BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 01:33 PM

An interesting response by some to my post of 28 Feb 17 - 11:44 AM

Matthew 7:16

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 01:25 PM

Seems we've retreated back to the trenches
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 01:13 PM

Odd isn't it Shaw that you mentioned arses - the only people who have made complete and utter arses of them selves on this thread have been Jim Carroll who was the person to drag this thread back to 2011, yourself responsible for the attempted deflection by spreading your 2014 "Wheatcroft" lie.

For those wondering what that was all about read on:

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:57 PM

Steve, how dishonest you are!
And don't change the subject, Keith. You said we've only just joined in, now you're quoting me from 2011. Wheatcroftesque again.

Of course we were all in the original thread, but Jim has dredged it up many times since.
This is the first time that you have all joined in.
Now it is one for all and all for one in your little gang of musketeers.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:53 PM

Should probably stick to important topics like who would win a fight between Superman and Batman. They both wear their underpants on the outside don't they?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:52 PM

D the G. Glad you enjoyed the pancakes. I like mine with maple syrup.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:52 PM

Jim,

Nobody has ever suggested yo did - your claim was the Muslim, which is what we are discussing

You knowingly lie Jim.
I have never suggested that it was a Muslim issue.
I made it very clear that I did not.

I used the description "British Pakistani Muslims" because that was the description put to me, and I put it in quotes for that reason.

The "Muslim" was superfluous, but I left it in AS I HAD ALREADY MADE CLEAR THAT BEING MUSLIM WAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

I had no way of knowing some lying scum would take that out of its context to try and smear me with blatant lies based on knowingly misrepresenting what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:51 PM

And don't change the subject, Keith. You said we've only just joined in, now you're quoting me from 2011. Wheatcroftesque again. Over to you, Teribus!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:49 PM

He and bobad are two cheeks of the same sorry arse. No substance, no debating skills, no-nothing trolls. Here for the fight only. Even Keith and Teribus aren't of that ilk. An arse, what's more, that even an Asda George underpant, were it sentient, would rebel against. Ignore 'em. Now they're going to swear at me, just you watch.

Reminds me of a phase that M&S went through a few years back when everything suddenly became singular. Shorts became a short. Jeans became a jean. Pants became pant. Trousers became trouser. Briefs became brief. Knickers became knicker. "Why, that looks like just the jean for me!" I was once heard to declare in the Blue Harbour aisle!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:44 PM

Steve,
Why, you've just been asking me whether I "still deny it"

Not true. That is what I asked you back in 2011.
You had given every reason to believe you denied the over-representation in your total support for Jim.

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 - 12:39 PM

To be associated with a mythical gang is far superior than being in a pack of curs doncha think?

WTF are you on about Iains? Seeing as neither exist apart from in the deluded minds of some members that is a particularly stupid question. The nearest description, which applies to everyone involved in both sides of this argument was Joe's description - 'The usual suspects'.

On a much better subject we just had some lovely pancakes. Decided against making them this year which is just as well because neither Mrs G nor I feel up to much at the mo. They were bought ready made crepes, heated in the microwave and delicious with a full fat cream cheese filling with assorted berries and topped with Lancashire Farm yogurt. Bit odd having a healthy(ish) pancake as it is supposed to be the last splurge before the rigours of lent. Still, seeing as we don't do lent it is no big deal :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 12:35 PM

A fine display of erudition and intellect, doncha think
Hit and run seems the order of the day with this here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 11:44 AM

D THE G. To be associated with a mythical gang is far superior than being in a pack of curs doncha think?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM

But you know those were not my words.
That is why I put them in quotes.
Don asked if that is what you believed - you confirmed it was
"And you know that I can PROVE that I never blamed Islam."
Nobody has ever suggested yo did - your claim was the Muslim, which is what we are discussing
"You put up the same, tired, old, false accusations, and I knock them all down the same old way."
You have your own quote in front of you - is it a fake?
"I am neither racist nor extremist."
Then it must have been somebody else using your name to say what was said about Irish brainwashing and Travellers - and all that support for racist Ukip........ !!
Hoist on your own petard as naval Norman will tell you
Unless you have something to say otehr than denials - don't bother
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 11:09 AM

One for the ladies though, so it has been reported. Probably culturally implanted. Wasn't he Paula Yates's Dad when everyone thought it was Bishop Jess?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 11:03 AM

My mate told me that Hughie Green was an utterly arrogant, bad-tempered a-hole. That reminds me...🤔

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:58 AM

Ah, the man of the clenching buttocks! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:56 AM

"You three have just never joined in before. I suppose you had not become a gang of four before."

Really? Why, you've just been asking me whether I "still deny it" and trying to pin something on me from those inglorious times, Keith! As Hughie Green would have said, it's make your mind up time! (Or was that Michael Miles...)

Actually, "make it up as you go along time" would be more like it! Fraudulent!

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:50 AM

The 'musical muscle man', Tony Holland, was a butcher from Roe Green - Posh bit just down the road from us. Bet all the old dears loved going in his shop to get a peek at his best cuts...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:47 AM

I'm not asking you to believe this but it's true. My best mate at school was on Opportunity Knocks at the same time as Mary Hopkin and she beat him into second place. There, told you you wouldn't believe me. I found the chap you meant to link to. Cheers for that. Could do with a few more like him.

The only way to judge a man's stupidity is by a close examination of his underpants drawer. --Eric The Red, 1982

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:46 AM

Still haven't. Made up like my enthusiasm. Glad to see you have dropped your other ridiculous statements and are down to one unsubstantiated claim about something that has no bearing on anything whatsoever. How is your little gang doing? How may now? You, Teribus, Iains, Bobad Ake, Dozy, Sneaky, Sick and Bitch?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:39 AM

Jim,
For the umpteenth time
"Don I do " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"

But you know those were not my words.
That is why I put them in quotes.
And you know that I can PROVE that I never blamed Islam.
You know that I stated, before and after that post, that religion was not an issue.

You know that because we have been through it all before.
You put up the same, tired, old, false accusations, and I knock them all down the same old way.
What is the point Jim?

You have no case against me because I am neither racist nor extremist.
How many more threads are you going to destroy with this?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:39 AM

Cooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeee !!

Paranoia again, the is no gang, remember.

PS The bit Dave is actually denying is the "enthusiasm" that is entirely your creation.

He has already stated this explicitly, how is it you cannot comprehend that. Is it really that difficult?

Try sending a PM to terrikins, he might be able to explain it in words you can understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 10:29 AM

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.

We have never claimed either.
Islam and religion are not an issue in this crime, and I have been saying that since before I made that post.

Brainwashed Irish
I quoted historians who supported that criticism of Irish schools.
- Traveller persecution -
Completely made up shit.
defence of Ukip racism?
Completely made up shit.

Dave,
Why now? Because now is when it is happening

But it is always happening! Jim brings it up every few weeks and has done for six years.
You three have just never joined in before. I suppose you had not become a gang of four before.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 09:46 AM

To be honest, so did I :-) I wonder what old 'Uncle Hughie' Green's thoughts were when she first showed up at the Opportunity Knocks auditions? Bet it not cultural at all...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Iains
Date: 28 Feb 17 - 09:42 AM

I preferred Mary.

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:44 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.