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

Raggytash 24 Feb 17 - 06:52 AM
Raggytash 24 Feb 17 - 06:48 AM
Iains 24 Feb 17 - 06:39 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Feb 17 - 06:06 AM
akenaton 24 Feb 17 - 06:03 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Feb 17 - 05:46 AM
Steve Shaw 24 Feb 17 - 05:42 AM
Raggytash 24 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM
Big Al Whittle 24 Feb 17 - 05:07 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Feb 17 - 04:54 AM
Teribus 24 Feb 17 - 04:51 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Feb 17 - 04:38 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Feb 17 - 03:57 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Feb 17 - 04:05 PM
Raggytash 23 Feb 17 - 03:21 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Feb 17 - 03:09 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Feb 17 - 02:11 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Feb 17 - 01:57 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Feb 17 - 01:50 PM
Dave the Gnome 23 Feb 17 - 01:42 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Feb 17 - 01:08 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Feb 17 - 12:53 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Feb 17 - 12:45 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Feb 17 - 12:22 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Feb 17 - 12:14 PM
Raggytash 23 Feb 17 - 09:11 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Feb 17 - 09:02 AM
Raggytash 23 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM
Raggytash 23 Feb 17 - 08:10 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Feb 17 - 07:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Feb 17 - 07:03 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Feb 17 - 06:44 AM
Steve Shaw 23 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Feb 17 - 06:21 AM
Raggytash 23 Feb 17 - 06:07 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Feb 17 - 06:04 AM
Steve Shaw 23 Feb 17 - 05:58 AM
Raggytash 23 Feb 17 - 05:55 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Feb 17 - 05:45 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Feb 17 - 05:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Feb 17 - 05:15 AM
Raggytash 22 Feb 17 - 05:55 PM
Teribus 22 Feb 17 - 05:22 PM
Dave the Gnome 22 Feb 17 - 04:09 PM
Raggytash 22 Feb 17 - 01:49 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:52 AM

Try again

Link


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:48 AM

Link

Interesting article about sexual offences in Sweden, doesn't seem to support the racist rants we get here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:39 AM

The same question could also be asked of you mr gnome.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:06 AM

And your comment adds what to the discussion exactly, ake? Apart from showing you up as a sycophant who's only interest is jumping up and down on the sidelines when you see a fight.

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:03 AM

Oh for God's sake, have you NO shame? Teribus has adequately illustrated what a heap of trash you all are. You have no real interest in honest discussion at all, which is evident from your

continual practice of subverting threads which you feel set you in the wrong.

I can't understand how Mr T or Keith can summon up the patience to deal with you

After one of his usual responses to me, Jim tries to goad by inferring that I cannot answer his misrepresentations, insults and downright lies.......well, that is not the case as his allegations would be simple to refute ...but time consuming.
I just can't be arsed getting involved in a pointless exercise.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:46 AM

Looks like my first paragraph was the one that got away, proofreadingly-speaking.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:42 AM

Why thank you, Teribus! You saved me hours of work which I was just about to embark on this sunny morning. Of course, all your dredged-up quotes posts are absolutely correct, though you forgot a the one from Keith that claimed that his misrepresentation of Wheatcroft's words was only him "speaking generally."

Strangely this was studiously ignored by those who were of the opinion that Taylor's and Clark's historical works were totally relevant and equal in detail to works written later using much more detailed information from much wider sources and from a greater number of perspectives.

And who were these people who "studiously ignored," blah blah? Not me! I had no interest in them and had never heard of them. But what I did know is that I'd read the article in the Guardian and spotted a discrepancy in Keith's quoting from it on the 16th. That was my only focus. I certainly wasn't trying to make any case via those books about the war. Go and have a look! By the way, on the 10th in the other thread all Keith did was cut and paste, totally without comment or context, a tract from the Wheatcroft article. Little wonder that no-one engaged with it (not even you). Apart from a separate vague and inaccurate allusion to the article, claiming that the Guardian had rubbished the two books (completely untrue but hey), the next mention was in ANOTHER THREAD (!) and it contained the lie that Taylor's work has been called by the Guardian (untrue) "fraudulent" (untrue). You defend that as "clearly a passing reference to a previous quote."   That's like my stating that Charlotte Brontë described Alice going down a hole and meeting a pink elephant and saying that it was only a "passing reference" to Alice in Wonderland.

Do you think that it's fair to expect anyone who read the thread containing the lie to think "Oh, hang on a sec, I wonder whether Keith happens to have quoted the piece in full in an entirely different thread? Oh dear, I'd better just go and have a look round for it!" That is just nonsensical. The plain fact is that in a long, standalone thread the first mention of the piece was a lie. Something else you've forgotten to mention is that you yourself have acknowledged on occasion Keith's misrepresentation. Finally, had I not pulled Keith up on the misquote, it would have stood unchallenged, a lie, for ever more. You don't like that sort of thing and neither do I. Keith decided to back up to the wall and fight instead of immediately correcting himself. That is disreputable and it should inform everyone here as to his questionable trustworthiness in everything else he posts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM

My point was quite a simple one teri,

The professor objects to people using information from some years ago against him but he is quite prepared to use similarly aged information in his racist rants against muslims.

To coin one of your favoured expressions sauce for the goose etc...





PS I did read much of your post, couldn't be arsed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:07 AM

Its a bit of a weird conversation - if you don't mind me saying. I'm sure you will. But that's mudcat.

I think you're talking in stereotypes....nothing is really quite as it seems.

A few years ago I was doing a terms supply teaching in in a big comprehensive school in Nottingham.

I went looking through the stock cupboard and came out with a set of An Inspector calls. You will recall the plot. A young single girl without family is reduced to poverty, prostitution and finally suicide by the actions of a selfish middle class family.

I'd taught the text in Derby a few years before and most kids go along with the plot of who is the mysterious Inspector - who turns out to be God, bringing the family to judgement.

However I was teaching a class of mainly Asian girls, and they seemed very quiet - and difficult to involve.

I mentioned this in the staffroom. One of the other teachers said to me - the subject is far too close to home. The red light district is round the corner from this school - half the kids in the class you're teaching, are already on the game.

So really the idea that somehow Asian girls are totally off limits can't really be true. And being a sexual predator is not exclusive to one particular racial group.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:54 AM

Death by C&P?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:51 AM

Raggytash - 23 Feb 17 - 05:55 AM

Isn't it strange that you object so much to old threads being used to support arguments against yourself castigating Steve and Jim for going back to 2011 and 2014 but you are quite prepared to use examples from these times to support your racist rant against Muslim men.


Tell me Raggy what was the subject of the thread that Jim Carroll harks back to 2011 and dredges up everytime he finds himself getting trounced on a thread with a completely non-related subject? Similarly what was the subject matter of the bone that Shaw has got firmly gripped in his teeth that causes him to hark back to 2014 to dredge up like Jom?

Then you find it strange that, to refute what is being said, the person subjected to these attacks goes back to those threads and that subject matter - what an utterly ridiculous comment to make.

Still it has clarified some points on both subjects:

1: Jim Carroll - "Muslim" Implant

Jim has always deliberately confused religion and culture. He thinks, incorrectly, that they are the same thing. They most certainly are not. His greatest secondary objection has been that he claimed that no sources were given and no names were supplied. Now we have:
- Comments by Jack Straw
- Guardian article from 2014
- A 2011 study by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre
- Comments by Mohamed Shafiq, chief executive of The Ramadhan Foundation. Article ref - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9252003/Rochdale-grooming-trial-Mohammed-Shafiq-the-campaigner-who-stood-up-to-the-abusers.html
- Comments by Mr Karmani. Article ref - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/the-oxford-child-sex-abuse-verdict-highlights-a-cultural-problem-but-not-a-specifically-muslim-one-8616370.html
- Suppression of news coverage. Article ref - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11699179/Report-about-Asian-grooming-gangs-was-supressed-to-avoid-inflaming-racial-tension.html
- Daily Mirror 2014. Article ref - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-child-grooming-scandal-tearing-4508666

Now Jim will not do any research into any of these references, he always steadfastly refuses to look at any perspective of any subject about which he already has his mind made up about. He is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most bigoted and intolerant members of this forum who has to continually resort to gross misrepresentation, pure invention and lies to fuel his arguments.

2: Steve Shaw - Geoffrey Wheatcroft Article

Here is a little sampler -

Steve Shaw - 23 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM

"Yes, I'll sort you out later over your Wheatcroft farrago when I have a minute. Gird your loins. It's not about past historical posts, Keith. It's about what kind of man you are."


I will save you the trouble Shaw. This goes back to 2014 when there were numerous threads on the forum related to the First World War. As the "Usual Suspects" were getting hammered by fact, logic and reasoning they hit upon the tactic of getting threads closed so much argument was transferred from one thread to another.

First mention of Wheatcoft's article was given by Keith A of Hertford on the 10th December 2014 (The day after the article appeared in print in a thread titled "WWI was No Mans Land" and here it is:

: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.


Direct quote of what Geoffrey Wheatcroft had written and the very first mention and introduction of it to the forum it is perfectly accurate. Strangely this was studiously ignored by those who were of the opinion that Taylor's and Clark's historical works were totally relevant and equal in detail to works written later using much more detailed information from much wider sources and from a greater number of perspectives.

Next mention we get of Wheatcroft's article is in another WWI Thread running simultaneously with the WWI, Was No Mans Land thread with the same people involved hashing over the same ground.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:33 AM

Ridicule because he is incapable of supporting his views except by digging up long dead historians.

He should read again how Clark and Tayor were scathingly dismissed in the Guardian this week.


The "he" being referred to here by the way is Steve Shaw.


Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM

Jim, I have been linking you to quotes from historians for over a year.
Denying that shows either stupidity or desperation.
I could sit down for half an hour copying them on to one of these threads, but no doubt you would deny it all over again.

There are several already on these threads anyway.
And, still none from your side.

Al, it is so sad that you never had a chance to know those family members.
An older cousin to my father died in France too.

They went out, willingly in the vast majority of cases, to save Europe and Britain from a cruel invader.
Their leaders were not incompetent fools, but no-one knew how to fight such a war.

There were as many views afterwards as there were survivors, but from 1918 to about 1930 they overwhelmingly believed the war to have been right and Haig and the leadership worthy.

After that Lloyd George got his knife into the now dead Haig, and class war advocates denigrated the officer class with powerful propaganda.
The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."


Clearly a passing reference to a previous quote that Steve Shaw immediately seizes on.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 08:10 PM

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

I wish to pursue this statement. Give me the Guardian link please.


BUT STEVE YOU'D ALREADY READ THE ARTICLE QUOTED IN FULL BY KEITH A SIX DAYS PRIOR TO YOUR REQUEST ABOVE IN THE "WWI NO MANS LAND" THREAD.

Nevertheless you got the following responses 48 minutes later.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: Steve, here it is again.
"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/09/-sp-myth-of-the-good-war


This is the SECOND time that the article has been quoted on the forum in full by Keith A of Hertford. But good ol' "nitpicking" Steve starts worrying it, even although Keith A has responded to everything Shaw asked of him.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 10:19 AM

Hmm. Interesting that you link to an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft (who basically seems to disagree with everybody about everything). Couple of points, Keith. You fibbed when you say he called AJP Taylor fraudulent. He doesn't like his stuff, for sure, but that was not a word he used against him. Still, it's asking a lot to get you to be accurate, I suppose. Incidentally, you implied that it was "the Guardian" that said he was fraudulent. It wasn't. It was a Guardian columnist. The Guardian, more than most papers, invites opinion from a wide spectrum. Slightly iffier even than that is you choice of Wheatcroft in your support in the first place. I mean, have you read what he has to say about Israel, Keith? If you haven't, gird up your loins, old chap, you won't like it. Another case of Keith's cherrypicking here?


Taking "nitpicking" to new heights but here is how Keith A responded

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve.
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent."


Now I make that just over one hour that it took Keith A to acknowledge that he had made an error and correct it and THEN knowing what a pedant you are Shaw he further corrects himself three minutes later by posting:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively.


Keith A then posts

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:35 AM

I do not do "fibbing" Steve.
I was just referring back to that quote .
If you had read it when I first posted it just days ago, you would have seen the whole paragraph, and with a link so it could be seen in context.

So I was
[not] being scrupulously honest, but I naturally abbreviated when I posted a reminder about it.

Perfectly reasonable explanation for the omission, especially when you consider the degree of thread "stalking" being done against Keith A by Shaw, Carroll, Raggytash, Greg F, and the Muskets, as shown by Jim Carroll jumping in to take up the baton.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:36 AM

"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively"
I suppose there's as much chance getting linked to this as there is to all your other "historian" claims!!
Jim Carroll


Gives you an idea of how much Jom keeps his finger on the pulse doesn't it, as the link Jom is asking for had already been posted on this very thread by Keith A at 17 Dec 14 - 08:58 AM. However Keith A very courteously points this out and provides Jom with the information and link he requested.


Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:53 AM

I gave the link just a couple of hours ago, and also when I first gave the quote a few days ago, but just for you Jim, here it is yet again!

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/09/-sp-myth-of-the-good-war


By now the "stalkers" are beginning to feel a bit foolish, Keith A has now posted or linked to the entire article THREE times and he has acknowledged his error. We were then subjected to them dropping "Cookies" and becoming anonymous "GUESTS"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 01:36 PM

Naughty naughty, Keith.

KA of H - "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent.""

The actual quote -

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

KA of H "I do not do "fibbing" Steve."

No, you don't do you Steve. The article did describe the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent didn't it. As everyone can see. Errrr


Keith A then states the clarified position (to any sentient human being) by posting:

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:13 PM

The Guardian.
"AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."

Me.
"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. "


MAKING IT FOUR TIMES WHEATCROFT'S TEXT HAS BEEN FAITHFULLY QUOTED BY KEITH A OF HERTFORD - Not good enough for our team of "stalkers"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 05:21 PM

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM
...
The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM
...
Ok Steve.
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:13 PM
...
Me.
"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. "

Honest and accurate, unlike you people.

You made BOTH statements Keith and I honestly and accurately pointed out that said specifically The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent. Which you did. It is there in black and white for everyone to see. OK, fine, you did then change your mind but only because you were challenged by Steve Shaw. You still said the Guardian described the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent. Why even try to deny it when you so obviously made the statement? You are doing yourself no favours at all.


Now just to "nitpick" what our anonymous GUEST states here Keith immediately corrected his mistake at 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM - When did he then repeat that the works of both were "fraudulent" after that time?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:00 AM

My original reference.
The link had been provided earlier that same day.

Keith A of Hertford- PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."


THE FIFTH TIME THE PASSAGE BY WHEATCROFT HAS BEEN POSTED BY KEITH A OF HERTFORD

The following was moved to the thread by a Mudelf as he/she thought it belonged - It is an observation from a third party on the exchanges - The emphasis and passages highlighted in bold are by me.

Subject: BS: I am not a Mudcatter, but...
From: GUEST,Gervase - PM
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 02:07 AM

Dropped in to look for some lyrics after a lengthy absence. Made the mistake of looking below the line. Bloody hell, this place has turned into a festering pit of ignorance, bile and personal abuse, hasn't it? Maybe those of you who hang on here haven't noticed it, in the same way a frog doesn't notice the water in the pan getting hotter, but - take it form me - the Mudcat looks pretty nasty!
And just to add my two penn'orth, KeithA is quite correct in his assertions. Trouble is, the veil of maudlin sentimentality and ignorance which clouds the issue is more seductive than the truth.
Yes, The Great War was unpleasant, yes, the casualty rates were horrible, almost as bad as earlier wars. But nine out of 10 do those who marched off to war came home, and those who did said it had to be done. The victory of 1918 was hard won, but ultimately so successful that Hitler was inspired to base his blitzkrieg on it.
That's all Keith is trying to say, but the sentimental shroud wavers of Willie McBride seem determined to shout him down.

Not for nothing is the stereotype of a folk-singer that of a bore with his finger in his ear.


What this provokes from Shaw are a number of nasty personal attacks on GUEST,Gervase that I can post if anyone thinks it would serve any purpose in showing up Shaw for the type of man he is, but this post is already far too long.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:38 AM

"No. I just said I believed it, "
You put it up - you have never produced anybody else saying it so it is your invention
It is an obscenely extreme racist suggestion
"It was never my opinion"
What a stupid lie after saying "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"
Are you mad?
You have been given the official figures for Muslims convicted of sex crimes yet you still insist that there is a "massive over-representation"
You are a sad, disturbed individual
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM

Dave, when I quoted that view it was the only one being reported by the media.

Oh, what a surprise...

Even later when other theories were put forward, they came from us not media reports.

How about this one from The Guardian?

Some snippets for you

Figures suggest Asian men are disproportionately involved, but law enforcers and those in child protection say it's not so simple

...

A more credible link, says one senior source involved in bringing the criminals to justice, are their occupations. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said the demography of certain areas and the makeup of the night-time economy explained the over-representation of Asian offenders.

...

Meanwhile, group grooming is a small part of the sexual abuse threat facing Britain's children. Some of those working in protecting children from sexual abuse worry that the wrong message is being given about who poses dangers to children from the media coverage of "Asian grooming gangs".

They say the biggest dangers are not just on the street, but online, and the totality of abuse shows far more white people are perpetrators



Plenty more there as well.

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 03:57 AM

Jim,
Your case was a cultural implant

No. I just said I believed it, and only because of all those prominent testimonies.
It was never my opinion. I had none, except that there was an over-representation.

Rag, I have said nothing about sex offences in general, just that one specific crime, and I was right about it.

Dave, when I quoted that view it was the only one being reported by the media.
Even later when other theories were put forward, they came from us not media reports.
That prevailed until long after the thread closed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 04:05 PM

It was not the only theory at all. There were all the others I mentioned and more besides. All of which you chose to ignore in favour of 'cultural implants'.

So, since 2011 eh? How about since 2001? Or 1991? Or before Muslims were demonized?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 03:21 PM

I thought you had taught Maths professor.

The Asian population of Manchester is 6.5% of the total.

95% of registered sex offenders are White thus the Asian men are UNDER represented.

They should at least form 6.5% of the registered sex offenders to be even on par with the white population

This is, not of course, not taking into amount the men of Afro-Caribbean and Oriental origin who would be included in the 5% of sex offenders who are not white.

QED


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 03:09 PM

Just in case youu missed it Keith, the 676 convictions wee for sexual offences, not just for underage sex, but "rape", actual, statutory "consensual) so the figure for your Muslims who are "implanted" is quite likely to be at least the very most, of the overall figure.
Where is your "culturally implanted massive over- representation" underage sex now?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 02:11 PM

Your case was a cultural implant
Your "over-representation turns our to be 676 offenders out of one and a half million
They are the official figures - how do they add up to "a massive over-representation" entire racial group?
Where does your cultural implant theory stand now?
Is the Ministry of Justice lying?
You are a racist and have proven to be one
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 01:57 PM

Dave, my case has only ever been the over-representation, which is very large now and has been since we discussed it in 2011.
I have no opinion on how it will develop in the future.

I do not know or care why it exists.
When I quoted that theory it was the only one around.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 01:50 PM

Jim,
If that is where your information is coming from, you should be ashamed of yourself

It is not.

That is taken from your quote, yet you are claiming that ALL MALE PAKISTANIS have a cultural implant

I made no such claim myself, and always acknowledged that the vast majority are unaffected.

Where is your "massive over-representation in that statement

I only claim it for the one, specific crime, so yoyr last post was also irrelevant.

Guardian,
"Because a disproportionate number of them are British Pakistani – just like me."
So there is an over-representation.
Guardian,
"of the 68 recent convictions involving child sexual exploitation, 59 were of British Pakistani men,"
So the over-representation is massive.

I was right and you are wrong.
You lose.
Sorry.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 01:42 PM

Over representation or not, and I doubt if there is any such thing if we look at the statistics for a significant amount of time, there are still many reasons it could happen that I have detailed before. Why would anyone leap on the only one that casts the whole culture in a bad light I wonder?

Still, more important stuff than banging my head on a brick wall. Don't forget it is the last episode of the current Death in Paradise series tonight. Following the passing of Storm Doris and the unpleasantness on here of late it will be nice to have a bit of sunshine and breath of fresh air.

:D tG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 01:08 PM

Perhaps you'd care to read this request for information from the Minitry of Justice
Jim Carroll

Ministry of Justice
June 2014        
91212
Freedom of Information Request   
You requested the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
For future discussions and potential programme-making we would like to investigate reports that 60% of males in prison convicted of rape are Muslims. Please can you give us the proper stats for these?
Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and I can confirm that the MoJ holds information that you have asked for and it is provided below.
Sexual offences are traumatising crimes which ruin lives. Tough new sentences are available for those who commit these dreadful crimes - and under this Government sex offenders are more likely to go to prison and for longer. We recently introduced a new mandatory life sentence for people convicted of a second very serious sexual or violent crime and introduced tough new Extended Determinate Sentence which will ensure dangerous offenders spend long periods in prison and are supervised for long periods after their release.
As at 31 March 2014, the latest point in time for which data is available for public use, the male prison population in England and Wales for all offenders serving immediate custodial sentence for rape was 5,682. Of this, there were 676 offenders who self-declared their religion as Muslim (12% of the total).
Please note that the figures given relate to offenders for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were sentenced to immediate custody. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. As such offenders convicted of murder and rape at the same time are excluded from the figures. Also the data relates to prisoners' current self-declared religion, not any previously declared religion on reception into prison as prisoners are under no obligation to declare their religion.
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 12:53 PM

Sorry - mistook the gender of the writer which is four years old
From your link
"It's important to stress at this juncture that the vast majority of sexual crimes against children in the UK are committed by white men and that this type of grooming is only a small percentage of those crimes. Of the 1.2 million Pakistanis in Britain only a tiny minority has any connection with such deplorable acts of sexual violence. I'm writing this carefully because I want it to be read carefully. These men may be British-Pakistani but that does not mean that this is a crime specific to British-Pakistani men."
Where is your "massive over-representation in that statement
You are now bending over backwards to prove that Muslim men are potential perverts by articles that are saying exactly the opposite
Go and have a cup of tea and come back when you have got your story straight
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 12:45 PM

"Jim, Pakistanis form less than 2% of the population but nearly 90% of these offenders."
Keith
These offenders number a few hundreds - do the math
Only an agendea driven racist could describe that as "a massive over-representation
I've actually traced the phrase to a book entitled "Easy Meat: Inside Britain's Grooming Gang Scandal Peter McLoughlin"
The author has links to a fascist publication named BREIBART NEWS in the U.S.
If that is where your information is coming from, you should be ashamed of yourself
"The brutality and horror of these acts have nothing to do with me;"
That is taken from your quote, yet you are claiming that ALL MALE PAKISTANIS have a cultural implant
Isn't he a Pakistani?
Is he lying about not having an implant?
Is he claiming a "massive over-representation?
What is the point of your putting up a quote that belies your claim - have you changed your mind?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 12:22 PM

Another Guardian piece,

"This crime does have one very significant factor that has left me feeling deeply ashamed. The brutality and horror of these acts have nothing to do with me; they are as far removed from my life as the next person's. Yet I somehow feel responsible when I look at the names or faces of the perpetrators.
Why? Because a disproportionate number of them are British Pakistani – just like me."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/30/abuse-children-asian-communities


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 12:14 PM

Jim, Pakistanis form less than 2% of the population but nearly 90% of these offenders.
That is a massive over-representation.

I have always acknowledged, even in that post you keep referring to, that "only a tiny minority" of that demographic are involved in this crime, but there is no question about them being massively over-represented in the offending.

Rag, I have only ever claimed over-representation in the specific crime of on-street grooming.
Quoting stats. for other crimes is irrelevant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 09:11 AM

Another interesting bit in the article, also overlooked by the professor:

"As the first verdicts came in, the leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, tweeted about it, a potential contempt of court"

A fellow traveller with some of the posters on here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 09:02 AM

68 recent convictions involving child sexual exploitation, 59
So your "massive over-representation" is 59 out of one and a half million
Fuck off Keith
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 09:01 AM

Isn't it fascinating how you can skew a discussion by only quoting a small section of an article.

The article that the professor quoted from also said:

"But the Police say the phenomenon is not restricted to any one race - the vast majority of those on the sex offenders register in Greater Manchester are white (95%)"

Thus the Black, Oriental and Asian population would seem to make up the other 5% of offenders.

Now the Asian population of Manchester is 6.5% so proportional they seem less likely to be involved in sex offences


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM

"Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, said of the 68 recent convictions involving child sexual exploitation, 59 were of British Pakistani men, "so clearly we have got a problem when it comes to on-street grooming".
Shafiq said that a minority of Pakistani men thought white girls were worthless, a viewpoint he and he said the majority of the community found abhorrent."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/08/rochdale-child-sex-ring-case


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 08:10 AM

Where is that quote from, what does it specifically refer to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 07:32 AM

Jim,
If only a few hundred Asian youths out of a population os One and a half million have been tried for underage sexual offence against young women, how can that possibly be described as a "massive over-representation"?

"Of 68 recent convictions for on-street grooming, 59 were of British Pakistani men. "

That is a massive over-representation of a demographic that is only about 2% of the population.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM

Jim,
You asked for examples of your extremism - you got it

I did not.
It is not extreme to believe that culture effects us all to some extent.
Most people believe that.

It is not extreme to point out that culture has been cited by highly credible people as the cause of the over-representation.

You have found nothing extreme in anything I have posted and never will.

THERE IS NO EXISTING PROOF THAT MUSLIM CIULTURE INCLINES MUSLIMS TO HAVING UNDERAGE SEX -

I agree. There is nothing in Islam that would do that.
Why do you mention such a ludicrous idea?

Steve,
It's about what kind of man you are.

Yes. You try to make every discussion about me.
You can not challenge what I say so you attack me personally.
You pathetic losers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 07:03 AM

Some facts and figures while you are considering your answer on "over-representation"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/11641096/Number-of-paedophiles-in-Britain-will-shock-public-warns-Deputy-Childrens-Commissioner-for-England.html
(can't blue clikie)

Some more
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/child-protection/11630989/Child-sex-abuse-Police-guarded-paedophile-ring-claims-victim.html

More still
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/child-protection/11527344/Child-sex-abuse-victims-threaten-legal-action-over-inquiry.html

Yet more
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11617789/Scale-of-child-sex-abuse-revealed-in-new-police-figures.html

Would this count as "over-representation" in your book?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 06:44 AM

Keith
Simple question regarding mathematics and logic
If only a few hundred Asian youths out of a population os One and a half million have been tried for underage sexual offence against young women, how can that possibly be described as a "massive over-representation"?
Are there more than this number that are being covered up?
Do you have any information on such a cover up
How do you know there are
Can you explain what you mean by "a massive over-representation"?
"massive over-representation" of what - the entire population, the population of Bradford, or wherever else these incidents have been found
Where are the figures for this "massive over-representation"
Failure to explain this anomaly makes you not only a racist, but a propagandist for racism
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM

Yes, I'll sort you out later over your Wheatcroft farrago when I have a minute. Gird your loins. It's not about past historical posts, Keith. It's about what kind of man you are.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 06:21 AM

"the rehashing of this nasty old subject was nothing to do with me."
You asked for examples of your extremism - you got it - you don't like it
That will teach you not to ask
You brought the subject of cultural implants up in the first place, on the Muslim Prejudice thred - I agree with you entirely that it was a nasty thing to do.
"I have made no racist rant,"
It is a racist rant to describe an entire culture as implanted potention perverts
But I am responding to points made by you both."
With lies and denials and with a repeated insistence that your racist rant is true
Three members of the gang that does not exist, all hounding me over two posts both made years ago"
Which you have never withdrawn and are now defending as accurate - and blaming non-existent others for putting you up to it.
"two posts both made years ago""
I count five posts you have just put up dating back as far as 2011 attempting to prove that Muslims are implanted perverts
And you say you are not a racist!!!!!
THERE IS NO EXISTING PROOF THAT MUSLIM CIULTURE INCLINES MUSLIMS TO HAVING UNDERAGE SEX - ANYBODY WHO CLAIMS THAT THEY ARE IS A RACIST - SIMPLE AS THAT
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 06:07 AM

LOL


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 06:04 AM

Rag,
Isn't it strange that you object so much to old threads being used to support arguments against yourself castigating Steve and Jim for going back to 2011 and 2014 but you are quite prepared to use examples from these times to support your racist rant against Muslim men.

I have made no racist rant, and the rehashing of this nasty old subject was nothing to do with me.
I just defend myself from slanders like yours with facts and the truth.

Steve,
Good job Jim and I take no notice!

But I am responding to points made by you both.
Three members of the gang that does not exist, all hounding me over two posts both made years ago and which you refuse to see in their original intended context.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 05:58 AM

Good job Jim and I take no notice!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 05:55 AM

Isn't it strange that you object so much to old threads being used to support arguments against yourself castigating Steve and Jim for going back to 2011 and 2014 but you are quite prepared to use examples from these times to support your racist rant against Muslim men.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 05:45 AM

Daily Mirror 2014,
Anger at the sexual abuse of teenage girls by Pakistani grooming gangs is tearing a town apart with racial tension, a Sunday People investigation has revealed.
Multi-cutural Rotherham in South Yorkshire was rocked by a damning report this summer, which showed that 1,400 vulnerable youngsters have been targeted for sex since 1997.

Worryingly, we found hate crime has soared and mutual suspicion is rife since it was revealed the culprits were mainly British Asians.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-child-grooming-scandal-tearing-4508666


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 05:40 AM

4:55PM BST 25 Jun 2015
A report detailing how gangs of Asian men in Birmingham were grooming school girls with alcohol and drugs was not made public after senior officers warned that such information could inflame racial tensions ahead of the 2010 General Election.
West Midlands Police were warned that more than 100 predominantly white school children - some as young as 13 - were at serious risk of child exploitation, with abusers approaching pupils at the school gates.
Police said they had identified 75 suspects, most boasting a history of sexual violence and most of whom came from the Pakistani community in Birmingham.
But they warned that making the information public could inflame racial tensions particularly ahead of the 2010 General Election, which was due to take place several weeks later.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11699179/Report-about-Asian-grooming-gangs-was-supressed-to-avoid-inflaming-racial-tension.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM

"The Muslim community, which was so long in denial about the acts committed by a few of its members, has begun to confront the problem. "We can't refute the statistics that a disproportionate number of those involved in grooming are British Asian men," says Mr Karmani.  But the problem is not confined to young Asian men. It is nothing to do with Muslim culture, he says,"
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/the-oxford-child-sex-abuse-verdict-highlights-a-cultural-problem-but-not-a-specifically-muslim-one-8616370.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM

Mohamed Shafiq, quoted by me in the original discussion, is chief executive of The Ramadhan Foundation, a moderate Muslim group trying to foster better relationships with non-Muslims.

"Mr Shafiq profiles the offenders as Asian men, predominantly Pakistani, who want easy sex and are prepared to pay to abuse girls as young as 13.
Of 68 recent convictions for on-street grooming, 59 were of British Pakistani men.
"They have a respectable life in the community and then they have their night life.
"Asian girls are not available to them and so they look to Western girls. They think they're easy. They see them as tarts who are there to be used." "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9252003/Rochdale-grooming-trial-Mohammed-Shafiq-the-campaigner-who-stood-up-to-the-abusers.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 05:15 AM

Rag,
I can't help but notice professor that you make absolutely no mention of abuse committed by white caucasian men as described on my link.

I did in the original discussion, which you should read before pontificating and making accusations.
I acknowledged several times that overwhelmingly most convicted child sex offenders were white.

Jim,
There is no suggestion of hugely over representation is yours - you have disgustingly made this up

No. In the specific crime of street grooming of children there is a huge overrepresentation of one demographic whatever the reason.

Guardian 3 years ago, (It does not restrict itself to street grooming where the figures are much more clear cut.)

"Is there something about Asian Muslim men that leads to them being disproportionately involved in the grooming and sexual abuse of white girls?
The courts have dealt with a cluster of horrific cases including those in Rochdale, Derby and now Oxford.
Available figures are patchy and flawed, but on the face of it they do suggest Asian men are disproportionately involved in group grooming leading to sexual abuse, compared with their numbers in the national population. This impression is supported by several sources in law enforcement who spoke to the Guardian.

A 2011 study by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre looked at the 2,379 potential offenders caught grooming girls since 2008. Of 940 suspects whose race could be identified, 26% were Asian, 38% were white and 32% were recorded as unknown. Asians are roughly 7% of the population.
A report for the children's commissioner in 2012 found there were 1,514 perpetrators. Of these, 545 were white, 415 were Asian and 244 were black. The ethnicity of 21% of perpetrators was not recorded. Attempts to analyse the Asian figure further runs into problems. Just 35 of the 415 Asians are recorded as having Pakistani heritage and thus highly likely to be Muslim, and only five are recorded as being from a Bangladeshi background. The heritage of 366 of the Asian group is not stated in those figures."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:55 PM

Again like your co-author you make no reference to the case of white caucasian men in my link.

Doesn't fit your racist agenda does it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:22 PM

"Abuse is not as you would have us believe purely confined to Asian men." - Raggy

OK Raggy point out where I have ever stated that. If you cannot do that by quoting in full the post where I am stated that the kindly STFU about it.

I quoted details of eleven instances where gangs were abducting, raping, torturing and sex trafficking children. The degree and extent of the crimes perpetrated by those gangs were no invention of either Keith A of Hertford, or myself. They were the findings of the police officers who finally got round to investigating those crimes and from evidence that came to light during the court cases that saw 125 men tried, found guilty, convicted and imprisoned.

Tell me Raggy what do you think was meant when those looking into those cases stated that "institutional political correctness" played a part in the delay in investigations and prosecutions?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 04:09 PM

There could be many reasons for over representation if that is indeed the case.

Some demographics are under far more scrutiny than others
The crimes of that demographic are more widely reported
It is politically expedient to target those who are perceived as a threat in other ways such as terrorism
The perpetrators in that demographic are not as wily as their counterparts in others
The demographic is question is under represented in political circles and do not have the power to cover things up like others

Why chose culturally implanted as the only possible reason I wonder?

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 01:49 PM

I can't help but notice professor that you make absolutely no mention of abuse committed by white caucasian men as described on my link.

No surprise as it doesn't fit with your racist agenda does it.


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 7:00 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.