BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article that the professor quoted from also said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A fellow traveller with some of the posters on here.

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

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

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

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

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

Another Guardian piece,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:D tG

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

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

It is not.

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

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

Where is your "massive over-representation in that statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thought you had taught Maths professor.

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

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

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

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

QED

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

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

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

DtG

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

Jim,
Your case was a cultural implant

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, what a surprise...

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

How about this one from The Guardian?

Some snippets for you

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

...

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

...

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

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



Plenty more there as well.

DtG

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

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

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

Raggytash - 23 Feb 17 - 05:55 AM

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

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

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

Still it has clarified some points on both subjects:

1: Jim Carroll - "Muslim" Implant

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

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

2: Steve Shaw - Geoffrey Wheatcroft Article

Here is a little sampler -

Steve Shaw - 23 Feb 17 - 06:42 AM

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

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

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

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

Yesterday's Guardian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless you got the following responses 48 minutes later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keith A then posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Naughty naughty, Keith.

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

The actual quote -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honest and accurate, unlike you people.

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

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

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

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

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

Yesterday's Guardian.

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

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

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

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

Dropped in to look for some lyrics after a lengthy absence. Made the mistake of looking below the line. Bloody hell, this place has turned into a festering pit of ignorance, bile and personal abuse, hasn't it? Maybe those of you who hang on here haven't noticed it, in the same way a frog doesn't notice the water in the pan getting hotter, but - take it form me - the Mudcat looks pretty nasty!
And just to add my two penn'orth, KeithA is quite correct in his assertions. Trouble is, the veil of maudlin sentimentality and ignorance which clouds the issue is more seductive than the truth.
Yes, The Great War was unpleasant, yes, the casualty rates were horrible, almost as bad as earlier wars. But nine out of 10 do those who marched off to war came home, and those who did said it had to be done. The victory of 1918 was hard won, but ultimately so successful that Hitler was inspired to base his blitzkrieg on it.
That's all Keith is trying to say, but the sentimental shroud wavers of Willie McBride seem determined to shout him down.
Not for nothing is the stereotype of a folk-singer that of a bore with his finger in his ear.

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

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

Death by C&P?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My point was quite a simple one teri,

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DtG

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

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

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

Link

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

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

Try again

Link

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:54 AM

How strange

BBC News today. Is Malmo the "rape capital" of Europe?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 06:54 AM

Not really Iains but beside the point anyway. My question was addressed to ake.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:03 AM

"Oh for God's sake, have you NO shame?
Have you none ake?
Keith's "implant" theory is the kind of shire Mengele and his like set out to prove about the Jews
"Teribus has adequately illustrated what a heap of trash you all are."
Teribus illustrated nothing other than his own extremism, he made claims about Keith's Implant theory and then wisely pissed off when he was asked to substantiate them, now he's back with a load of links that have nbeen tried, tested and found wanting
You make one of your hit-and- run sorties, and no doubt will piss of when asked to verify what you say.
"I just can't be arsed getting involved in a pointless exercise."
There you go - what did I say?
If you scumbags believe that the Pakistani culture is implanted to rape underage women, produce your proof.
You have the official figures from the Department of Justice, you know the minescule numbers involved in these crimes - who knows, maybe Mengele left something behind him in his research papers that were intended for the Jews but can be applied to Muslims
Racist scumbags, the nasty little trio of you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:26 AM

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

Your Guardian piece came two years after the thread closed.
When I posted that view there was no other explanation being discussed by anyone.

Jim,
What a stupid lie after saying "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani MUSLIMS have a culturally implanted tendency"
Are you mad?

No. It was not my opinion. I was in no position to hold one.

Read the rest of my sentence. I believed it "but only because of the testimonies......"

That was the only theory about at the time, and its proponents were well placed to know the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:31 AM

When I posted that view there was no other explanation being discussed by anyone.

Yes there was. We were discussing it and other theories were proposed. Look back at the thread.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 07:47 AM

"No. It was not my opinion."
Read what you wrote Keith - it was your opinion and your invention.
Down in plain English for you and everybody else to see.
""but only because of the testimonies......"
So it wasn't your opinion "because of the testimonies" - sorry, too usy to work that one out
There were no testimonies - you invented those as well - that's why you refuse to reproduce them.
"That was the only theory about at the time"
It was not a "theory" - it was your invention
Scum like the National Front and B.N.P. had been peddling that shite anbodt Muslims, Blacks and immigrants in general, but only a few crazies took them seriously
Maybe they were your "experts" - waddya think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:29 AM

Dave,
Yes there was. We were discussing it and other theories were proposed. Look back at the thread.

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.

Jim,
Read what you wrote Keith - it was your opinion and your invention.

No it was not. Believing it does not make it my opinion.
I said repeatedly at the time that it was not my opinion.
Read what I wrote.

My diagnosis was not my opinion. I was shocked by it, but I believed it.

The coming of storm Doris was not my opinion, but I believed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:38 AM

Telling me which thread are you talking about would help...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:40 AM

The day following the post you keep referring to.
It was never my "hypothesis."

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 05:39 AM
Lox, how can you claim I am making a racial hypothesis?
I am not making it, and it is about a culture within a racial group.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:44 AM

Dave, the thread you just told me to look back at!
"Muslim Prejudice"

(Unless you download early, before 7am, you can only get a page at a time.)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:57 AM

Ta.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:02 AM

"No it was not. Believing it does not make it my opinion."
Don't be stupid Keith - of course it does
And it was your invention
Please don't continue saying you believed it whan nobody else said it - you are only digging yourself in deeper
You might porove nme wrong by linking to such a statement, but you have refused to do so since you first made the claim
Time to put up or fess up
It's all your own work - be proud of it like a true creative artist should
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:03 AM

" I had no interest in them and had never heard of them. But what I did know is that I'd read the article in the Guardian and spotted a discrepancy in Keith's quoting from it on the 16th." - Steve Shaw

So let us get this firmly fixed in our minds shall we Shaw.

1. You say that you had no interest in works of Taylor or Clark and had never heard of them.

2. So disinterested were you in them in fact that on the 16th December 2014 you read something on a thread and instantly recall to mind an article in the Guardian from the 9th December???

3. If you weren't interested why read the article and what was it in the article that lodged itself in your mind to the extent that your recall of that week old article that you could spot a discrepancy centred on the omission of one word?

There are two words Shaw that describe that "explanation" of yours Shaw - one is "Bullshit", the second is unbelievable"

Are you saying that you did not post to this thread extensively? You did not bring up in discussion"cherry-picking historians", you did not bring up in discussion "peer review of the work done by historians" - No interest my arse Shaw.

"Do you think that it's fair to expect anyone who read the thread containing the lie to think "Oh, hang on a sec, I wonder whether Keith happens to have quoted the piece in full in an entirely different thread?" - Steve Shaw

You have got to be joking Shaw! The extent that you and your pals "stalk" and "mob" Keith A from thread to thread? The WWI was No Mans Land thread was riddled with your posts along with those of the other usual suspects as was the "I'm not an historian but..." thread. It is a damn sight more plausible explanation than the one you offered about somehow remembering word for word the wording from a very long article that you'd read a week previously FFS.

As for your contention related to Stand alone threads" - what are they when they are at home Shaw - All the WWI threads were interconnected as they only came into being due to you and your pals getting them shut down as you lot were being made to look more and more idiotic.

Very commendable that "lies" and "inaccuracies" so incense you that you feel that they must not be allowed to go unchallenged - yet you let your own pass and those of Jim Carroll - you are a lying two-faced hypocrite and you have just been exposed Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:21 AM

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

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

You've nailed it Teribus and your conclusion is one that that I arrived at some time ago myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:33 AM

Which professor would that be Raggy?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:33 AM

You said no other theory was discussed, Keith? Did not take long to find this. I am sure there were others on that thread and in the papers at the time as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:26 AM

But in 17 court cases since 1997 where groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls on the street, 53 of the 56 people found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, while just three were white.


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?

Genuine curiousity on my part - No axe to grind. Hopefuly valid questions to ask but I don't know if anyone here is qualified to answer:-(

DeG

DtG
Being the Spanish David el Gnomo at the time :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:46 AM

Duel standards to the fore again I see Terrikins. It is OK for you to refer to myself as Raggy, although my chosen pseudonym is Raggytash, but it is not OK for me to refer to the professor.

I take you do don't actually agree that there is an implant in Pakistani culture to abuse.

Good, there's hope for you yet. It's a pity you don't have the courage to have a quiet word with the professor.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:49 AM

Oh dear, Mr. Corbyn and his party sure have some......er...."interesting" friends and followers: The Palestine Solidarity Campaign of Jew hatred