BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

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

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

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

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

The TrumPutiny - When they both disobey each other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have also never acknowledged my response to your

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

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

It's like trying to plait sand.

Different morality
Different language
Different planet

DtG

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

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

As to the meaning of "vulgar":

vul•gar (ˈvʌl gər)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crucial for the accuracy of what precisely liar?

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

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

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

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

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

I need to say something about Teribus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

87% is a massive over-representation.

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

Dave,
I gave other reasons for possible over representation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here it is again:

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

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

FOLLOWED BY:

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

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

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

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

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

I gave other reasons for possible over representation.

It's all in black and white, Keith.

DtG

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

How to make up shit. Here goes:

Geoffrey Wheatcroft in the Guardian, 9 Dec 2014.

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

Keith on Mudcat, one week later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

but I could never see a reason in debating dishonestly

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

:D tG

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

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

But no dual standard at all.

Your question WAS:

Raggytash - 24 Feb 17 - 09:21 AM

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

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

Still waiting for an answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks anyway

DtG

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

D the G
a starting point.

2012 stats the Guardian

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


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

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: 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

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: 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: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 09:33 AM

Which professor would that be Raggy?

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: 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: 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: 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: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:57 AM

Ta.

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: 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: 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 - 08:29 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:48 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: 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: 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: 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.