Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesonny

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]


BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Steve Shaw 28 Feb 17 - 07:12 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Feb 17 - 07:06 AM
Dave the Gnome 28 Feb 17 - 07:01 AM
Big Al Whittle 28 Feb 17 - 06:57 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Feb 17 - 06:55 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Feb 17 - 06:51 AM
Dave the Gnome 28 Feb 17 - 06:50 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Feb 17 - 06:48 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Feb 17 - 06:43 AM
Dave the Gnome 28 Feb 17 - 06:41 AM
Steve Shaw 28 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM
Teribus 28 Feb 17 - 06:29 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Feb 17 - 05:57 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Feb 17 - 05:35 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Feb 17 - 05:22 AM
Teribus 28 Feb 17 - 05:20 AM
Dave the Gnome 28 Feb 17 - 05:15 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Feb 17 - 05:14 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM
Dave the Gnome 28 Feb 17 - 05:00 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM
Iains 28 Feb 17 - 03:14 AM
Steve Shaw 27 Feb 17 - 09:17 PM
Teribus 27 Feb 17 - 07:07 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Feb 17 - 05:19 PM
Dave the Gnome 27 Feb 17 - 02:40 PM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Feb 17 - 02:27 PM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Feb 17 - 02:16 PM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Feb 17 - 02:11 PM
bobad 27 Feb 17 - 01:59 PM
Teribus 27 Feb 17 - 01:53 PM
Raggytash 27 Feb 17 - 01:44 PM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Feb 17 - 01:36 PM
Teribus 27 Feb 17 - 01:18 PM
Greg F. 27 Feb 17 - 01:15 PM
Jim Carroll 27 Feb 17 - 01:01 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM
bobad 27 Feb 17 - 12:28 PM
Steve Shaw 27 Feb 17 - 12:11 PM
Jim Carroll 27 Feb 17 - 11:20 AM
Dave the Gnome 27 Feb 17 - 11:01 AM
Raggytash 27 Feb 17 - 10:37 AM
Teribus 27 Feb 17 - 10:32 AM
Raggytash 27 Feb 17 - 09:53 AM
Teribus 27 Feb 17 - 09:24 AM
bobad 27 Feb 17 - 09:07 AM
Jim Carroll 27 Feb 17 - 08:59 AM
Dave the Gnome 27 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:12 AM

Knickers to the pair of 'em, Jim!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:06 AM

"Others might have taken a more conventional approach and made some sort of attempt to refute what had been said."
I have done -- at great length
The fact that you choose to ignore those facts doesn't alter that one iota
At present, you are displaying all the belligerent thuggery and potential menage I associate with the racism you are displaying.
You want to discuss rationally ,behave like an adult
At present all you the pair of you offer is a synchronised display of "good thug-bad thug" thuggery
Not conducive to rational discussion
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:01 AM

Life has enough complications without putting buttons on underpants.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:57 AM

' I like the concept of the socialist underpant.'

hmmmm!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:55 AM

Find out what "context-innocent" means, Keith. Just back off. You're up shit creek without a paddle (again - very Wheatcroftesque of you) on this one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:51 AM

On the underpants front, Dave (a far saner topic of conversation, if I may say so), I've long been an Asda George five pack of boxers for eight quid chap (XL, before you ask). They lack the longevity of the equivalent M&S article but they are much cheaper. They do have that pesky button. I used to cut it off but I find that I can leave it permanently undone without a problem. I'll see I can find out what Jeremy wears. I like the concept of the socialist underpant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:50 AM

I am not denying doing it. I am denying enthusiasm. You made that bit up.

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:48 AM

Dave,
I can't speak for the others but there is no enthusiasm from me for the same old stupidity.

So why are you here doing it?

Steve,
"You believed," did you, Keith? Do you decided to hector me on the basis of "your belief," huh?

You gave every reason to believe you denied the over-representation in your total support for Jim.

When I asked if you still denied it you said you never had, and went on to say,
"I can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else."

That gives every impression of accepting the over-representation, but I invite you now to state if you accept or deny it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:43 AM

Jim,
THere is not a shred of evidence of a link between these few crimes and Muslim culture

But there is according to all those people quoted.
They are far better placed than you to know the facts.
You have produced no shred of evidence against.

THe pimping and torture that took place in some of these crimes reduces the number to around a dozen

How is that Jim?

- most were of young men with "fizzing testosterone" to quote Jack Straw,

Most young men have fizzing testosterone, so why were the offenders overwhelmingly from a single demographic?
Straw and many others state cultural reasons.

Police and magistrates at the time said their was no link with the Muslim culture and the only in-depth survey carried out came to the same conclusion

Yes and no-one here has blamed "Muslim culture."

All these crimes have been condemned unreservedly by the British Muslim communities.

We agree on that Jim.

The vast number of crimes of this sort have been documented as having been committed by non-Muslims, mainly indigenous Britons, many of them by Christians and a significant number of these by Christian clergymen using their cloth to facilitate the crimes.

If by "crimes of this kind" you mean all sexual offences then yes.
I have only ever discussed on-street grooming where there is a massive over-representation of one demographic.

Unless they come up with serious, responsible evidence that these crimes are as a result of a "cultural implant

We are all implanted to some extent by our culture, and you HAVE been given serious, responsible evidence that these crimes are as a result of culture.

- I put up an example of his extremism, at his request.

No, you never have and never will because I am not remotely extreme in my views.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:41 AM

why have you, Steve and Rag so enthusiastically joined in?

I can't speak for the others but there is no enthusiasm from me for the same old stupidity.

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:36 AM

"You believed," did you, Keith? Do you decided to hector me on the basis of "your belief," huh? 😂😂😂


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 06:29 AM

Jim Carroll - 28 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM

You've just got to marvel at this lying toerags conversational style:

"Piss off you pair of racist pricks" - Jim Carroll

Others might have taken a more conventional approach and made some sort of attempt to refute what had been said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:57 AM

This is addressed to whoever cares to serpond in a responsible adult manner
I have no interest in the opinions of arrogant racist strutters who are incapable of discussing the subject seriously
THere is not a shred of evidence of a link between these few crimes and Muslim culture - nobody has ever suggested there is other than to point out that the three hundred or so involved are Muslims - they might well have pointed out that they were left-handed or red haired ort supported Chelsea.
THe pimping and torture that took place in some of these crimes reduces the number to around a dozen - most were of young men with "fizzing testosterone" to quote Jack Straw, seducing young women.
Police and magistrates at the time said their was no link with the Muslim culture and the only in-depth survey carried out came to the same conclusion
No information has been uncovered since to suggest that these crimes were "Muslim" other than they have been committed by a handful of young men who have rejected the basic laws of their culture and have stepped away from their communities.
All these crimes have been condemned unreservedly by the British Muslim communities.
The vast number of crimes of this sort have been documented as having been committed by non-Muslims, mainly indigenous Britons, many of them by Christians and a significant number of these by Christian clergymen using their cloth to facilitate the crimes.
Unless they come up with serious, responsible evidence that these crimes are as a result of a "cultural implant", anybody who claims that these crimes are "Muslim" in any way shape or form are raving racists who are contravening British law by making such a suggestion.
If anybody wishes to discuss the subject in the adult, responsible and respectful manner, I'm more than happy to join the
If not, I suggest those who old the obnoxious views they have put forward, go and put them on some of the racist, extremeist sites that have been set up to generate such views - I have no doubt that will receive an extremely warm welcome.
As far as my argument wit Keith goes - I put up an example of his extremism, at his request.
He said what he said - that remains on record as the most extreme statement ever made on this forum - the smearing of an entire national culture.
His continuing arguments are proof positive that his views remain unchanged
Game over
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM

Dave,
Dunno Keith - I suppose you should ask whoever rehashed it.

That was Jim, but why have you, Steve and Rag so enthusiastically joined in?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:35 AM

Jim again,
Not one of Keith's "witnesses" talks about a technique used ny a certain group of criminals in a certain set of circumstances.

Who said they did?
What they all did was link the offending to aspects of the culture, as does that Independent piece you refer to.
It's heading, "The shocking new report exposes the dangerous attitudes that exist in some of the UK's Asian communities"
That is culture Jim.

these men, far from being example of the Muslim culture, have rejected it and are misfits - Keith presents them as representatives.
Keith does not and never has. "A tiny minority" is what I always called them.
Any Christian or Muslim who commits sex crimes is acting outside the tenets of those faiths, but it is still all to common for both.

Both you and Keith have taken a small number of criminal acts and have attempted to smear an entire population who are largely law-abiding, passive and industrious.

No. We are discussing every single reported case of on-street grooming. That population is massively over-represented in that crime.

I freely acknowledge as I always have that they are not just "largely" but overwhelmingly "law-abiding, passive and industrious."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM

"More misrepresentation and dissembling from one of the forum's best known and most widely exposed lying toerags."
I'll take that as a noo then
Piss off you pair of racist pricks
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:22 AM

Jim,
"Mohammed Shafiq"
Not one of Keith's "witnesses"


Yes he was!!

Keith A of Hertford - PM
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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:20 AM

More misrepresentation and dissembling from one of the forum's best known and most widely exposed lying toerags.

Why do you keep pushing the lie that people have said that the crime of on-street grooming of vulnerable young females has got something to do with religion?

Let's expose another of your deliberately told lies Jim:

Here is what Jim states about the two commentators:

""Mohammed Shafiq"
Not one of Keith's "witnesses" talks about a technique used ny a certain group of criminals in a certain set of circumstances.
He does not attempt link that criminality with the culture, he says that it is Musilms who use that particular tactic to obtain women - no cultural implication whatever, just opportunism." - Jim Carroll - 28 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM


Mohammed Shafiq:

"Child sex abuse happens in all communities," says Mohammed Shafiq. "The white abusers tend to be loners or do it online, or are friends of the victim's family. It's only in on-street grooming that there is an over-representation of Pakistani men."

Sorry Jim but I see a definite reference to a "cultural" group but strangely Jim absolutely no reference to Muslims.

Alyas Karmani:

"We can't refute the statistics that a disproportionate number of those involved in grooming are British Asian men," says Mr Karmani

To further elaborate on Alyas Karmani, he is a Muslim imam and psychologist, who works in the Pakistani community in major UK cities to combat attitudes that tolerate or encourage sexual violence against women.

Guess what Jim once again specific references to a particular community with no mention of their religion.

By the way Jim, of course the Oxford report mentions their religion something like 88% of all Pakistani's living in the UK are Muslim. The sole reason Pakistan came into being as a nation (East and West) was that the Muslims of the Indian sub-continent did not put their trust in living in a united India where Hindu's would predominate - the Muslims of the sub-continent specifically wanted a Muslim State, does not detract from the fact that within the Muslim State of Pakistan there are a number of very specific Tribal "Cultural" groups. But both "witnesses" as you refer to them are deliberately specific in mentioning the "cultural" group NOT the "religious" one - they most certainly are NOT the same.

Religion does not demand that marriage is only permissible or desirable within family and tribal groups - that is a "cultural" requirement necessary to strengthen the "family". Religious demands of chastity have existed in many religions down through the ages, none of them have ever stopped young men from seeking to circumvent those strictures to indulge in pre-marital sex. "Culturally" these young men find it easier to engage in these activities with young vulnerable white females as in the UK there are more of them, "culturally" they are viewed as being "fair game" as they will not violate their own "cultural" rules of what is considered dishonourable behaviour - Note "cultural" rules not "religious".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:15 AM

Dunno Keith - I suppose you should ask whoever rehashed it.

But if you knew nothing about it, how can you insist it was the only explanation at the time? I did not know anything about it either so I looked into it and found that the reasons I had put forward had been discussed elsewhere.

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:14 AM

Steve,
So you've lied again, haven't you, Keith? Completely in character. You accused me of denying something by asking whether I "still denied it

Untrue Steve.
I did believe that you denied the over-representation because you always posted in support of Jim who certainly did.

When I asked if you still denied it you said you never had, and went on to say,
"I can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else."

That gives every impression of accepting the over-representation, but I invite you now to state if you accept or deny it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:08 AM

Dave,
The big difference is that I questioned why there was from day 1 while you happily blamed it on British Pakistani culture.

No. As you well know I did not.
I admitted to knowing nothing about that culture.
Very credible people from within or close to that culture blamed it, and I said I saw no reason to dismiss their informed opinion.
It was also the only available explanation for a real over-representation at that time, and you did not challenge it at that time.

You did propound that theory for some considerable time until you realised that I may be right.

No. I had no interest in propounding that theory but was forced to defend myself from accusations of racism by defending it, and also pointing out that it was not mine.

Why do we need to rehash this nasty old debate now Dave?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 05:00 AM

Steve - If you want to back to more sensible stuff, I have found a source of underpants without buttons :-) I have ordered some and will let you have the details if they are any good.

Lovely spring-like day here in Airedale. I have some sort of man flu but when that is sorted I will go looking at flowers. Snowing in Manchester!

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM

"I've given you two from people Keith A has previously mentioned:"
No of which has come anywhere near describing an entire culture as being "implanted" with a tendency to rape young women, as Keith claimed.
That was Keith's claim
"Mohammed Shafiq"
Not one of Keith's "witnesses" talks about a technique used ny a certain group of criminals in a certain set of circumstances.
He does not attempt link that criminality with the culture, he says that it is Musilms who use that particular tactic to obtain women - no cultural implication whatever, just opportunism.
If you read the article on the Oxford abuse, that is covered fully
"Alyas Karmani"
Also a new kid on the block, not one of Keith's witnesses.
Again no suggestion of a cultural link with the abuse, just that those involved are Muslims - again, fully explained by the Oxford report.
We are talking about around three hundred criminals from a population of one and a half million, they are the ones involved in rape and abduction - given those facts, how can there be a cultural link?
All the Muslim commentators on these incidents have said that the reasons that the Muslims have become involved needs examination
THe Muslim culture is opposed to sex outside marriage - these men, far from being example of the Muslim culture, have rejected it and are misfits - Keith presents them as representatives.
The vast majority of peadophieles in Britain are indigenous - ninety of percent of them.
It has been shown that a significant number of them are church officials - Britain is now beginning to examine a cover-up of paedophile victims who wre sent abroad, having been abused in institutions run by the Church - as Jim Loach's film, 'Oranges and Sunshine' showed, when they arrived there they were physically and sexually abused by the Christian Church there - and used as slave labour
Does that imply that Christianity "implants people with a tendency to rape children"?
I haven't even touched on the 'Clerical Abuse' revelations that has all but brought the Christian church to its knees in 'Holy Ireland'
Both you and Keith have taken a small number of criminal acts and have attempted to smear an entire population who are largely law-abiding, passive and industrious.
You have totally ignored the implications of similar acts committed by the indigenous population, and the far-far greater number carried out, not just by Christians, but by officers of the Christian Church who have used the authority their position has given them to abuse children , not just over the last decade, but for centuries.
I don't know - maybe all religions "implant" evil acts into their adherents - I don't have a religion.
I like to think it is individuals and circumstances that give rise to criminality.
If you want to discuss this, it would be helpful is you dropped your arrogant posturing and suspended your belief that you know more than everybody else for five minutes
My chosen name is Jim Carroll - not "Carroll" or "Jom" or "Christmas" or any other unimaginative put down you might like to hide behind in order to bully and bluster your way through arguments
Why not give it a go?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 03:14 AM

"You are now openly lying Iains"

I can stand all your insults jimmy but being called a liar because your little brain has run out of other insults to hurl is below contempt.
Either put up or shut up you silly little man.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 09:17 PM

Of course you are, Bill! You're obsessed! I LOVE all the attention you bestow on me! 😂😂😂


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 07:07 PM

Well, well, the loutish posturing liar from Cornwall has found another pin to dance on, we will probably still be hearing about this latest non-event in 2020.

Not the least bit interested in what you think about anything Shaw.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 05:19 PM

So you've lied again, haven't you, Keith? Completely in character. You accused me of denying something by asking whether I "still denied it." As I didn't deny it in the first place, but remained totallty non-committal under your pseudo-pressure (as your bold quote testifies perfectly clearly), you are lying, and you seem to want to divert away from that by asking me "what I think now." Well I'll tell you what I think now. You're a bloody liar, that's what I think now, and a period of silence from you would be extremely welcome. 😡


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:40 PM

I did agree Keith - The figures indicate that there is an over-representation. The big difference is that I questioned why there was from day 1 while you happily blamed it on British Pakistani culture. You did propound that theory for some considerable time until you realised that I may be right. As you now accept that there are other reasons I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt. Others may not be so kind.

What culture did you have in mind BTW as per my earlier post? These people are British and were brought up British. Do you think it is a racial trait or some such? Do you think that their parents tell them it is OK to traffic young girls? Or is it British culture that has taught them that?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:27 PM

Steve,
Thus my totally non-committal answer,

It was not non-committal.

You went on to say,
"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.

But tell us what you think now Steve.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:16 PM

Jim again,
Why did you specify "all male Pakistani Muslims?

I did not specify that. That is how they were specified in the question I was responding to. That is why it is in quotes.
Why will you not read the context of the post?
Because you are dishonestly trying to misrepresent it.

You have been making these same old accusations for six years!
All I can do is keep rebutting them in the same old way until someone stops you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 02:11 PM

Jim,
You have had your exact quote over and over again Keith

When I said ""I actually do not think they were all paedophiles or perverts." you replied,
"Then why did you describe them so"

I never have described them so. You lie.

"They all blamed various aspects of culture as the reason."
None of them did


Yes they did. You lie.

Straw said that in their culture "they want some outlet for that (testosterone) but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits" and vulnerable young girls are "easy meat."

Ann Cryer agreed. https://wn.com/ex_keighley_mp_ann_cryer_defends_jack_straw's_comments_on_uk_muslim_child-rape_gangs

Lord Ahmed linked to cousin and arranged marriage in that culture,
'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.'

Alibhai_Brown said, "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'"

Also, "The perpetrators are not paedophiles in the normal sense of the word. Racial and cultural odium as much as ugly lust and power drives them to abuse. Most of them are also irreversibly misogynist. "
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/rotherham-child-abuse-scandal-apologists-misogyny-and-double-standards-9692497.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:59 PM

And the hits just keep on coming:

A former Labour parliamentary candidate has been suspended and is under investigation after anti-Semitic postings on Twitter.

Former Black Notley Parish Council leader John Clarke was criticised after endorsing a post online which said "The Rothschild Family" has used money lending and Israel to "take over the world."

Claiming the post by 'Tinnelle' (@Tinnelle88) was "an oversimplified view of the world economy but containing a great deal of truth", he was condemned as promoting anti-Semitic material by other users on the social media site.

A Labour Party official has since confirmed that the former Essex politician has been suspended from the party and is under investigation. Clarke also resigned as leader of the Parish Council.

Jeremy Newmark, Chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement said: "We welcome the speed with which the Party have moved to investigate this matter and trust that it will reach an appropriate conclusion as swiftly as possible."

Joe Glasman, Head of Political Investigations at Campaign Against Antisemitism said: "John Clarke's views are utterly abhorrent, but unfortunately they appear to be quite common within the increasingly racist Labour Party, which has been secretly readmitting members who were suspended over anti-Semitism. The Labour Party has not uttered a single word since we exposed Mr Clarke. We have repeatedly stated that we do not consider the Labour Party to be safe for Jews. Sadly for many in Labour, including Mr Clarke, accusations of anti-Semitism are like water off a duck's back, or worse, a badge of honour."


Ex-Labour councillor suspended for 'anti-Semitic' Twitter tirade


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:53 PM

No quotes Carroll???

I've given you two from people Keith A has previously mentioned:

1: Mohammed Shafiq (chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation):

"Child sex abuse happens in all communities, the white abusers tend to be loners or do it online, or are friends of the victim's family. It's only in on-street grooming that there is an over-representation of Pakistani men."

Just to make this abundantly clear to ALL - a man called Mohammed Shafiq made that statement - Keith A of Hertford DID NOT.

2: Alyas Karmani, a Muslim imam and psychologist, who works in the Pakistani community in major UK cities to combat attitudes that tolerate or encourage sexual violence against women:

"We can't refute the statistics that a disproportionate number of those involved in grooming are British Asian men"

Just to make this abundantly clear to ALL - a man called Alyas Karmani made that statement - Keith A of Hertford DID NOT.

The discussion centres on "on-street grooming" it is not, nor was not centred on child abuse in general, although certain contributors on this thread are attempting to divert the focus to that area.

British-Pakistani definition:

A person of Pakistani ancestry or origin, who was born in or was an immigrant to the United Kingdom, former heartland of the British Empire.

The figures given for 2001 and 2011 are from the official census and the demographic is based on the personal and voluntary categorisation by those taking part. As you can see not being born in the UK does not preclude someone from being described as British-Pakistani.

You asked for a reason why this has happened over the last 20 years - 43% of the Pakistani Community in the UK where born in Pakistan and were brought up in Pakistan therefore their major "cultural" influence is from a childhood being brought up in Pakistan and not of someone who was brought up in the UK.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:44 PM

Kettle, black, pot Terrikins.

I seem to recall you have a problem with DUAL standards.


Did I spell it wright this time.







PS The error was deliberate


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:36 PM

Dave,
So, basically Keith, you are saying that there is an over-represenation of British Pakistanis in the crimes detailed

We both did Dave. Remember?

but even though you do not really know why this is the case, you are happy to propound the theory that it is because of their culture. Is that right?


No. I do not and never have "propounded" it.
As I frequently said at the time, I neither knew nor cared why they did it, I just wanted them to stop.

I only made that post in response to a direct question which you should read to get the context.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:18 PM

Raggytash - 27 Feb 17 - 10:37 AM

"You have a problem with names don't you terrikins, Jom, Carroll, Christmas, Shaw, Gnome, Raggy to mention but a few."


So apparently have you - are any of those mentioned above this "professor" you keep asking questions?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:15 PM

Or, to keep it simple, just go away.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 01:01 PM

".that's why they suspended 50 plus members.
While the enquiry was going on
What is boring and silly is making accusations and refusing to specify what they are
Utterly stupid and unheard of - make your charges or go away
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM

Boring, bobad. Nobody cares.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 12:28 PM

The Labour party investigated the claims and found them to be not true

Lol......that's why they suspended 50 plus members. You're making yourself look sillier and sillier by keeping up with your denial.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 12:11 PM

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?

You posted,

When have I ever denied it? Or said it was insignificant?


I speak the English that her maj speaks, Keith. You asked me if I STILL deny it. As I hadn't denied it before, how can I "still" deny it, Keith? Thus my totally non-committal answer, which asked YOU a question you couldn't answer. I don't trust anything you say, with good reason (you told us that Taylor's book was described as "fraudulent" and refused to recant, remember?), so I neither confirmed nor denied anything, did I, Keith?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 11:20 AM

"You see I've looked and looked and cannot find it anywhere you lying toerag."
My apologies - I posted a correction immediately I realised Ake had made the posting - it apparently didn't go off - sometimes happens (happened to you son so long ago)
I'm sure you'll make as much capital from this as possible - that's what you do.
The point remains - you are two of a kind.
"Same goes for the "Male Pakistani Muslims" quote you keep waving about like a flag. That phrase was used by someone else and it was quoted by Keith A."
Now that IS a lie
Keith has never quoted a single individual making such a statement and he refuses to do so now
Not so long ago you were asked to provide the so called quote - you have not done so, nor will you now.
Any public figure accusing an entire racial community of being culturally implanted to have under-age sex would not only have been condemned publicly fro such an obscene statement, but they would have lost any position they held and would have been liable to prosecution under the incitement to race hatred lws
That is the stuff of scummy racist internet sites, not public statements by "prominent figures"
YOU ARE, OF COURSE, FREE TO PROV ME WRONG BY QUOTING AND LINKING ME TO THOSE STATEMENTS BY "PROMINENT PEOPLE" - KEITH REFUSES TO DO SO but please hurry up; none of us are getting any younger.
"The Labour party has made the case - you prove that it is wrong."
No it hasn't Bobad
The Labour party investigated the claims and found them to be not true
You peoe accused Labour of covering them up - Keith accused the Jewish members of Parliament of refusing to specify the claims because of their love for the party
The Israelis were given a leaked version of Labour's report and they have never specified what that antisemitism is apart from criticism of Israel
Feel free to describe the "seriouse problem of antisemitism" in detail
Labour took the accusations seriously and investigated
The Tories were accused of Islamophobia a year ago and have done nothing
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 11:01 AM

We are speaking about people born in Britain of Pakistani origin though, Teribus. An influx from Pakistan would not have made a significant difference on the numbers until many years later when those immigrants had children of their own. Which leads me onto a point that had been milling about my head for a while. If this over-representation is by people born in Britain of Pakistani origin, then what culture are we referring to? Those who were of an age to indulge in these crimes beginning in 1998 had been brought up in Britain, schooled in British schools, watched British TV and listened to British music. Which culture is it that has embedded them with a wish to make money out of underage girls?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 10:37 AM

You have a problem with names don't you terrikins, Jom, Carroll, Christmas, Shaw, Gnome, Raggy to mention but a few.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 10:32 AM

Who's this professor you keep wittering on about Raggy?

Muslim commentators gave opinions and they detailed the predominance of male Pakistani Muslims, I know that Mohammed Shafiq is not a professor and that Alyas Karmani is a researcher and lecturer at Bradford and Leeds Universities so is he the professor you are referring to? he was one of the people who suggested the possible reason for the disproportionate number of British-Pakistani males involved was "cultural". Keith A stated that in the light of the evidence and the fact that no other explanation was offered he accepted the only reason on offer at the time. He has now stated quite clearly that he is perfectly prepared to examine any other reason offered - so far there have been none.

DtG asked a question earlier:

"I think it is significant that the figures you quote only start in, what was it, 1998? British Pakistanis have been around a lot longer than that. Why would the over-representation only start to happen less than 20 years ago?"

Change in population figures possibly. In 2001 there were ~770,000 Pakistanis living in the UK of whom ~56% were born in the UK, ~36% came from Pakistan and the rest from East Africa and Bangladesh. By 2011 that number had grown to ~1,170,000 of that number ~502,000 have come from Pakistan.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 09:53 AM

Hmmm how did the professor phrase it?

"Don I now believe" wasn't it.

The dictionary definition of Believe is: 1. accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.

Paint it any colour you like the meaning is still the same.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 09:24 AM

"You have had your exact quote over and over again Keith
The discussion was about the abuse of underage girls
You made your "implant" statement
End of story." - Jim Carroll


End of story Jom, it wasn't even the beginning. The "implant" story as you term it was deliberately misrepresented by you as a statement made by Keith A of Hertford - it wasn't - It was a statement made by someone else who Keith A of Hertford quoted and asked for comments on.

Same goes for the "Male Pakistani Muslims" quote you keep waving about like a flag. That phrase was used by someone else and it was quoted by Keith A.

Now back to business:

Where was it that you - "POINTED OUT THAT I MISTOOK YOUR POSTING FOR ONE OF AKE's - I went on to point out that there was little to distinguish between the two of you." - You see I've looked and looked and cannot find it anywhere you lying toerag.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 09:07 AM

Specify and describe yur Quantify your antisemitism Bobad or you have no case

The Labour party has made the case - you prove that it is wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 08:59 AM

"I did not. If you are not lying produce a quote."
You have had your exact quote over and over again Keith
The discussion was about the abuse of underage girls
You made your "implant" statement
End of story.
"They all blamed various aspects of culture as the reason."
None of them did
They all said specifically taht the causes where not known
You blamed the culture
If you claim differently - produce the quote
Other than out and out racists, nobody has ever suggsted a cultural implant is in any way the cause of the acts of this handful of criminals
By suggesting it, you put the entire community under suspicion

Now - provide your evidence or stop calling me a liar.
"It hardly needs saying that includes whites and Christians."
Why did you specify "all male Pakistani Muslims?
Specify and describe yur Quantify your antisemitism Bobad or you have no case
Doesn't get more simple than that
Those who associate the actions of the Israeli regime with the Jewish people are the only antisemites here - you are the front runner
Your persistent refusal to condemn the accusation that the Jewish members of Parliament have kept silent is confirmation that your concern is for the Israeli regime and not the Jewish people
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM

So, basically Keith, you are saying that there is an over-represenation of British Pakistanis in the crimes detailed but even though you do not really know why this is the case, you are happy to propound the theory that it is because of their culture. Is that right?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 30 March 6:56 AM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.