BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:51 AM

D the G
a starting point.

2012 stats the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/12/police-stop-and-search-black-people
and


http://thinkethnic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Policing%20ethnic%20minority%20communities.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:07 AM

Pretty much the points I was making back in 2011, Iains.

Thanks anyway

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:08 AM

Ha, with friends like that, Teribus...😂

When I've paid for a paper I tend to read articles in it. Duh. I read articles from contributors to inform myself of the various views abroad on topical issues. My Dad is an expert on WWI and has given many talks on it. From what I hear from him I'd say he takes a far more measured view than you with your Blimp-like, little Englander king-and-country angle. Pity you feel the need to do that, because you do have an eye for detail, I'd be the first to admit. But none of this makes me an expert. I am far from being that but it doesn't mean I can't take an interest and read the bloody articles! And my memory is perfectly good enough to get my antennae a-twitching a week after I've read something then see something about it that doesn't chime. The above rant from you is typically unfocused. Let me try again to concentrate your mind. It really is a quite simple: Keith told us in a thread separate from the one you're using to defend him that "the Guardian" stated that Taylor's book was "fraudulent." Both parts of that in quotes are one hundred percent inaccurate. Why do you suppose Keith thought he could get away with that? Yes he'd copied and pasted the thing a week earlier into a DIFFERENT THREAD! He hoped no-one would remember that or bother to go back to check. His agenda was that he wanted us to think that both books had been "rubbished" (his word). They were not recent works by living historians and the whole thrust of his argument was that such works didn't count. Had I not spotted what he'd done the error (aka lie) would have stood forever. As for me, I had never heard of the two books in question until I'd read the Guardian piece. I still haven't read them. I was not "using them to make my case which Keith then demolished." My sole focus was the deliberate misrepresenting of the piece. As you rightly point out, he had already quoted the extract in full (in another thread!!), AND mentioned the article again, so how come he got it so badly wrong unless he'd done it deliberately? You defend this deceitful behaviour by dismissing a clear attempt to mislead as "just a passing reference." Is that really the best you can do?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:08 AM

" yet you let your own pass and those of Jim Carroll "
Which lies and inaccuracies would they be Teribus?
You've nit picked and semanitised on unimportant points whenever you've found yourself in a corner - rat-at-throat technique - but you have at no time caught either of us out in a deliberate lie
You usually refer to things you can't handle as "made up shit", (including researched and documented evidence), then ride off into the sunset, as you have with Keith's obscene theory and your own moral high-ground for Britain's indigenous perverts, but you have never found me lying nor, to my recollection, Dave
Lying is posting something, denying you posted it, then blaming it on some non-existent "expert" or "real historian"
Plenty of that on this forum, but not from this quarter.
I don't count myself a particularly truthful person; I occasionally bend or side-step the truth to save the feelings of others, but I could never see a reason in debating dishonestly - certainly not publicly - it is pointless and it has a nasty habit of blowing up in your face, as Keith is discovering now.
Lying in discussion is for those who are here to "win" something - go count how manyy times your running-mate has claimed to have won, or declared "you lose", when you have a few months to spare
You, on the other hand, contantly attempt to pass off your own quite often archaic and jingoistic opinions as facts; you refuse to substantiate them and when you are challenged, you try to bully and bluster your way through rather than lose face - a combination of insecurity and ignorance.
Can we make another appointment for the same time next week and we'll continue this asession?
I have another patient in the waiting room !!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:11 AM

Duel?? Quick before Steve of the double standard picks you up on it. It should be dual Raggy.

But no dual standard at all.

Your question WAS:

Raggytash - 24 Feb 17 - 09:21 AM

"Care to tell us what you actually think about the professors cultural implant theory?"

I asked what I thought to be a fairly reasonable question Raggy, i.e. "Which professor would that be Raggy?"

Still waiting for an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:15 AM

but I could never see a reason in debating dishonestly

But this is not a debating forum, Jim. It is a discussion forum. How do I know that? Teribus told me! So I suppose the rules of debate do not apply. Apart from when someone wants to win...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:26 AM

Sounds like a cop-out to me terrikins, I would think most people would consider it in the same way.

Perhaps if you had any real concern for the professor, as you claim to, you might give him some constructive advice about his racial implant theory.


PS You could look up the definition of professor, it does have more than one meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:42 AM

Dave, you gave reasons why the over-representation might not be real.
My only case was that it was real, which proved to be true.

No explanation for a real over-representation had been given when I reported those views that had been in all the media at that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:45 AM

How to make up shit. Here goes:

Geoffrey Wheatcroft in the Guardian, 9 Dec 2014.

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.

Keith on Mudcat, one week later.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM

You expounded the theory that it was due to cultural implants.

I gave other reasons for possible over representation.

It's all in black and white, Keith.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 11:11 AM

And acknowledged and corrected about one hour latter - the proof of that happening is detailed on this thread, as is the refusal to accept that acknowledgement and correction by Steve Shaw. That was in December 2014 and to this day Shaw still does not own up to what can be plainly seen in the detail given in my post Teribus - 24 Feb 17 - 04:51 AM.

Here it is again:

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."

FOLLOWED BY:

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.

After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times - and yet Shaw still attempts to convey the idea that no correction was ever made, which of course is a downright lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 11:23 AM

"Oh I asked Carroll about this "insecurity" thing,"
Didn't notice this
In my experience, most bullies are insecure, that is why they bully
"which proved to be true."
Why do you persist with this Keith - it is not true and now you know it can't be
300 cannot possibly be an over-representation of anything
And your mates wonder why we keep on at you - this is purely self-inflicted
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 11:52 AM

Dave,
I gave other reasons for possible over representation.

No Dave. You suggested reasons why the over-representation might be an illusion.
My case was that it was real, but I acknowledged that I could not prove you wrong.

Later I was asked if I believed the explanation was cultural.
I said I believed it was, " but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 11:59 AM

Jim,
300 cannot possibly be an over-representation of anything

Less than 2% of the population are of that demographic.
If they form more than 2% of any group, then they are over-represented.
That is what the term means.

87% is a massive over-representation.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 12:12 PM

I need to say something about Teribus.

I am currently being cross examined by the whole (non-existent!) gang of four over a couple of posts I once made years ago.

He is answering for me on one of them, and doing it better than I ever could.

I am very grateful to him because all these simultaneous attacks are too much for one person to deal with.

I also have a life to live, and probably a short one.
Thanks Teribus. You are a friend indeed.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 12:25 PM

"I am currently being cross examined by the whole (non-existent!) gang of four over a couple of posts I once made years ago."
You are being asked to justify an obscenely racist statement - it was raised in response to a request for evidence of your extremism
You ppersist on lying about it and you ignore the irrefutable evidence from the Justice Departmant which proves that no "over-representation" could not be true
Your "massive over-representation" originated in a book entitled "easy Meat", written by an author with connections to an extreme American publication.
You are attempting to smear an entire culture by suggesting that they are prone to child rape.
Please don't suggest we are "cross-examining" you - if you had made this statemnt publicly elsewhere, you would be faced with the possibility of prosecution under the incitement to race hatred laws.
If you can't face up to the implications of your beliefs, do not express them publicly
I have worked in houses that have been damaged by having petrol poured though the letterbox by people who share your beliefs.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 01:26 PM

Keith still did not retract his misrepresentation and never has, and still did not accurately reproduce Wheatcroft's remarks in the "explanatory" post of his you reproduce. The qualifying adjectives that he omitted to reproduce are crucial for accuracy. And you still can't explain why he did it in the first place when he was clearly thoroughly familiar with the passage in Wheatcroft's article. It was a clear attempt at deception, in a different thread, made in order to further his case that only living, recent historians should be listened to. An absolutely typical case of twisting things in order to make a case. It's hardly surprising that you can't see it. There is no excuse for what he said and it was no accidental error. And that is the point you can't bring yourself to acknowledge. Good luck with staying healthy for as long as possible, Keith. If you don't feel up to the arguments there's nothing stopping you from retiring to the subs' bench.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 02:29 PM

Now this IS going to be interesting, particularly as the people we will be discussing Shaw are people you:

a) Are not the least interested in
b) People you do not know
c) People whose work you do not know

Right then please explain this remark of yours "Never-a-true-word-will =pass-my-lips" Shaw

" The qualifying adjectives that he omitted to reproduce are crucial for accuracy."

Now let me see A.J.P.Taylor's work was described as being vulgar - vulgar in the sense that it was illiterate, it was tawdry, it was uneducated. It was not considered "vulgar" because it was full of dirty jokes.

Clark's work was considered largely fraudulent which is not surprising considering the man - he even admitted inventing the incident from which the work got it's title.

So tell us all what you mean by stating that " The qualifying adjectives that he omitted to reproduce are crucial for accuracy."

Crucial for the accuracy of what precisely liar?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 02:33 PM

"Good luck with staying healthy for as long as possible, Keith. If you don't feel up to the arguments there's nothing stopping you from retiring to the subs' bench." - Steve Shaw

Utterly contemptible Shaw. It speaks volumes about you. About the nastiest thing I have seen on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 02:54 PM

In your eyes maybe. Not my intention at all. Honi soit qui mal y pense, eh?

By the way, how do you know what Wheatcroft meant by vulgar? Is he a mate and confidant of yours (poor sod)? His words, complete with those rather important qualifiers, were "rather vulgar" for Taylor and "largely fraudulent" for Clark (and ONLY Clark, a point you seem keen to avoid). No rubbishing there. Criticism with qualification, not rubbishing. Never mind what I've read or what I'm interested in. Focus. Keith deliberately misrepresented the article in a DIFFERENT THREAD to the one in which he did his original copy and paste. He knew the piece but decided to risk misrepresenting it in order to make his case for modern, living historians only. He was already under pressure, quite right too, for sticking to that ridiculous position and he was wriggling like mad. You can read. You're good at picking up discrepancies. Take off those blinkers and have a look.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 04:33 PM

Ah Shaw so there was nothing crucial at all, or at least nothing that you can point to.

As to the meaning of "vulgar":

vul•gar (ˈvʌl gər)

adj.
1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation.
2. indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar gesture.
3. lacking in refinement; crude; coarse; boorish.
4. of, pertaining to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society.
5. spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; vernacular.
6. current; popular; common: vulgar beliefs.
7. lacking in distinction or aesthetic value; banal; ordinary.

While all those picked out in bold could apply my money is on the last one 7.lacking in distinction or aesthetic value; banal; ordinary as being what Geoffrey Wheatcroft meant (The others just do not fit).

Don't know about you Shaw but for the "Macauley of the age" to turn out work that was considered "rather vulgar" under that definition of the word, then I would consider putting it out for sale to the general public to be also rather "fraudulent". Not really the point though was it. The important thing, the bit that was crucial was that the work on the First World War that was written by A.J.P. Taylor and the one written by Alan Clark were both rubbished not only by modern day historians but also by their own peers at the time those books were brought out. Neither man Taylor or Clark were specialists in the subject and both wrote their books to make money. Neither of the books were very good but they are the books you and others felt made the points that you could use against the arguments being put up by Keith A and the host of modern day historians who had the temerity to suggest that during the course of the Great War the British Army was generally well led. Of course they are right in stating that, of course they are right in pointing out where the revisionists writing between 1929 and 1969 were in error. They could do so because they were armed with far, far better information available from a far wider range of sources than the "revisionists" had. Not my opinion Shaw just plain straightforward documented and recorded fact.

Couldn't give a toss whether or not you consider that Keith A acknowledged and immediately corrected his casual reference, but anyone reading the exchange can make their own minds up and I do not think for one nano-second that they will adopt your view on it. By all means continue to "worry" this particular bone of yours, but bring it up in any other thread at any time in the future and your lie will be exposed afresh, time, after time, after time. I've got it all saved under "favourites" and can have it in print in seconds.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:50 PM

No Dave. You suggested reasons why the over-representation might be an illusion.
My case was that it was real, but I acknowledged that I could not prove you wrong.

Keith. I suggested no such thing. I said specifically That is indeed a very alarming statistic. I assume it is verified, Keith? But are we working on the same basis that in the 70's and 80's most youths involved in stop and search operations were black? I am not disagreeing or agreeing - just wondering if the figures have been skewed by an inherent predjudice against asian gangs by police? Or are the groups of non-moslem paedophiles more sophisticated and not as easy to convict?

Now, I know that you and I speak a different language. You have denied it. Surely this proves the point. Or is Winscale is now called Sellafield and radiation is magic moonbeams?

You have also never acknowledged my response to your

"I have looked.
When I posted that view no other explanation for the over-representation had been suggested.
If that is not true, produce one that was posted before."

I have produced one and you are now trying to twist that.

It's like trying to plait sand.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 05:52 PM

I admire the way you waste your energy. You're still rattling on about those books as if I give a toss. I haven't read them and have never used them in any argument about the whys and wherefores of the war. Simply not the point. Focus. Keith deliberately misrepresented the article in the Guardian. He knew the piece all too well and chose to misquote it in a different thread from the one in which he did his copy and paste. Either admit that very simple and incontrovertible fact or lose your credibility. Keith said that Wheatcroft called Taylor's book "fraudulent." Wheatcroft said no such thing. What part of that don't you understand, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:06 PM

"It speaks volumes about you. About the nastiest thing I have seen on this forum."
Not really Teribus
I six years ago I was informed that my prostrate levels where dangerously high and I was sent to Galway Hospital for a series of somewhat difficult tests, including some extremely painful biopsies.
These went on for three years, till eventually I was told that there was little they could do and I should come back when I showed signs of cancer, which I probably will.
The only time I have ever mentioned this on this forum is after one particularly grueling session when I was feeling particularly low and somewhat frightened and I let slip during an argument on music that I had had a bad day at the hospital.
My posting was immediately followed by one from someone whose opinion I have enormous respect for who informed me that the state of my health has no place on these discussions - I apologised, and I have never mentioned the subject until now.
While I respect the fact that some people might feel to the need to publicise their situation by opening a thread, I also believe their situation has no place in these discussion.
I don't believe Steve was being in any way nasty - he has offered his best wishes on Keith's thread a number of times (I haven't because I really don't go in for that sort of thing)
Keith's insistence in continuing these sometimes bitter arguments as tenaciously as he does, given his situation, but that is his choice.
If he chooses to continue to do battle the way he has done, that is his decision.
Keith's health has been at the back of my mind throughout all of these arguments, and I suspect Steve feels the same.
The subject of racism is one that causes me much anger, so I'm not prepared to let it go while Keith chooses to continue.
I was left with a feeling that Ake's "Oh for God's sake, have you NO shame?" was an underhanded reference to this subject - I sincerely hope not, but I can't think os what else he fely we should feel ashamed about.
I suggest that any references to Keith's or anybody's health should be a private matter for them alone and suggest it is not mentioned again - this is the last reference I will make to mine or anybody's and I hope everybody will follow suit.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:19 PM

In the States they can 'seed' the PC and initiate cure without any interference in the plumbing.

The TrumPutiny - When they both disobey each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:36 PM

Absolutely the correct perspective, Jim. If someone feels compromised by their failing health, it behoves them to back off from online squabbles if they feel they can no longer handle the flak. I see no such signs as yet in Keith's behaviour. I wish him well and would fully understand If he wishes to back away from the arguments and would never feel triumphalist if he did, but, while he's here fighting his battles, he'll get no quarter from me. And, if that were me in his situation, I'd expect to be treated in exactly the same way. Teribus's remark was out of order and typical of him, but nothing he ever says bothers me in the slightest. Why would it! I find him incredibly easy to take on, quite amusing at times actually. He has shown that he is serially unable to focus on the point of any issue he takes on. I know someone just like him in my close family so I'm used to it, unfortunately for Teribus. In our case we get by by humouring our man. Here, we have to at least try to engage with his bluster. That must make him feel important. But you do have to be a little sympathetic!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 02:28 AM

Here it is:

How Steve Shaw "makes up shit" and what an acknowledgement and correction of an error looks like:

On the 10th December, 2014 the following text was faithfully and accurately posted by Keith A of Hertford in a thread titled "WWI was No Mans Land" from an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft that appeared in the Guardian, 9 Dec 2014

"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."

This thread was closed on 18th December but the discussion continued on another WWI thread titled "I am not an historian but ..." in which Keith A made a passing reference to the passage quoted above on the 17th December, 2014

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

Steve Shaw questioned this and within an hour of Steve Shaw posting Keith A of Hertford replied as follows:

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

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

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. [Further correction making clear what adjective applied to which author's work]

After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given in the "I am not an historian but ...." thread the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times which when you couple that to the speed of Keith A's response and correction blows the Shaw theory of it being deliberate misrepresentation clear out of the water - and yet Shaw to this day still attempts to convey the idea that no acknowledgement and correction was ever made, which of course is a downright LIE.

You've got some bloody neck to complain about deliberate misrepresentation Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 02:57 AM

Steve Shaw - 24 Feb 17 - 01:26 PM

1: "Keith still did not retract his misrepresentation and never has" [Example of Steve Shaw lying], and still did not accurately reproduce Wheatcroft's remarks in the "explanatory" post of his you reproduce". [Oh yes he did as shown in my previous post and by the fact that the particular passage was posted a further five times subsequently in the thread in question - a FACT that you seem to have conveniently forgotten.]

2: "The qualifying adjectives that he omitted to reproduce are crucial for accuracy."

Oh yes and here we read your views on how "crucial" they were:

Steve Shaw - 24 Feb 17 - 05:52 PM

"You're still rattling on about those books as if I give a toss. I haven't read them and have never used them in any argument about the whys and wherefores of the war."

Crucial Indeed

As to you never using them = another Shaw lie - you have stated in argument that the works of the revisionist historians (1929 to 1969 - which includes work by Taylor and Clark) are of equal weight and importance to work done later. If memory serves me correctly you and the "pack" had a little theme going for a while with adjectives describing various "historians"

Keep going Shaw, let me know when you reach Australia.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:46 AM

No - Here it is
I re-read the 'Muslim Prejudice' thread last night - it is probably one of the most sickening one-handed campaigns against a social/national group I have ever come across.
Single-highhandedly, Keith set out to show that an entire racial/national community were a threat to British society because of their "implanted" tendency - an entire community inclined were inclined to abuse of young women because of their culture and were forced to resist that "implant" to stop themselves from doing so.
The only support he had was an 'small invisible army' of people he had invented to back up what, if made publicly, would have been exposed for what it was, a one-man racist attack
Nobody on that thread agreed with him and one by one, his opponents walked away in disgust until finally, Joe Offer had the good sense to close down the thread.
Similar subjects have come and gone, Ireland being the one that sticks in my memory because it was an attack on me and mine, this time it was a two-handed job - the same invisible army was conjured up then with the same invented facts.
Nobody is "making up shit" here Teribus", other than you and you are doing it in order to support Keith's fanaticism.
You want to prove people are lying - show Keith didn't say what he said or produce the "implanted culture" quotes that suggest an entire cultural/national group tend towards underage sex" - you have produced nothing but denial so far.
The Muslim people are probably the most law-abiding, respectful and industrious community in Britain today.
Despite this, they bear the brunt of extremist harassment, open persecution and actual verbal and physical attacks from the lower echelons of British society.
I have no intention of encouraging people like you pair to spread that persecution to the threads of this forum.
You want to prove that Muslims are a bunch of child-molesting perverts (on the basis of the actions of probably 300 criminals nationally) produce your evidence.
The same goes for Keith.
I'm not interested in the (invented) opinions of others - anybody who holds the views being expressed here is an out-and-out racist.
Anybody who expressed those views publicly and openly outside the internet would be guilty of breaking British law regarding incitement to race hatred and liable to prosecution (that fact alone is proof positive that Keith's claims of support are made-up)   
Until you justify your claims with evidence of cultural perversion, or produce actual examples of "prominent people" describing an entire cultural community as 'The Enemy Within', I think we're finished here.
I have no intention of giving your offensive views 'the oxygen of publicity', as someone infamous once said.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 03:48 AM

"I was left with a feeling that Ake's "Oh for God's sake, have you NO shame?" was an underhanded reference to this subject - I sincerely hope not, but I can't think os what else he fely we should feel ashamed about."

Don't judge me according to your values Jim, I would no more allude to the health problems of my friend Keith than I would to any other member. Especially to make any sort of debating point.

My remarks were motivated by frustration over the sheer inability of your group to realise what you are attempting to do.
You are engaged in a disgusting attempt to obfuscate. Teribus has shown brilliantly where this has been taking place yet you still SHAMEFULLY deny the evidence presented.

Of course your whole idiotic "liberal" agenda is based on the denial of evidence......and strangely enough for self confessed Atheists, reliance on blind faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:03 AM

Jim,
You are being asked to justify an obscenely racist statement - it was raised in response to a request for evidence of your extremism

Why do you need to prove extremism?
I am not an extremist, but if I was you should still just demolish my arguments.
Calling me a name is not the same thing.

The trouble is that you can not demolish my arguments so you go for personal attacks.
You have to go back six years to find something you can misrepresent as extremist.
It is not extreme to say we are all implanted to some extent by our culture.
It is not extreme to quote people from and close to that culture blaming the culture.

Stick to the current issues and stop making personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:09 AM

Steve,
If you don't feel up to the arguments there's nothing stopping you from retiring to the subs' bench.

I should allow you and your gang to smear me and traduce my character and reputation?
Of course I have to defend myself however many of you combine against me with your nasty personal attacks.

You even admitted a few days ago that you were just trying show me as a bad person.
Why can you not just demolish my arguments?
You would if you could, but smearing is something you are capable of.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:17 AM

Dave,
That is indeed a very alarming statistic. I assume it is verified, Keith? But are we working on the same basis that in the 70's and 80's most youths involved in stop and search operations were black? I am not disagreeing or agreeing - just wondering if the figures have been skewed by an inherent predjudice against asian gangs by police? Or are the groups of non-moslem paedophiles more sophisticated and not as easy to convict?

You were "wondering" or suggesting that the alarming statistic did not describe reality. That the over-representation was an illusion.

I put forward my evidence that it was real, you suggested reasons it might not be.
I chose not to argue.

No-one came up with an explanation for the real over-representation.
Why they were doing it rather than explaining it away.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:22 AM

Steve,
If someone feels compromised by their failing health, it behoves them to back off from online squabbles

I tried to back off from your dredging up of ancient posts to misrepresent and use against me.
I can not allow myself to be smeared by the whole gang of you without defending myself.

If you just challenged my arguments on the current issues I would have no complaint.
It is the historical smearing attempted simultaneously by the whole gang of you that is so hard for one person to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:33 AM

Once again professor there is no "little gang" no matter how many times you say it, it will not become true. Not yesterday, not today and not tomorrow.

It is a sign of paranoia.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:35 AM

"Why do you need to prove extremism?"
Because you have infected this forum with yours
"I am not an extremist,"
Proof of the pudding and the rest of this postings is exactly that
Muslims are not implanted perverts, as you claim they are.
"Don't judge me according to your values Jim,"
I don't Ake, I judge you by what you say and what I believe you are
"My remarks were motivated by frustration over the sheer inability of your group to realise what you are attempting to do."
We are attempting to stop a racist attack on an entire community - what do you believe we are trying to do?
Keith persists, we attempt to show what he is doing
You make mindless claims of what "Teribus has proved" and he has proved nothing
Can we add you to the list of those who believe Muslims are implanted perverts?
"Of course your whole idiotic "liberal" agenda is based on the denial of evidence."
I'll take that as a "yes"
"And then there were three"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 04:58 AM

You were "wondering" or suggesting that the alarming statistic did not describe reality. That the over-representation was an illusion.


AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH! NO I FUCKING WASN'T!

Sorry but you are enough to make a saint swear. I was pointing out possible reasons for the reported over-representation. I usually blame myself for not putting the point over well enough but in this case I do not see how it can be misinterpreted. Apart from by you.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:29 AM

Dave,
I was pointing out possible reasons for the reported over-representation.

No. You were trying to explain it away.

You provided no explanation for why they did it, just suggested that they might not be doing it.

They were doing it and I was asked for an explanation for why they did it.

I gave the only explanation for why they were doing it that had appeared at that time.

If that is not true Dave, show us an explanation for why they were doing it from before my post.

Also please explain why you feel the need to have that discussion all over again.

Rag, the four of you, acting together as a gang as you often do, are now all trying to smear me by misrepresenting two posts from years ago.

You walk, talk and quack like ducks.
A gang of ducks.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM

I didn't start it but I am going to finish it - You said there was no other explanation. I said there was. You believe you know what I meant better than I do. You are wrong. End of story.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 05:45 AM

Paranoia, pure and simple. There is no "little gang" it's all in your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:05 AM

Well, Teribus, if you were digging and aiming for Oz you'd be taking so many twists and turns that you'd probably emerge in Dudley town centre. Focus, my good man. Keith deliberately misrepresented a quote in a different thread from the one where he first pasted it a week earlier. He knew the article so he did it on purpose in order to promote his argument about only listening to modern, living historians. Nobody "rubbished" the two books and nobody called Taylor "fraudulent". He could have had Keith in court for that. Keith did it on purpose.This appears to be eluding you. Had someone not picked him up, the lie would have stood. Neither you nor I approve of that sort of thing. Jaysus, man, you even nitpick about what size bullets were fired somewhere or other a hundred years ago.

Please stop bleating about "gangs," Keith. You bring this stuff on yourself time and time again. You do it over Israel, you do it over "cultural implanting," you do it over Labour's "serious antisemitism problem" and you did it over the Guardian piece. You are obsessively one-sided and blinkered in almost every issue you take on. You think you are never wrong and you make it clear that you are out to win. If you get people's backs up you have only yourself to blame. Stop moaning. If you can't stand the heat, etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 06:11 AM

BTW - You asked for a reason for the over-representation, not for why they were doing it. As far as I know no one has asked that but if they did they would receive the answer that they do it for the same reason that any other criminal gangs do it - profit. Regardless of creed, culture or colour.

Are you now saying that British Pakistanis commit these crimes because they are culturally implanted so to do while while anyone else doing the same does so for other reasons?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:05 AM

"There is no "little gang" it's all in your head."
It must be very lonely all on its own up there

I really would leave this nasty trio Kluxers to their own devices if I were you Dave and Steve
The longer you encourage them, the the bigger the field they have to spread their racist manure
I always thought it a great pity that their offensiveness managed to drive off the few Muslim contributors this forum once had
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:19 AM

More Shaw misrepresentations

1: "Keith deliberately misrepresented a quote in a different thread from the one where he first pasted it a week earlier."

Prove that it was done deliberately Shaw - The fact that it was corrected immediately by Keith A kills your deliberately nonsense.

2: "He knew the article so he did it on purpose in order to promote his argument about only listening to modern, living historians."

Shaw misrepresentation - But I will give you a chance to disprove it - show us any post where Keith A has EVER suggested anything even remotely like that assertion about only listening to modern, living historians." in any of the WWI threads. I can however dig out posts of yours that claim he has but putting words in other people's mouths and taking them to task for it is a favoured tactic of both yourself and Jim Carroll for years on this forum.

3: "Nobody "rubbished" the two books and nobody called Taylor "fraudulent". He could have had Keith in court for that."

Nobody? Well Geoffrey Wheatcroft did for a start he called a book by a man thought by many to be the finest historian of his day "rather vulgar", but there again Taylor was writing about something that was not his specialised area of expertise. Go to a post of mine in the "Oh What A Lovely War" Thread (If you don't I will) and there you will find a detailed list of about eighteen names of historians, specialists in the period and topic, present and past who "rubbished" both books. A.J.P. Taylor's greatest critic being Hugh Trevor-Roper, Regius Professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford, the man he beat to that job was A.J.P. Taylor.

As for being taken to court? Given the speed of the acknowledgement of the omission and the appearance of the correction no case would ever have been brought, no case would have had the remotest chance of succeeding. After all you do not deliberately set out to deceive by misquoting a sentence that you have faithfully and accurately quoted days before, you complete and utter idiot.   

4: "Keith did it on purpose.This appears to be eluding you."

a) As previously stated - Prove it
b) The only person I see who has missed something is you:

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

Steve Shaw questioned this and within an hour of Steve Shaw posting Keith A of Hertford replied as follows:

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

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY:

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. [Further correction making clear what adjective applied to which author's work]

After the above acknowledgment and correction had been given in the "I am not an historian but ...." thread the complete passage from Wheatcroft's article was posted five times which when you couple that to the speed of Keith A's response and correction blows the Shaw theory of it being deliberate misrepresentation clear out of the water - and yet Shaw to this day still attempts to convey the idea that no acknowledgement and correction was ever made, which of course is a downright LIE.

5 "Had someone not picked him up, the lie would have stood."

What lie? An error of omission at worst, that was corrected, your post asked for a link and that is what you got not just once but five times.

6: Neither you nor I approve of that sort of thing. Jaysus, man, you even nitpick about what size bullets were fired somewhere or other a hundred years ago.

"Neither you nor I approve of that sort of thing." Well you certainly do and you have in your very next sentence led us on to two examples of you "standing for it" when members of your own little gang are guilty of spreading lies.

The "nitpicking" about what sized of bullets were fired. This "nitpick" was in response to Jim Carroll stating that Kitchener had supplied the wrong sized shells to the BEF in 1915. I picked him up on that Shaw and demonstrated that factually his statement was rubbish and a lie, if any statement made in complete and utter ignorance can indeed be a lie (Jim Carroll does indeed make very many statements in complete and utter ignorance - you never pick him up on them Shaw). Having explained to Carroll that it was not the wrong sized shells that had been supplied but the wrong type of shell Carroll went on to his second deliberately told lie - that Kitchener had been forced to resign as Secretary of State for War. Truth was of course there was never any such resignation, a matter of simple well recorded and documented fact - Now as someone who does not approve of deliberate lies being told can you explain why you did not take Jim Carroll to task over this whopper Shaw? I'll tell you why shall I? It would have meant publicly embarrassing one of your own little band wouldn't it. Oh and on that theme, there were no corrections from Keith A's other "stalkers" - Raggy, Dave the Gnome, the Muskets, Greg F either.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM

For fucks sake, this is now a war of attrition dating back to WW1 and as just as vacuously vicious
Let these morons drown in their own swill
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:29 AM

well as you know Jim, Steve and Dave are experts in racism. They detected it in me and I didn't know I'd got it.

You do sometimes feel with mudcat. These guys missed their calling in life. They should have been working for HUAC at the height of the MacCarthy era detecting doctrinal impurity in others. Or maybe the Spanish Inquisition. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

'first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.'

Such a demanding commandment. In these judgemental times, Jeremy Kyle is so popular, you can see why Christianity is losing ground.

Meanwhile the Labour Party is in shitsville. I keep looking at this thread hoping we can get some ideas for solutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 07:37 AM

Why is Christianity (or any other religion)losing ground perceived as a bad thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:21 AM

"well as you know Jim, Steve and Dave are experts in racism."
It doesn't take "experts" to work out that describing an entire race or cultur 'potential perverts' is recism in the extreme
You want to address that statement, feel free, otherwise you are sniping from the sidelines
"Meanwhile the Labour Party is in shitsville. "
Is it?
It is if it continues to be a pale shadow of Toryism, as it has been over the last few decades.
We have a one-system system in Britain, all the parties scrambling to support the status quo.
If that continues, so will declining industry and increasing inequality.
Changing that situation won't be easy and is bound to lose friends, but it is noticeable that, while the Labour Party leadership were scrambling to keep Corbyn out, the membership voted him in as leader by a significant majority.
If that can be repeated outside the party, we will end up with a genuine two-party system - if not, there is little use of having a Labour party that is a pale repetition of The Tories.
Carreer politics and self-serving has well and truely naused up any chance we have of real democracy in Britain
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:38 AM

Tyranny of the minority: How the most sinister trend of our age is a poisonous conviction taking root on the Left and among the elite that ordinary people are too stupid to be trusted with voting

Something Shaw has mentioned before.

As the Daily Mail is held in such high regard, with our "Usual Suspects" quoting it right, left and centre whenever it suits their purposes, here's the rest of the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4258522/A-poisonous-conviction-taking-root-Left.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Feb 17 - 08:38 AM

That post makes you look a complete arse, Teribus. I find it totally wacky that you can muster the energy to dig up plethora after plethora of past posts then work out how to twist everything with steam coming out of your ears. Calm down, dear. It would be devilishly easy to make a whole career out of provoking you and enjoying the reaction but that just isn't me. I'm finished with that topic now though I'm reserving the right to mention it whenever Keith tells us that he never dissembles or accuses anybody else of misquoting, etc.

I don't recall branding you a racist, Al. Remind me.