over-rep and if it is real?""

Christ, it's worse than trying to nail jelly to a tree.

Read and thoroughly digest the whole of the following comment from a man every bit as knowledgeable as your "sources":-

But Peter Davies, the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), which carried out the research, warned against jumping to conclusions on the ethnicity of offenders because the data gathered by his investigators was incomplete, not nationwide and of poor quality.

"I would send a note of caution about trying to extrapolate anything from this."

He seems to be agreeing with my position that before drawing the cultural conclusions which you have advanced, you need to consider the position nationwide. This you have refused even to discuss.

Add that to my posts on the dubious nature of statistics when a sufficiently large and representative sample is absent.

Then re-consider, and come to the conclusion that facts don't matter and you are always right. That is what you have been doing since January 24th 2011.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 07:16 AM

Don, if culture affects behaviour as claimed, the effect will surely vary between individuals.
That is the continuum of response.
It seems to follow naturally from the claim.

Accept or dismiss it Don, it is irrelevant to me and this debate.

Have you modified your own theory for the over-rep Don?
Remember I accepted it but for a single word.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 07:19 AM

Don.
"before drawing the cultural conclusions which you have advanced, you need to consider the position nationwide"

I have not "advanced" any "cultural conclusions" Don.

On what evidence could I "consider the position nationwide"?
Is there any at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 08:34 AM

"No claims - No support.
Utter gibberish.
"Please let it be about the issues and not me Jim."
The issue is, and always has been the image you have projected of the British Pakistani people.
And once again you squeal victimisation - perhaps you know how the Pakistanis feel at the hands of people like yourself.
And once again yu dimiss the warnings of your own experts
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 08:51 AM

"The issue is, and always has been the image you have projected of the British Pakistani people."

What????
I thought the issue the over-rep and reasons for it, not about what I have "projected" or not "projected" !

I am trying to have a rational debate.
I am not projecting anything!

You are becoming increasingly obsessed and deranged.
I worry that by responding I am feeding your obsession.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 09:33 AM

In a normal debate, I would give my opinion, and others would agree or challenge or offer different opinions.

This one is bizarre!
I say what my opinion is, and they come back and say, "no it isn't" !

No discussion.
They tell me what I think, and then abuse me for thinking it even though I don't.

Somewhat surreal.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 09:44 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 07:19 AM

"I have not "advanced" any "cultural conclusions" Don."


Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:28 PM

"This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.
There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 10:01 AM

....according to....someone else.

Let us accept (for discussion)


I have made hundreds of unequivocal posts stating that I am making no claims or supporting any theory.

Dredging up individual, months old posts that are a bit ambiguous does not change what my stated opinion actually is.

Why can you not just ask my opinion, instead of telling me what you all want it to be?
And why do you all want it to be different from what it actually is?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 10:12 AM

That post is OVER SIX MONTHS OLD!
We discussed it at the time.
I said this on THE VERY NEXT DAY, 25th January.

I offer it as a plausible theory, and it is not my own.
It has been put forward by two Labour politicians, one very senior, both of whom have worked for years with the Pakistani communities they represent, and are supported and respected by those communities.

It works like this.
I put up my theory and you should try to find fault and/or an alternative.
Just calling me names is not the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 10:14 AM

Er, 5 months.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 10:18 AM

It works like this.
I put up my theory and you should try to find fault and/or an alternative.

So you do have a theory?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 11:08 AM

I was telling Lox how discussion works.
I had already, in that post, stated, unequivocally, that the theory was "NOT MINE"

Why are you trying so hard to change the clear meaning and intent of my posts?

I have stated unequivocally all the way through since January that the theory is not mine, and I am still stating it.
Why is that so hard for you people to grasp?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 11:12 AM

I have stated unequivocally all the way through since January that the theory is not mine, and I am still stating it.

In which case it can not work "I put up my theory..." can it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 11:55 AM

Jon, THE VERY FIRST LINE OF MY POST,
"I offer it as a plausible theory, and it is not my own."

Anything about that you don't get Jon?
Think of the theory as a red cup that belongs to someone other than me.
It is not mine, OK?

I then go on to explain to Lox how debating should be done.
A general rule.

My theory, the one I am putting up for discussion not one that actually was proposed by me, as compared to whatever theory Lox was putting up.

Imagine that I borrowed that other person's red cup, showed it to Lox and said, " I have got a red cup. Do you like it?"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 12:20 PM

"Has anyone seen my book anywhere?"
"Is this it?"
"Yes."

"It is about world domination and antisemitism you fascist, racist bastard!"

"But I did not write it. Hitler wrote it."

"You said it was "my book" "

"No. I don't write books. I only borrowed it from the library for some research."

"You lying, fascist, racists bastard! You admitted it was "my book." "

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 12:22 PM

Imagine that I borrowed that other person's red cup, showed it to Lox and said, " I have got a red cup. Do you like it?"

Got you:

Keith: Do you like my (meaning the cup I borrowed from an expert on red cups) red cup?

Lox: No. I don't like your cup as it's faulty. Look, the handle's falling off and it's leaking.

Keith: It isn't MY (meaning personal ownership) cup and in any case the person I borrowed it from knows more about cups that you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 12:50 PM

"Lox: No. I don't like your cup as it's faulty. Look, the handle's falling off and it's leaking."

Me: "It still has some good points, and anyway, it is not mine."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 01:21 PM

Me: "It still has some good points, and anyway, it is not mine."

OK then...

Keith: "This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.
There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept [meaning accept for discussion] that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

Jon: But the data is to sketchy for anyone to reach a conclusion like that. Peter Davies, the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), which carried out the research, has warned against jumping to conclusions on the ethnicity of offenders because the data gathered by his investigators was incomplete, not nationwide and of poor quality and stated:

I would send a note of caution about trying to extrapolate anything from this. Looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours,"

Don't you [meaning you] think his advice should be heeded?

Keith:??

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 02:26 PM

Jon, that post was made way back in January.
Most of us, certainly me, were not aware of this issue before.

We only had the opinions of Straw, Shafiq and Cryer back then.

It had been going on for years, with thousands of child victims, but it had been kept quiet.
I think that was wrong.

You and I believe that, for whatever reason, there is an over-rep of BPs in certain areas.
If it is true, I think it best be in the open.
Are you saying that it should be allowed to continue in secret?

I am very suspicious of the motives of people who say, "this should not be discussed."
Real children are suffering multiple gang rape.

I don't care what motivates the abusers.
The child rapists.
I just want it stopped.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 02:51 PM

Are you saying that it should be allowed to continue in secret?

I think it should be investigated properly and that hasty conclusions (in this case particularly ones that attempt to reach cultural conclusions on a national level) should be avoided.   The Guardian link notes:

The report said: "We cannot draw national conclusions about ethnicity because the data is too inconsistent.

"Further research is needed to examine whether the ethnic breakdown reflects issues that need to be addressed within a community context, local demographics of the areas from which data is drawn, an unconscious bias among agency responses or other factors."

I believe that CEOP should be allowed to proceed with this further investigation (which you man note does consider the possibilities of cultural effects) without further speculation as to the causes on our part.

I am very suspicious of the motives of people who say, "this should not be discussed."

I think motives can be questioned both ways. I feel there can be a danger of wanting to avoid anything that may not conform to "PC standards" but I also fear that others may wish to perpetuate discussion for reasons of racism.

From my POV, I would not say it must never be discussed but I do feel we need to find the true picture on a national level rather than guessing.

Diving in with conclusions which some could conceivably "translate" into "Stay clear of Paki's if you value your daughters". Is certainly not the way forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 03:27 PM

""I have not "advanced" any "cultural conclusions" Don.

On what evidence could I "consider the position nationwide"?
Is there any at all?""

More futile wriggling and still no apology!

""Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:28 PM

This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.
There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for.""

That statement was not uttered by any of your "sources", but was completely your own interpretation of what they said, leaving out some very important points which were inconvenient in that they did not fit the mould into which you wished to squeeze the argument.

Those are YOUR EXPRESSED CULTURAL CONCLUSIONS!

If I am wrong, supply a link to the verbatim report in which that statement occurs.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 03:37 PM

""In a normal debate, I would give my opinion, and others would agree or challenge or offer different opinions.""

You have and we have, then you denied that your opinions are yours, blaming sundry "sources" for them, and you rubbished all our opinions.

Which of your "sources" are you going to blame for saying that the alternatives we put up are "nonsense", "wild generalisations" (a bit rich from one who "believes" that all male British Pakistanis are potential child abusers and sex traffickers) etc.?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 03:58 PM

Jon.
"Diving in with conclusions which some could conceivably "translate" into "Stay clear of Paki's if you value your daughters". Is certainly not the way forward. "

Are you suggesting that is my POV?
I have always stated that only a tiny minority are involved, the vast majority of good decent people feel disgraced by them.
Shafiq said just that in his piece in The Times this week.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 04:04 PM

Don.
"That statement was not uttered by any of your "sources", "

True.
They just stated that culture led to the behaviour.

If it caused the behaviour in some, as claimed, I would expect the distribution of effects to be a continuum from actual offending down to zero inclination.
Agree?
We know that the spectrum is skewed towards non offending as only a minute minority offend.

That is my assumption but social psychology is not my field.
I am open to correction.

"Which of your "sources" are you going to blame for saying that the alternatives we put up are "nonsense","
Don, yours was the ONLY alternative I have ever seen.
I told you that I agreed with it but for one single word.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 04:07 PM

""I have always stated that only a tiny minority are involved, the vast majority of good decent people feel disgraced by them.""

True, but your statement about "all male British Pakistanis" having that cultural tendency does indeed suggest that locking up the daughters might be a good idea, since any Pakistani you meet may be a part of that minority.

You cannot be unaware of the potential effect of that idea.

So Jon's comment "Diving in with conclusions which some could conceivably "translate" into "Stay clear of Paki's if you value your daughters". Is certainly not the way forward."" does indeed have considerable validity.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Jul 11 - 04:13 PM

Are you suggesting that is my POV?

I am suggesting that is how a statement drawing a "cultural conclusion" could be interpreted and that it is a bad idea to dive in with guesswork.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 02:06 AM

The link to culture had already been made and given blanket coverage by all the media and national broadcasters.
So why are you all savaging me for putting it in a folkies forum seen by almost no-one?

Why was this argument not launched against BBC, Guardian, Observer, Independent and all the others?
Just me.
Are you confusing me with a media mogul, or is this just a personal vendetta?
It certainly feels like a personal vendetta.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 02:23 AM

I doubt there are more than ten of us who are reading this, and our daughters have daughters of their own.
A bit late to lock them up now.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 04:57 AM

So why are you all savaging me for putting it in a folkies forum seen by almost no-one?

For heavent's sake, I made the effort to attempt reasonable discussion with you yesterday and thought I'd got things back on track. My opinion is my honest opinion and I see nothing in it that "savages you". Don, the only other contributor to this leg has said nothing to "savage you".

You want to carry on with your British Pakistani theories fine. I'll try to stay out of this thread from now on.

But know this. As you are prepared to twist my reasons for thinking "cultural conclusions" are not a good idea into a savage attack on you, you have lost the benefit of the doubt I've given you up to now.

Keith, I now firmly believe you are a racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 05:45 AM

And Keith, in case there is any doubt as to where I stood before trying to discuss the theory in this thread and finding it impossible with your using of selected experts, avoiding direct answers, etc.. I will refer back to the Bin Laden thread where you were accused of being racist:

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 Jun 11 - 05:28 AM

Would you let such an accusation pass?

In fairness, Keith, while I disagree with you on just about everything else in this thread, I would have to answer no [to being accused of racism for comments in the Muslim prejudice thread]to that.

For the record, I think that one can be treading a fine line in a thread like that other one but I felt you were on the right side of that line.

Personally, I think if there is a statistical anomaly, it should be investigated although in this case, my personal feeling is that more detailed analysis to confirm or reject the initial finding was required.

As such I might be inclined to find you guilty of jumping on the side of one interpretation rather quickly and heavily but racist, I for one do not think so.

You've certainly changed my opinion from that point!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 11:20 AM

"I thought the issue the over-rep and reasons for it"
Nope - the issue has always been that YOUR attempts to depict British Pakistanis as cultural perverts and are now resorting to gibberish to attempt to explain why you have denied doing so, admitted doing so and finally pleaded neutrality.
Obsession, to me is somebody who keeps alive a thread as long as you have in an attempt to denigrate another race - there is no rational discussion to be had with such pervs as far as I've concerned, especially those who would do so using abuse victims as a wweapon.
"Keith, I now firmly believe you are a racist."
Join the club Jon, but there's a long waiting list.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 03:03 PM

We are all entitled to opinions about each other, but if you say I am racist you should substantiate the insult.

I am no racist and have never made a racist post so it will be hard.
Most of my posts contain ANTI racist sentiments.
How many times have I stated that the overwhelming majority of BPs are decent people who abhor this crime?
How many times have I acknowledged they are UNDER-represented in all other crimes including other sex crimes?
Everything I have said has also been said by high profile anti racist BPS and given blanket media coverage.
NO RACISM!

My only case here has been to establish that the over-rep is real.
Jon, you have accepted that so I have nothing more to discuss with you anyway.
(I said the same thing to Steve Shaw on 17 Mar 11 - 03:14 PM when he accepted it. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY ONLY CASE!)

Savaged?
That is not too strong a word for the abuse I received for posting here what has been already been published everywhere else.
Jim Carrol has just reiterated that his only case has been about me.
He never offered any opinion but one. Racism.
His main tactic, trawling months old post for anything to use against me.

I say there is an over-rep.
I have not selected experts, I have quoted and/or linked to the statements of ALL the people who have been widely reported on this.

Now show where I have showed racism or withdraw the slander.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 04:05 PM

"I am racist you should substantiate the insult."
You've already done that for us Keith hundreds of times over.
"Most of my posts contain ANTI racist sentiments."
No they don't - they depict Pakistanis as cultural perverts
"How many times have I stated that the overwhelming majority of BPs are decent people who abhor this crime?"
How can they be if they have cultural implants that they have to resist ("don't succumb to" in your own words)
"I acknowledged they are UNDER-represented""
Two-faced shit as you have already claimed that they are a potential risk to children - you only made this statement when you were cornered by your own prejudice
"My only case here has been to establish that the over-rep is real"
No it wasn't; even if it could have been proved to exist (which it hasn't) you have overstated it over and over again as "massive" and "massive, massive". When CEOPS' self-confessed inconclusive and partial figures were revealed you even tried to claim they backed your argument.
"Everything I have said has also been said by high profile anti racist BPS"
And contradicted by many hundreds more who were highly offended by the suggestion. The fact that you have totally ignored what they had to say only underlined your racist stance, as did your totally ignoring the plea from your own witnesses that making the issue a racial or cultural one coulf only worsen the situation for the victims - cynical agenda-pursuing hypocricy of the worst kind, especially when it is "helpless children" who are the victims, to use your own words.
"IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY ONLY CASE!)"
No it hasn't - if it has where did this come from?
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency......"
"He never offered any opinion but one. Racism."
And you continue lying, as you have about others who you have claimed put no case.
I along with all the others who forwarded suggestions why a handful of young Pakistanis behave as they have done; not only have you ignored what has been suggested, but you have lied about me and others making suggestions.
You are renowned for ignoring what other people write when it suits you - want me to let you have some of the other complaints?
In this case it is further proof of your manipulative and dishonest behaviour in trying to prove British Pakistanis are cultural degenerates.
My opposition to your racism was because I have never known anybody put such a sustained effort into maligning a whole culture; one more time:
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency......"
"His main tactic, trawling months old post for anything to use against me."
And you, single-handedly have kept this foul thread going for months and have never withdrawn any of your racist smears.
"I have not selected experts,"
Yes you have - you've carefully selected unsubstantiated opinions and anecdotal evidence, and when their opinions didn't suit your case you left th awkward bits out; as fervently as you praise their expertise you even ignored their advice not to make it a racist issue.
You deliberately ignored many more experts whose opinions not only disagreed with yours, but took great offence at the suggestions you have made off your own bat and supported from your hand-picked team.
"Now show where I have showed racism or withdraw the slander. "
As I said, you've done the job for us, over and over again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 05:04 PM

"- they depict Pakistanis as cultural perverts."
A vile, filthy lie. Show ONE of my posts that does that and I will quit Mudcat.
You can not.
Vile, filthy lie.

CEOPS figures, like Dando's, Wilmers and the rest, DO show a massive over-rep.
We could discuss that issue, but that is not your style.

"And contradicted by many hundreds more who were highly offended by the suggestion."
If that is true, put them up.
The FACT is I have found all there are.

""Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency......"

Repeating the same old discredited lie, and resorting again to leaving ou half of the sentence making clear what was meant.
Dishonest and deceitful.

"I along with all the others who forwarded suggestions why "
Only Don has, and I mostly agreed with him.

"You deliberately ignored many more experts whose opinions not only disagreed with yours"
Blatant lie Jim.
If it is not, put one up.

So here we are ignoring all the issues and arguing about me again.
Your only reply to all my evidence is "racist"

You are a one trick pony, and a shite trick it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 07:38 PM

Muslim prejudice seems to be coming from competing religious ideologies.
Extremist Christians seem to have an investment in denigrating mosques.
The "Know Nothing" party of America's history was organized against Catholics
by Protestants. Religious bigotry has an extensive historical role in the US.

One religion seems to cast a blind eye toward their actions as they blame another
for the very same actions they themselves commit.

There are those who claim that one religion is better than another because of their employment of humane treatment. Historically, there is not much evidence for this view.

One could substitute "race" for "religion" and come up with similar conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Jul 11 - 07:43 PM

Muslim prejudice seems to be coming from competing religious ideologies.

Your anti religion prejudice isn't going to help matters either...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 03:05 AM

Jon, how "savage" were Jim's posts against me?
Is the term justified?
I ask you to reconsider your opinion, taking into consideration that,

I have made no racists posts or statements at all.
My posts contain very many anti-racist statements.
Everything I have said has also been said by high profile anti-racist BPs, and reported in all the media.
I have not "selected."

Also please remember that "racist" is not any kind of argument.
You could believe someone was racist and just knock down their racists arguments, exposing them that way.
(Difficult with me as I have not made any.)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 04:33 AM

"Your anti religion prejudice isn't going to help matters either... "
I'm afraid I find myself in agreement with Stringsinger Jon.
Religion should be a private matter left entirely to the choice of individual, but it seems that when religious bodies attain any degree of power and influence in the running of the state or the lives of ordinary people, there are those who will use that influence to evil ends.
Historically, here in Ireland, there has been centuries of unrest, suffering, persecution and death in the name of religion.
The Catholic Church is still reeling under two reports which have uncovered a large number of cases of child abuse by the Catholic clergy, possibly going back at least a century. A further enquiry is about to be launched into the abuse of young women employees of The Magdelene Laundries.
If the church survives here it will be as a much reduced and changed body.
I am from an Irish Catholic background and my interest in music has brought me into contact with many ordinary Catholics, largely older people.
I have great difficulty in equating the kind, gentle friendships we have experienced over the last four decades with the behaviour of their church.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 05:21 AM

Jon, you have labelled me as a racist on this forum, supported by Jim Carroll.

It is acceptable to describe a post or statement as racist.
It allows me to defend or withdraw it.

It is not acceptable, even for a member of this forum, to make a personal attack like that on a member.

Jim had posts deleted on this thread last month for that very breach of forum etiquette.
The rule is, attack the argument not the person.

I ask you again to reconsider what may have been posted in a moment of anger.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 05:33 AM

The thread is surely becoming as repetitiously "Didn't!" - "Did!" as when Joe stepped in and deleted stuff before, isn't it?

Stringsinger's intervention intro'd a new element; but not quite sure it fits on this thread, which began as study of a specific faith, and specialised itself at some stage as relating to that faith as instanced by the practices of a small & localised but significant segment of one demographic which practises that particular faith.

Whither next for the thread? Is it still viable?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 05:33 AM

but it seems that when religious bodies attain any degree of power and influence in the running of the state or the lives of ordinary people, there are those who will use that influence to evil ends

I don't think that's a peculiarity of religion or that religion is the cause, Jim. I would say that nasty people have and will continue to use ANY difference (you know they are not like us rather than a German, and therefore bad and or the cause of our problems) to further their own ends and I do sadly agree that religion has got caught up in this far too often.

The Catholic Church is still reeling under two reports which have uncovered a large number of cases of child abuse by the Catholic clergy, possibly going back at least a century. A further enquiry is about to be launched into the abuse of young women employees of The Magdelene Laundries.

While I agree it was awful and inexcusable, I don't think it's the same type of abuse of power as above.

I am from an Irish Catholic background and my interest in music has brought me into contact with many ordinary Catholics, largely older people. I have great difficulty in equating the kind, gentle friendships we have experienced over the last four decades with the behaviour of their church.

I don't have your wealth of experience but I've played in a few good sessions where I've known Irish protestants and Irish Catholics are present. I agree some things are difficult to equate...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 05:38 AM

(you know they are not like us rather than a German, and therefore bad and or the cause of our problems)

opps. I was going to type one thing, changed my mind but obviously didn't edit fully. I had intended it to read:

(you know they are not like us, and therefore bad and or the cause of our problems)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 05:58 AM

Whither next for the thread? Is it still viable?

I've just added to comments on the other topic but on reflection, I think this thread would have been better closed months ago...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 06:59 AM

"I think this thread would have been better closed months ago... "
I'll drink to that - often!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 07:17 AM

I don't drink, Jim; so have one {or a couple!} for me.
Le-Chaim!

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 07:53 AM

Why did the child abuse debate run for so long?

I joined it 2 days in, just to speak out for the victims.
The word "slut" had been used.

I found that it was being denied that there was anything unusual going on, and I put up the evidence that the specific crime was worthy of discussion, and that there was an over-representation of one demographic group.

Some people are still denying at least the over-rep part, so the debate may be exhausted on the evidence to date, but it is not decided.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 08:20 AM

"I don't drink, Jim; so have one {or a couple!} for me."
You don't??
How did you ever survive the revival - you wouldn't have lasted ten minutes in Ireland?
Slante (can't do fadas yet!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 08:25 AM

PS I'm informed by a fellow catter that someone is sendings racist PMs in my name - not me, but am not too concerned; it's always useful to know where the dog has shat before you put your foot down.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 12:38 PM

Oh, I used to drink like everyone else, Jim; just suddenly went off it at 70, realising that I had never actually liked it that much, that it was an easy way to waste a lot of money if one wasn't really taking that much pleasure in it, and that it was often an advantage, as well as intrinsically pleasurable, to have a clearer head than one's company and no headachy feelings next morning. Had I realised all this earlier, I should probably have saved even more over a longer period; and expect I should nevertheless have survived the revival at that!

I am not a teetotaller: will e.g. politely drink toasts in champagne at a wedding. But must admit to having been brought up short by the recognition of how much crime & anti-social behaviour [like, probably, I shouldn't wonder, the main subject of this thread] are in fact alcohol related.

Yours in temperance but I hope not priggishly

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 01:33 PM

Jim, can I remind you that I stated that you lied about me to justify the slander of racism?

Your whole post was lies.
It had to be because the accusation of racism is a lie.

You have been challenged many times by me and by MtheGm to justify your continuous use of that most despicable personal attack.

You never have, and you still can not because it is a lie.

Please start with the lie that my posts, " depict Pakistanis as cultural perverts"

That is the nastiest lie of all.
You can not produce such a post so common decency demands you withdraw the slander.

You can not just make statements like that about people and ignore rebuttals.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 02:26 PM

It is not acceptable, even for a member of this forum, to make a personal attack like that on a member.

You were saying Keith?

Please don't try to pull that one...


I am member 4429. Anyway back to guest and back to out of this thread. Just wanted to show you...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 02:35 PM

I was supposed to know that?
It is not acceptable even for a member Jon.

Try to show that my posts or arguments are racist, and I will challenge you.

Let's leave personal attacks and name calling out of it.
That is the rule anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jul 11 - 06:54 PM

""I along with all the others who forwarded suggestions why "
Only Don has, and I mostly agreed with him.""

Please do not pretend that you and I are in agreement about anything. If I recall correctly you referred to my alternative as "total nonsense" and "wild exaggeration", so don't try to play me off against Jim and Jon.

You represent everything I hate about prejudice, bias and denigration of the different.

You protest very loudly that you do not lie. I have proved more than once that you do......frequently!

You protest very loudly that you are not a racist.

Well, if you quack like a duck and you waddle like a duck, you shouldn't be too surprised if people take it on face value that you are a ruddy duck........or maybe one of the other breeds.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 01:19 AM

That is the exact point Don.
I do not quack like a racist duck.
I am no racist so I do not say racist things.
Put one up if I ever have.

Likewise a lie.

The last time you posted your theory of why the over-rep, I said I agreed with it if you just changed "small number of victims" to "large."
There are known to be a very large number of victims.

My only "crime" Don is to believe the over-rep to be real.
Even on this thread, Lox, Jim and possibly you are the only ones still denying it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 03:26 AM

"Jim and possibly you are the only ones still denying it. "
No Keith - you've driven everybody else off with your lies, evasions, and refusal to take responsibilty for your own opinions, blaming them on somebody else.
Must go - got a music festival to attend
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 04:06 AM

Steve Shaw, Jon Freeman, MtheGM, Dave the Gnome, have all accepted.

Driven people away?
I just keep saying there is an over-rep and putting up evidence.
I only carry on because you 3 keep denying it.

Now, about why you had to lie about me Jim?
If you have to lie, you clearly have no case.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 04:40 AM

I haven't accepted anything. Do not construe silence as agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 05:10 AM

A large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.

I had to keep saying it because you and others either deny it or say it is not significant.

Do you still deny it?
Do you think it significant?
Do you think it racist?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 02:20 PM

When have I ever denied it? Or said it was insignificant?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 11:56 AM

You forgot to quote the rest of that March 17 post, Keith. I accused you of misrepresenting then and you're at it again now. Here's the bit you left out:

What's wrong is the gloss you're putting on it, your focus to the exclusion of all other sex crime in this country. You seem to be on a mission to besmirch one particular small group of people. That could be racist for all I know. It's down to you to defend that stance and you have signally failed to do so, which is why you are being confronted with scepticism by so many people. It doesn't help when you blatantly misrepresent what people post, as here, either.

Nothing's changed, has it, which is why I butted out of this thread ages ago. Till now, of course, following your unwelcome dredging up of what you wrongly interpret to be past "evidence" in your favour.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 02:22 PM

"If you have to lie, you clearly have no case. "
This discussion has now been permanently entered into the archives of utmost idiocy.
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency".
When you can show us that;
"Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"
does not mean that they are culturally inclined to paedophelia;
that;
"all male Pakistani Muslims"
does not throw suspicion on every male Pakistani Muslim;
that;
"I do now " believe"
makes it your belief and nobody elses;
and that the whole statement;
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency";
is not a racist stereotyping accusation which suggests that every single male Pakistani Muslim is culturally inclined towards paedophelia and has to resist their cultural inclinations.
you might then have a case
This is your statement; it is aimed at all British Pakistani men, it puts them all under the suspicion of being paedophiles, and it is racist - show us how this is not the case.
Couple this fact with your further statement that there is a "massive" or a "massive massive" over-representation of British Pakistanis in the crime and you present us with an ethnic group in Britain who can never be trusted near children; show us how this is not the case.
You have made the statement, the implications of what you have written are plain; show us how you have not cast suspicion on all male Pakistanis.
Your adding;
"...and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."
adds insult to injury and makes no difference whatever to your accusation - according to YOU it is a "culturally implanted tendency" which they have to resist.
Your pathetic gibberish in attempting to explain how it is possible to make a statement, deny you have made a statement and finally claim to be neutral, all in the space of half a dozen postings, confirms your idoitic stance as the idiocy it is.
It is you who has lied and who continues to lie
Now - one by one, explain these above facts.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 04:16 PM

Steve, I refuted all your other comments at the time.
I am not, and never was making any other case but the over-rep.
As I said to you then, as you accept the over-rep I have no other issue with you.

I was not and am not pushing all those things you accused me of.
My case was, and is, just the over-rep.
You accepted it.
We are done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 04:26 PM

Jim, I posted my every use of words related to paedophilia.
Not once have I suggested that BPs are any more prone than anyone else.
I stated repeatedly that they are not.
I stated repeatedly that I, like other experts quoted, do not link this crime with paedophilia at all.
I stated repeatedly that kids were targeted because they were "more malleable.
"Easy meat."

Your repeated claims that I have linked BPs with paedophilia is an evil lie.

Your whole case against me is a filthy, vile lie.
So, no change there then.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 04:53 PM

Five and a half months. Several posts a day from me.
You find one post, from months back, to use against me.
It does not even mention paedophilia!

You take a whole screenful of closely argued tosh to make a case that it links BPs with paedophilia.

Against that there are about twenty posts, from January onwards, where I state, unequivocally, that I do not.

You have failed to make a case.
It is just lies.
Your case is a lie.

And even if it were true, why not counter my arguments instead of just saying racist?

Why not discuss the issues instead of me for a change?

Because you can't!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jul 11 - 05:42 PM

""Against that there are about twenty posts, from January onwards, where I state, unequivocally, that I do not.""

You can say it twenty, two hundred, or two thousand times, but it don't necessarily make it true.

As with so much else that you try to beat into peoples' heads with the sheer weight of multiple posts, there is ample evidence to the contrary.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 01:09 AM

That defies logic Don.
You decide I am racist, so it does not matter that I make only non-racist and anti-racist posts, and never make racist ones.

There is another explanation for the absence of any racism in any of my posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 01:34 AM

I am going to be off line for a couple of days.
Don, I think you must have missed this.

Here is every use of a word beginning "paed" by me in connection to BPs in this thread.
(except when quoting you 3 who use it in nearly every post, so desperate are you to make the smaear stick.)

24th Jan. Paedophilia is not endorsed,(by Islam)

22nd March Lively, I agree about it not being necessarily paedophilia

25th March The offenders were not viewed as paedophiles but had picked the girls 'because of their malleability'

21st April The contention is that children are easier meat than older girls, not that the offenders are necessarily paedophiles.

21st April Jim, I just told you that paedophilia was not a contention!

9th June Also, it is suggested that children are targetted because they are easy meat, not because of paedophilia.

11th June I have repeatedly told you that I acknowledge that paedophilia is mostly a white crime.

14th June Most paedophiles in this country are white,

18th June No-one here has ever claimed a link between paedophilia and culture.

19th June Jim, I keep telling you that I do not regard participation in this form of abuse as evidence of paedophilia.

20th June Paedophilia is not a crime Don.
It is a condition.
I do not think these offenders are driven by it.

22nd June I keep telling you that I am NOT postulating paedophilia.
Why do you keep on about it?

25th June I have stated repeatedly, since January, that I do not regard paedophilia as an issue in this.

25th June You said I accused BPs of paedophilia.
That was and is a lie.
I never did, and don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 01:36 AM

"Not once have I suggested that BPs are any more prone than anyone else."
What, not "massive" or "massive"; where have you suggested that we are all culturally linked to paedophelia?
"I stated repeatedly that they are not."
Where?
"I stated repeatedly that I, like other experts....."
Since when have you been an expert - you said you were ignorant on the subject - I agree with you totally - about the only thing you got right.
"Your repeated claims that I have linked BPs with paedophilia is an evil lie."
My last post sums up your claim that "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" towards paedophelia. you haven't explained it, you haven't denied you made it, you have not even acknowledged it, you ignored it - the vileness, the filth and the lies are all yours.
You have set out smear British Pakistanis by directly linking the culture of "all" of them with paedophelia to a "massive" or "massive, massive" degree (your own words); you have failed to do so.
"I state, unequivocally, that I do not."
Denial is not proof - ignoring your own statements is - you have proved our point for us.
Your point, quoted back at you dozens of times, is a racist one; you have made racist statements; your stance throughout has been a racist one; you have failed miserably and now embarrassingly desperately, to make your case.
Shut the door as you go out.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 02:07 AM

"My last post sums up your claim that "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" towards paedophelia. "

But I never did claim that.
That is why it is not on the list.
You lie.

I was and am referring only to this crime which I have never linked to paedophilia.
I claim only that BPs are over-represented in it.
That claim is vindicated by every bit of research including CEOP.

Address the issues Jim and cut out this hate campaign of lies.

Off line for a couple of days.
Use it to construct a challenge to what I have actually argued.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 02:24 AM

"Use it to construct a challenge to what I have actually argued."
You conceitedly self-important puffed-up little burk.
You've made your racists point cleary enough not to be misinterpreted - it's fallen on deaf ears.
As I said, shut the door as you go out.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 03:05 AM

More empty name calling.
Another lie ("You've made your racists point ")
Where?
When?

And no reference to any issue or any argument, just me.

So, no change there Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 03:53 AM

Sir - sir - didn't you forget to give us all 100 lines for being bad children?
Just about caps your "My work is done here", when you tried to defend wartime British establishent fascists!!
Have good holiday sir.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 06:41 AM

""You decide I am racist, so it does not matter that I make only non-racist and anti-racist posts, and never make racist ones.""

No, I don't decide anything of the sort, and in point of fact until that last post, I have argued the issues without directly accusing you of racism as such.

However, if you persist in trying to isolate one particular race, British Pakistanis, and assert that their specific culture renders them liable to be a danger to children and young people, then observers are justified in asking why other racial groups with identical cultural and religious backgrounds do not register on your radar.

This brings up the question of your motives, and leads to the suspicion which has grown around your choice of, and insistence upon, this theory to the point that you ignore and ridicule all suggested alternatives.

You engender further suspicion by denying responsibility for your recorded statements, and hiding behind a bunch of "sources" (chosen by you), who never went to the lengths you did in drawing conclusions, and would probably be horrified at being linked with those conclusions.

In conclusion the duck analogy stands. You will (we all will) be judged by what you say and do, not by what is left after you shift the blame to others who have never agreed to your theory and never heard of you.

It's your own mess Keith, and that's why this thread is as long as it is. You made this about you and your theory, so in future you might like to think a bit more before saying things like ""Don I do now believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency......"", because they are expressions of YOUR point of view and I'm afraid that you own them, like it or not.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,livelylass
Date: 05 Jul 11 - 02:32 PM

I believe Stringsinger raised a potentially relevant point recently in this thread re: the role of religion in the oppression of women worldwide. It is a point I agree with. As a woman, I find all patriarchal religions troubling, both at this time and in the past, both here in the West and abroad. I believe that they tend to do a huge disservice to women worldwide, whether it be the Catholic promotion of incessant childbearing upon African women or routine female clitorectomy as practiced in many Muslim countries. While there may be no direct relationship between religious indocrination and the crimes under discussion on this thread, I would suggest that religious intolerance of freely expressed feminine sexuality, and indeed the entire othering concept of a woman as a "slut" or "cheap whore" is one inherited from religious prejudice.

Does God Hate Women? Well, personally I think He does:
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/2041/full?page=1

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 02:08 PM

Don, this discussion is ABOUT the involvement of BPs in this crime.
How can I discuss that and defend the over-rep without referring to them.
Remember it started with Straw specifically referring to BPs in connection with it.
Likewise Cryer, Shafiq, Ahmed, Wilmer, Bindel, Norfolk, A-B, etc.

Not on holiday Jim, but attending the funeral of an old and dear friend.
He was latterly known as Manjusvara. You might want to Google him.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 11 - 04:28 PM

"Don, this discussion is ABOUT the involvement of BPs in this crime."
This discussion is supposed to be about "Muslim prejudice" (take a look at the title) of which you have displayed enough to tightly pack a Nuremberg rally.
You are now trying to steer it away from your own racist utterances and are still hiding behind your hand-picked experts in order to do so.
Please don't try and manipulate this thread to suit yourself - you've already led a thread drift to publiciase your racist agenda by the sheer weight of your postings.
People will decide whatever they choose to discuss without your attempted manipulation.
Despite your pompously propriortorial attitude, this is not your thread, created to serve your personal prejudices.
"He was latterly known as Manjusvara."
Oh dear - not the old "some of my best friends are...." line; how stomach-heavingly patronising.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 01:05 AM

That was the origin of the thread indeed, Jim; the statement by Lady Warsi at the Tory conference being the trigger of Brian's OP. But the main associated news item, the statement by police about cover-ups of statistics specifically related to Pakistani communities for fear of accusations of racism in certain regions, with its follow-up comments by Straw, Alibhai-Brown, et al, became the main focus of the debate, and hence, as Keith IMO correctly points out, of this thread. I think you are being disingenuous in your implied contradiction of Keith's point that this is what the thread is mainly concerned with, and hence what he will be mostly adverting to; and, once again, in your [and one or two others'] constantly parroted ad nauseam ill-founded accusations of 'racist racist racist', when he has, so far as I can see, made no claims of, and has indeed repeatedly disassociated himself from, any wider applications of such facts or statistics.

I am moved to say again that I continue to see in your & Don's & Lox's constant unbacked iterations the customary knee-jerk refusal of the doctrinairely-committed to face any fact incompatible with their preconceptions.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 01:14 AM

I continued posting on the original subject for two days after the child abuse subject came up. (Jan 21-Jan23)
It is a lie to say I led it, and you knew you were lying because I have shown you it before.

This discussion is ABOUT the involvement of BPs in this crime.
How can I discuss that and defend the over-rep without referring to them.

I guess you did not Google.
You might wonder how my supposed racism never got in the way of my friendship with a man like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 01:24 AM

And, my first post on this subject was just an intervention in support of the victims, correcting some fasle insinuations that had been posted about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:29 AM

"It is a lie to say I led it,"
No it isn't - you may not have started the drift, but the sheer weight of your postings and your practice of responding to virtually everybody's post has meant you have dominated this thread with your attempt to prove that "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" towards paedophelia.
Mike - if the accusation is "ill founded" perhaps you can explain his phrase which he has denied, admitted, and finally said that he is neutral on the subject. It is racist to apply such a statement to any one racial/ cultural group; please show us it isn't - and maybe even say if you agree with it or not.
And I still find it extremely one sided that you continue to attack those of us who who find Keith's stance offensive, and treat his own behaviour - racist, evasive, manipulative, openly dishonest, pompously domineering, cowardly in refusing to take responsibility for his own statements by cowering behind 'experts'... as acceptable.
His latest ploy of using somebody's funeral as an attempt to deny his racism is really something else - don't you think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:54 AM

I mostly just reply to posts that challenge mine.
I follow rather than lead, but as you say that has resulted in a huge number of posts.

Of those, you keep on about one from February to exploit some ambiguity, ignoring the hundreds of other posts all non-racist and/or anti-racist.

Even then you have to edit out "but only because" and fabricate "culturally implanted tendency towards paedophilia." which I never said.

You can not put up a single racist post because I have made none.
All you have is deceit and dishonesty.
Personal attack without foundation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 02:26 PM

"I follow rather than lead,"
Then I suggest you re-read you postings.
You have dominated this thread by at least four-to-one to present us with an ethic minority with a debased culture which makes them a danger to young English girls.
"one from February to exploit some ambiguity"
The one post which describes the British Pakistani culture as being implanted with a tendency to paedophelia.
You have lied by saying you never said such a thing; you have admitted it, you have claimed neutrality on and ignorance of the subject - you have even extrodinarily claimed that you can say you believe it and somehow mean you don't believe it, then gone on to equate yourself with a weather forecaster only carrying the message.
You say you have never put up a racist post; your claim to a "cultural implant" was only one of several racist posts, others being a gross exaggeration of "massive" and "massive, massive" over-representation. THEY ARE YOUR WORDS AND YOUR RACIST POSTS.
Don't you dare accuse me of deciet and dishonesty after your string of lise, distortions, exaggeration, misrepresentations, your doctoring of threads to remove specific vital qualifications, you have consistently hhidden behind experts.... and the beat goes on.
You are still lying about your "cultural implant" statement (please note the quotation marks).
However many "non-racist" statements you claim to have made, they do not cancel out any of the ones you have made.
THese are not persoal attacks; they are direct references and challenges to your statements and to your behaviour in general.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 04:05 PM

"The one post which describes the British Pakistani culture as being implanted with a tendency to paedophelia."

I have never said this.

Since you joined the thread, word for word you have posted much more than I have.

If I have made a racist post, quote it (in full without additions.)

You never have managed to find one yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 04:24 PM

Returning to the issues, how do you reconcile the CEOP data with your denial of an over-rep?

Let's discuss the issues instead of me for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 05:15 PM

"If I have made a racist post, quote it"
Have just quoted it - you explain what you meant.
"Returning to the issues"
Again manipulating the thread into your comfort zone - the issue is Muslim prejudice - you have made it into a platform to attack British Pakistanis.
Over-rep might one day be proved to be the case - you with your handful of examples of anedotal evidence, personal opinions etc came nowhere near proving it exists and in order to even begin to show it to be a cultural trait you will have to explain why it does not appear to be a problem outside the areas yo have chosen to highlight.
The CEOPs report, by admission, is inconclusive and unreliable until further evidence can be gathered from a nation-wide survey, and even within that report it warns that no racial or cultural conclusions can be drawn. The same warning was included in your own examples' statements - yet you continue to make it a racial issue - why?
Once these statistics are gathered in, then and only then can the job of finding out why these events are taking place - only you have pre-empted that by telling us that it's due to a cultural implant.
"Let's discuss the issues instead of me for a change."
Again I repeat and again you continue to ignore - not about you just your racist suggestions and your dishonest debating practices.
Everbody who has opposed your ideas has put down possible reasons for the abuse; you have not even had the good grace to even refer to them, let alone oppose them.
Now try coming out in the open instead of hiding behind you out-of-context and deliberately distorted quotes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 05:49 PM

I HAVE NEVER LINKED PAEDOPHILIA TO CULTURE.
NEVER!
IF YOU SAY I HAVE, YOU LIE.
REPLY JIM.

In the Feb post I do not refer to paedophilia.
It is about the offending under discussion.
I say I believe it is linked to culture and I say it is not my idea.
It could not be.
You would have to know about it to have the idea.

I also believe tomorrow's weather forecast.
I also believe faster than light travel is impossible.
I also believe in black holes.

None of those ideas are mine and I do not, and could not, defend any of them without referring to the experts responsible for them.

That is not "hiding" but stating an obvious truth,

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 11 - 07:23 PM

Explain your statement or accept the consequences of it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 01:18 AM

I already have, but let's clear this up.

The 5 had all said there was a specific problem with BPs in this offence, and that it derived from attitudes to females, courtship and marriage practise. It had been reported in all the media.

Don challenged me to say if I believed in a cultural explanation.
Not wanting to duck the question, I answered honestly that I did believe but only because I believed the 5.

I consciously left out any reference to paedophilia because no-one had suggested that was an issue.

I was not making a case for the explanation.
My case was and is just the over-rep, but I was asked directly by Don for my belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 02:38 AM

For the record, this is part of the discussion on the subject of a "culturally implanted tendency toward paedophile rape" (Don's question) and how you responded to it, along with a question by Lox This is what you accepted as your view and what you put your name to.
You, and not your 'Famous Five' wrote this - your opinion, your responsibility - have the courage to accept it as your view and justify it as such without hiding behind others.
If you wish to point out where I have distorted or invented anything I have selected here, please feel free to do so. Of course, a fuller version of this discussion can be found around the dates provided.

Don's question 12 Feb 11 - 07:52 PM :
"When asked the question ""their culture inspires a slight predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls. Can you confirm that that is your opinion of British Pakistanis?"", you replied ""It is my opinion that it is a reasonable suggestion.
The over representation is a fact that requires an explanation.
Something is predisposing them, and it is more likely to be something sexual in the culture than your alternative list. (wild generalisations?)"".
However small the number of those who succumb to the temptation, and however slight that tendency may be, it does not alter the fact that you believe that all male Pakstani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency toward paedophile rape."

13 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM
Keith
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."

Lox, 13 Feb 11 - 05:11 PM
"A theory that wilfully and exclusively discriminates on Racial/cultural grounds is a racist one."
Keith's reply:
"But, supposing it was true.
It was true about Thugee culture.
I was not comparing Thugee culture to BP culture.
I was only showing you that sometimes culture is to blame.
It is not racist to say that.
But you seem to be saying that it is."

I suggest that if you are now going to disown this, you carefully read through everything you have written before you make yourself look any more dishonest than you already have.
Throughout this thread you have taken examples of the behaviour of a small number of criminals and painted a horrific picture of the British Pakistani community; I brought together 5 "massive" or "massive, massive" examples of how you seem to see the Pakistani people in Britain: (21 Mar 11 - 12:33 - 21 Mar 11 - 12:34 - 21 Mar 11 - 12:36 - 21 Mar 11 - 12:38 - 21 Mar 11 - 12:41.)
You have suggested that the reason they behave the way they do is because "all male Pakistani Muslims" have a "cultural implant" and you compound this by saying "only a tiny minority succumb."
Whatever way you paint this, you have presented us with a culturally degenerate people who are potentially a danger to underage girls outside of their culture. The logic of your argument is that they would all be paedophile rapists if they did not resist their culural urges.
This is how you have depicted a community made up of an the poorest people in Britain who are four times more likely to be racially abused and attacked than any other racial group, and who, by and large, are recognised as being well behaved, somewhat insular, law-abiding, industrious and high achieving when allowed to be.
I really do think I have had enough of your lies, distortions and your cringing behind the words of others, so unless you have anything more to say by way of honest explanation..... music calls
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 03:04 AM

The cultural explanation came from the 5.
Even you are not certain they are wrong.
If culture is to blame, then I would expect it to be manifested in a range of responses in those in that culture.

The range would be from no effect to actual offending.
Agree? I am not a social psychologist and am ready to be corrected.

Empirically we know the distribution is skewed towards no effect as hardly any offend.
I have explained all this before.

The cultural idea and its implications do not come from me.
I do support the over-rep.

Whatever your opinion of me, why must you keep constantly pushing it?
Why can we not just debate the issues?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 03:21 AM

You know, this whole thread serves to do one thing: to expose the prejudices of the participants, on all sides of the issue. If I close the thread, they'll simply move their squabble to another thread. Many people have asked me to close this thread, and I probably will - soon. I've decided to just leave them here and hope they kill each other off. But please do not think that Mudcat approves of or "allows" this sort of animosity. The participants are doing it of their own accord.
This thread disgusts me, moreso because I like most of the participants.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 03:22 AM

This is how it should be.

28th Jan. Me.
"And yes, find anything by me that is racist and I walk."


Lox, next post

"I wouldn't want you to walk as for me, as I have already stated, it is not the person but the idea that needs confronting"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 04:48 AM

"The cultural explanation came from the 5."
Nope - still skulking behind other people.
"Why can we not just debate the issues? "
As Lox rightly stated; "it is not the person but the idea that needs confronting".
The issue here is "Muslim prejudice" (read the heading) - in this case, yours and it is this that is being debated - not you.
"do not think that Mudcat approves of or "allows" this sort of animosity."
It seems to approve of and allow racist accusations to be made Joe.
I've been asking for this thread to be closed for months now and am totally bemused why it wasn't - I certainly woudn't open a new one and would only participate in another if it was used for the same purpose this one was.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 04:57 AM

The explanation DOES come from the 5 and does not and could not come from me.
You would have to know something about it.
I don't.

Stop calling me racist in public and I won't have to keep defending myself.

My case is only the over-rep, and only you Jim, Lox and maybe Don are still denying it.

As Akeneaton, MtheGM, Dave Gnome, Jon, Steve Shaw and Lively have all accepted it, I am done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 05:23 AM

"Accepted it" my arse. You can't just post that about me without taking all my comments into consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 05:37 AM

As Akeneaton, MtheGM, Dave Gnome, Jon, Steve Shaw and Lively have all accepted it, I am done.

You fail to point out this have never been my issue with you.

Mine is that, despite expert advice to the contrary, you are prepared to use very poor data (which incidentally only managed to positively identify 30 British Pakistanis out of 2379 offenders) to reach or promote or support conclusions of the form

"British Pakistanis commit this crime because they..."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 05:52 AM

OK Jon, but I never came up with an explanation for it.
I did report one that appeared in all the media, and was prepared to accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 06:12 AM

Steve, ""Accepted it" my arse. You can't just post that about me without taking all my comments into consideration. "

Do you accept the over-rep.?
You did state that, notwithstanding your other comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 06:18 AM

Steve, here is the post I refer to in context.

(Me)
Do you still deny it?
Do you think it significant?
Do you think it racist?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 02:20 PM

When have I ever denied it? Or said it was insignificant? If that's how you read my comments then you need English lessons. What's wrong is the gloss you're putting on it, your focus to the exclusion of all other sex crime in this country. You seem to be on a mission to besmirch one particular small group of people. That could be racist for all I know. It's down to you to defend that stance and you have signally failed to do so, which is why you are being confronted with scepticism by so many people. It doesn't help when you blatantly misrepresent what people post, as here, either.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 03:14 PM

Thanks Steve.
If you accept that I have no other issue, but I refute that I " focus to the exclusion of all other sex crime in this country."

It is just that we happened to be discussing this crime, i.e. on-street grooming of children by groups.

I did acknowledge whenever it came up that BPs were under represented in all other crime incuding other sex crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 06:44 AM

I can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else. I wouldn't want to, but neither would I gleefully put them forward to "prove" (or, possibly worse, insinuate) something that requires a whole load more context. My post that you are so fond of quoting clearly states my position and indicates why I so vehemently disagree with yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 06:47 AM

I have no issue with that Steve.
Thanks.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 08:52 AM

"My case is only the over-rep,"
Your case is an unproved and at present unprovable point of totally your own invention of "massive" over-representation of a crime which you have attempted to identify exclusively with Pakistanis.
My/our case is that you have attempted to use this invention of yours to present a whole community as culturally degenerate.
Not only have you misrepresented and distorted evidence from your own witnesses, you are now doing the same with members of this forum in claiming their support, which you patently do not have.
Are there no limits to the depths to which you will sink to get your racist message across?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 09:02 AM

You can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else.
My case is only the over-rep, and only you Jim, Lox and maybe Don are still denying it.

As Akeneaton, MtheGM, Dave Gnome, Jon (pointing out that this has never been an issue with him), Steve Shaw (notwithstanding that he disagrees with other things he, wrongly, believes I support) and Lively Lass have all accepted it, I am done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 09:32 AM

From his last post, I think Lox accepts it too (in the specified areas).
detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=3174428

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 09:41 AM

Jon (pointing out that this has never been an issue with him)

Seems to be nothing I can do about this...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 09:53 AM

Your words Jon.
"Keith, I am prepared to accept that this over representation exists in the specified places. This "over-rep" in itself does not "prove" the theory though. "

I have no opinion on any theory.
My only case is the over-rep.
I am done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 10:03 AM

Keith, you are lumping me in with some general agreement in this thread with you. While I am prepared to accept there is an over-rep, I disagree with you strongly over what has been the main issue within this thread.

Your words I have issue with include:

"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency""

"but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 10:12 AM

Jon, my only case is the over-rep and you accept it.

I stated that I only believed because the 5 are utterly believable, but I do not and could not defend that theory any more than I could the theory of black holes, time dilation or the weather forecast.

My case is the over-rep, and I am not arguing about its cause.
I am done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 10:31 AM

My case is the over-rep, and I am not arguing about its cause.

Fair enough, if that is your only case, I will assume you have dropped:

"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency""

"but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

and take it as agreeed that you now accept that attempting to reach any form of "national cultural conclusion" with the available information was wrong.

That being the case, I am done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 10:58 AM

I do still "believe" and "accept" Jon, but only because I believe the 5 experts whose case was reported in all the media to the exclusion of any other.

It was never anything to do with me, and nor could it have been.
I will drop it if someone of comparable credentials ever challenges it.

My only case is the over-rep.
All those capable of rational thought accept it, so I am done.

Pull the switch please Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 11:00 AM

""I am moved to say again that I continue to see in your & Don's & Lox's constant unbacked iterations the customary knee-jerk refusal of the doctrinairely-committed to face any fact incompatible with their preconceptions.""

Mike, are you sure you aren't looking in a mirror?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 11:13 AM

I do still "believe" and "accept" Jon, but only because I believe the 5 experts whose case was reported in all the media to the exclusion of any other.

It was never anything to do with me, and nor could it have been.
I will drop it if someone of comparable credentials ever challenges it.

The chief executive of Ceop is far better placed than any of your "experts" and he very clearly advises against any such conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 11:19 AM

I would not agree that he knows more about Pakistanis than Pakistanis do.
Anyway, his main point was that it is best not to talk about it.
I think that dangerously wrong, but in this case I will go along with it.
I really am done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 11:21 AM

(He did not speculate on the cause of the over-rep at all Jon.)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 11:40 AM

Don: Re your post addressed to me at 11.00 AM, what 'preconceptions' do you purport to find in any of my posts on this thread, which have been purely speculative [apart fom the repeated assertion that IMO Keith has not been receiving a fair hearing ~ hardly a "preconception"}? You & the others I have named, however, have clearly, to my observation, parroted accusations of 'racism' at any remark which might appear to name any specific demographic in any but favourable terms, whatever the facts of the matter. If this is not resorting to argument based on doctrinaire preconceptions, then it seems to me the words can have no referent.

Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 12:28 PM

I would not agree that he knows more about Pakistanis than Pakistanis do.

Irrelevant. He was best placed to know what could and could not be made from the data.


Anyway, his main point was that it is best not to talk about it.

No his point was not to make national cultural conclusions from the report.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 01:26 PM

""You can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else.
My case is only the over-rep, and only you Jim, Lox and maybe Don are still denying it.""

You can certainly question the validity of statistics as unsatisfactorily based as those upon which you build your argument. I repeat:- The conclusions you draw are suspect because the sample is

1. Too small
2. Too unrepresentative, in that your conclusion is based on a small and localised area, and a series of interlinked criminal gangs which happened in this particular group of cases to be predominantly British Pakistanis.
3. Too skewed, in that they excluded entirely the vast majority of the ethnic group you are attempting to tie into your preferred conclusion.
4. Much more plausible if applied to my alternative, which you have rejected without consideration.

One other thing is true. Your sources have at no time concurred with your "over representation" theory, in fact very much the contrary, yet you persist in presenting it as established fact, rather than as the unsupported opinion of one Keith A of Hertford, based on dodgy maths at best, which in fact is just what it is.

I hope that this is sufficiently on topic for you, though with little hope of getting the same in response (not a personal attack, just an observation based on the whole of your posting history in this thread).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 01:48 PM

Jon, CEOP did not offer any explanation, nor deny one.

Don, just you and Jim still denying the over-rep. then.

Steve said, "You can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else."

You two can obviously.

Joe please, pull the plug.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 03:06 PM

""You & the others I have named, however, have clearly, to my observation, parroted accusations of 'racism' at any remark which might appear to name any specific demographic in any but favourable terms, whatever the facts of the matter.""

That, with respect, is a gross distortion of what I have been saying throughout this thread Mike, as I suspect you already know.

There has been no such blanket accusation stated or implied in any post of mine, and I think you owe me a retraction and an apology if you cannot point to any single post of mine which does contain or imply such.

Throughout this thread I have been arguing against exactly such biased behaviour by Keith in attempting, from far from sufficient evidence, to portray a specific racial grouping as potential cultural degenerates who are a danger to children.

My only mention of any racial grouping other than the group in Keith's gunsights, was made to show that the others with exactly the same cultural restrictions showed no such tendency.

Neither of course did his target group, except for the few in the localised criminal gangs involved in this crime.

We learned that Pakistani gangs tend to consist mainly of Pakistanis.

WOW, what a revelation!!

But Keith has managed to post the vast majority of the total number of posts in this thread with just one recurrent theme.

Blame British Pakistanis as a whole for the crime of on street grooming, and sex trafficking of underage victims.

This has been going on since the time when there were more Brits in Pakistan, than Pakistanis in Britain, but until very recently it has been lumped in with domestic grooming and other sex crimes. Keith may not have noticed, but this is NOT, as he would wish us to believe, a new crime.

It has been happening for decades past, and the earlist groups involved were people like the Krays and Richardsons. I can't be certain, but I don't think they were of Pakistani origin.

So you see Mike, no "parroted accusations". I don't do bird impressions.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 03:12 PM

PS. Please note that it is now Keith, shorn of any credibility, who is begging for the closure of the thread.

Right or wrong, he wants the last word.

No change there!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 03:18 PM

""Jon, CEOP did not offer any explanation, nor deny one.

Don, just you and Jim still denying the over-rep. then.

Steve said, "You can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else."

You two can obviously.

Joe please, pull the plug.""

As you didn't read or respond to the comment, here it is again. If you can't be bothered, get somebody to read it to you.

You can certainly question the validity of statistics as unsatisfactorily based as those upon which you build your argument. I repeat:- The conclusions you draw are suspect because the sample is

1. Too small
2. Too unrepresentative, in that your conclusion is based on a small and localised area, and a series of interlinked criminal gangs which happened in this particular group of cases to be predominantly British Pakistanis.
3. Too skewed, in that they excluded entirely the vast majority of the ethnic group you are attempting to tie into your preferred conclusion.
4. Much more plausible if applied to my alternative, which you have rejected without consideration.

One other thing is true. Your sources have at no time concurred with your "over representation" theory, in fact very much the contrary, yet you persist in presenting it as established fact, rather than as the unsupported opinion of one Keith A of Hertford, based on dodgy maths at best, which in fact is just what it is.

I hope that this is sufficiently on topic for you, though with little hope of getting the same in response (not a personal attack, just an observation based on the whole of your posting history in this thread).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 03:57 PM

Don, more data would be good.
What we have.

Police officers who say there is a specific problem in certain areas.
Sikhs who say they have a specific problem.
Hindus who say they have a specific problem.
Investigative journalists who have found a specific problem.
MPs whose constituents report a specific problem.
A specific problem in Blackburn that vanished after a targeted intervention.
Shafiq who had personal experience of this specific problem.
Ahmed who had personal experience of this specific problem.
Allibhai-Brown who had personal experience of this specific problem.
Wilmer, who's 400 cases were all of this specific problem.
Dando Institute whose investigations found overwhelmingly this same problem.
CEOP whose national figures showed the same problem.

You can say it is not proof, but it is very convincing evidence.
Everyone here is convinced but you and Jim.
No evidence is ever going to convince you two, so I am done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 04:05 PM

CEOP whose national figures showed the same problem.

Here we go again....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 04:15 PM

CEOP withheld an area breakdown.
I think we know the over-rep is an issue of the Midlands and North.
I think we know why ethnicity was probably not recorded in so many cases.

CEOP found a large over-rep NATIONWIDE in cases where ethnicity was recorded.
The numbers were so great that even if every unrecorded ethnicity were a different demographic, there would STILL be an over-rep.

And then there is all the other evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 04:20 PM

As I said, here we go again...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 11 - 04:24 PM

No.
I am done.

---

OK, I think that's enough. Thread is closed.
-Joe Offer-