BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

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

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

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

I never have described them so. You lie.

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

Yes they did. You lie.

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

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

Lord Ahmed linked to cousin and arranged marriage in that culture,
'This didn't happen in my or my father's generation. This is happening among young Asians. While I respect individual choice, I think the community needs to look at marriages in the UK rather than cousin marriages or economic marriages from abroad.'

Alibhai_Brown said, "So let me say loud and clear that the coerced marriages Lord Ahmed is talking about are inhuman. Those parents who enforce them claim they are legitimate and say they provide the only way to ensure their young remain linked to extended ­family networks and prevent them becoming 'westernised'"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve,
Thus my totally non-committal answer,

It was not non-committal.

You went on to say,
"I can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else. I wouldn't want to, but neither would I gleefully put them forward to "prove" (or, possibly worse, insinuate) something that requires a whole load more context. My post that you are so fond of quoting clearly states my position.

But tell us what you think now Steve.

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

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

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

DtG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"You are now openly lying Iains"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

DtG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DtG

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

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

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

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

Here is what Jim states about the two commentators:

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

Mohammed Shafiq:

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

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

Alyas Karmani:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes he was!!

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:03 AM

Atma Singh, from the Sikh Community Action Network, said: "Well done to Jack Straw for being 100 per cent honest and saying what many people already know – that there are pockets of youngsters in the Pakistani Muslim community who treat girls from other communities as sexual objects."

Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Muslim youth group the Ramadan Foundation said 53 out of the last 65 convictions for grooming had involved British Pakistanis.

"The reality is that there is an issue," he said. "There is a perception that these white girls have lesser morals and lesser values than women from Pakistani heritage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Carroll - 28 Feb 17 - 05:32 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DtG

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

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

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

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

How is that Jim?

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

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

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

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

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

We agree on that Jim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why are you here doing it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

DtG

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

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

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

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

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

' I like the concept of the socialist underpant.'

hmmmm!

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

Life has enough complications without putting buttons on underpants.

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

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

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

Knickers to the pair of 'em, Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:20 AM

I envisage the socialist underpant to be red in colour, wide-fitting (after all, Labour is a broad church) and designed for those who "dress to the left." Naturally, the fabric will have to come from a workers' cooperative somewhere. Hurry up if you have any other desirable attributes to suggest as I have to send off my design ideas to Stella McCartney...

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:24 AM

Jim Carroll - 28 Feb 17 - 05:57 AM

In a responsible adult manner:

1: I would not describe either Mohammed Shafiq or Alyas Karmani as being "arrogant racist strutters", incapable of discussing the subject seriously"

2: There is not a shred of evidence of a link between these few crimes and Muslim culture - nobody has ever suggested there is

Perfectly true Nobody has suggested any link to those crimes and MUSLIM culture - But you Jim Carroll have stated time and time again that people have - truth is they haven't.

3: The pimping and torture that took place in some of these crimes reduces the number to around a dozen - most were of young men with "fizzing testosterone" to quote Jack Straw, seducing young women.

Actually gangs perpetrating these crimes across eleven English cities resulted in 125 convictions, and it was found that these young men with "fizzing testosterone" were predominantly from the British-Pakistani community

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

Again perfectly true. However, you are the only person who has claimed anyone has stated that these crimes have anything to do with "Muslim culture" but have been unable to provide an example of anyone ever having done so.

5: No information has been uncovered since to suggest that these crimes were "Muslim" other than they have been committed by a handful of young men who have rejected the basic laws of their culture and have stepped away from their communities.

I would like to hear what the tenets of this supposed "Muslim" Culture are. Muslim is the word used to describe someone who subscribes to one of the many recognised sects of Islam. You constantly have refused point blank to recognise the difference between religion and culture that span some 1.8 billion Muslims inhabiting 50 Muslim majority countries - are you seriously trying to tell us there are no "ethnic" cultural differences. Had you actually travelled round this planet and worked in various Muslim countries you would have experienced an immense and marked difference and variety in local cultures but a uniformity in the practice and observance of their religion commensurate with particular requirements of the predominant sect of Islam followed.

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

Perfectly true, as well they should. But the crimes On-street grooming" of vulnerable young females on an almost industrial scale have NOT BEEN "documented as having been committed by non-Muslims, mainly indigenous Britons, many of them by Christians and a significant number of these by Christian clergymen using their cloth to facilitate the crimes". When the "Rochdale" story broke it was so unique and horrific it almost defied description - I can recall no other similar instance.

7: Unless they come up with serious, responsible evidence that these crimes are as a result of a "cultural implant", anybody who claims that these crimes are "Muslim" in any way shape or form are raving racists who are contravening British law by making such a suggestion.

For the umpteenth time no-one has suggested that "these crimes are "Muslim" in any way shape or form" - That has been your misinterpretation of what has been said from the outset six years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:44 AM

I am not allowed in Asda, Steve. They have an Asda sensor at the front door of Morrisons Head Office. It would sniff out my sin and I would be excommunicated. I dread to think what would happen if I went in wearing Asda underpants but I am sure it would be painful.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:44 AM

"In a responsible adult manner"

Indeed. I had to read it twice to convince myself that it was really you. Keep it up!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:48 AM

One at a time
"For the umpteenth time no-one has suggested that "these crimes are "Muslim" in any way shape or form"
For the umpteenth time
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"
" I would not describe either Mohammed Shafiq or Alyas Karmani as being "arrogant racist strutters", incapable of discussing the subject seriously"
You know as well as I do that I am referring to your (apparently terminal) arrogance and bullying – no refrence to their opines
Stop setting up straw men and add honesty to my request for adult behaviour
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:49 AM

Well I proudly swan into Bude Morrisons sporting my 29p long-life Asda wine carriers. I'm no snob. I've been known to shop in Waitrose brandishing Lidl carrier bags. Let me know when Morrisons are going to put their six-quid Nero d'Avola down to five on special again. A damn good drop of red, is that, but I don't pay the proper price for wine ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 07:58 AM

Piss off you pair of racist pricks
Jim Carroll

Come on Jimmy, take defeat like a man.

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

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

How could you deny being here and doing it!?
The question is why you are doing it and why now, and you seem enthusiastic even though you deny that.

Steve,
Keith. Just back off. You're up shit creek without a paddle

Yet again you resort to abuse when you have no reply.

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:19 AM

Jim, as you well know, the description "male Pakistani Muslims" was not mine.
That is how the question was put to me.
That is why that part of my post is in quotes.

Read my whole post and read the posts it was responding to.
Read it in context and all your accusations are knocked flat.

You have been making these same accusations for six years and I have given a point by point rebuttal every time.

If I was really a racist you would have more than one innocent six year old post to go on.
Open your eyes and your mind to the fact that you have misjudged me just because I always defeat you in debate.

I am no racist nor any kind of extremists.
That is why all your six year old accusations all fall flat every time you put them up again.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:19 AM

I've already replied, Keith. Now why don't you put your Asda Y-fronts on outside your trousers and run down the canal towpath in Hertford shouting "Wheee! I'm Superman!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:23 AM

Very "Wheatcroftesque" did you say Shaw? - Well we all know how that ended up for you don't we? - It resulted in yourself being exposed as a blatant and barefaced liar.

If you wish to allow everybody to read through it again 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.

Now then Shaw every single time you bring up any reference to "Wheatcroft" in connection to Keith A that passage above will be plastered all over the thread just so that everybody is made perfectly aware that you are - a loutish, posturing prat and a barefaced liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:27 AM

"Jim, as you well know, the description "male Pakistani Muslims" was not mine."
As you well know, you have never at any time produced anybody who has ever made such a racist statement accusing all male Pakistanis of being "implanted to rape children.
I think you two had better have a site meeting to get your story straight.
On the one hand Teribus claims "For the umpteenth time no-one has suggested that "these crimes are "Muslim" in any way shape or form"
On the other, you continue to claim that Muslims have said just that.
"Come on Jimmy, take defeat like a man."
There you go - you have your tame troll cheering you on - using the same unimaginative language
Done forget to invite him to your site meeting
"If I was really a racist you would have more than one innocent six year old post to go on."
Brainwashed Irish - Traveller persecution - defence of Ukip racism?
You are a stereotype Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:31 AM

How could you deny being here and doing it!?

I don't. My exact words were "I am not denying doing it." You even quoted them.

The question is why you are doing it and why now, and you seem enthusiastic even though you deny that.

No idea why I am doing it. Possible masochistic tendencies. Why now? Because now is when it is happening maybe and another time would be rather anachronistic?

How on earth do you deduce that I seem enthusiastic about it though? Maybe you already put those Asda Y-Fronts on, flew at super speed up here and peered through my roof using your x-ray vision to see me leaping about with glee? You just made up the enthusiasm bit and once again will not admit your mistake.

Typical really.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 08:34 AM

Jim Carroll - 28 Feb 17 - 07:48 AM

There you go folks the response to a post that did discuss the issues raised "In a responsible adult manner" (Even Steve Shaw thought so)!!!

YOU, Jim Carroll are the one not being honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 09:07 AM

Just by way of contrast Google have marked today as the birthday of Abdul Sattar Edhi. Amazing bloke.

Wiki article

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 09:12 AM

Jaysus, Teribus, give it a bloody rest! Do you think that anyone outside your cabal is actually reading your tedious, repetititititive bluster? 😂😂😂

Yours in brief(s),

Steve XXX

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 09:15 AM

Er, Dave, I got Mary Hopkin when I clicked on that. Very nice but is it what you meant?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 09:30 AM

"YOU, Jim Carroll are the one not being honest."
Explain please how is
"One at a time
"For the umpteenth time no-one has suggested that "these crimes are "Muslim" in any way shape or form"
For the umpteenth time
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"
" I would not describe either Mohammed Shafiq or Alyas Karmani as being "arrogant racist strutters", incapable of discussing the subject seriously"
You know as well as I do that I am referring to your (apparently terminal) arrogance and bullying – no refrence to their opines
Stop setting up straw men and add honesty to my request for adult behaviour"
not being honest and how did Steve comment on my posting?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 09:34 AM

Oooh - Sorry about that! I'll leave Mary where she is and put Abdul here.

Thanks for letting me know. I am sure we will soon have lots of posts about how stupid I must be ;-)


Cheers

DtG