BS: UK nuclear subs

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 09:40 AM

Lets have a look at exactly what you posted;

"Don I do now "believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally planted tendency"

The first phrase makes it abundantly clear you believe this, no if's, no but's, no maybe's.

"Don I do now"

Quite clear, quite unequivocal.

Kept for prosperity on the Internet for all to see.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM

"Yes, so when claiming someone has said something, you should be able to quote it.
I always do."

You mean like you did when you declared that "the Guardian" said that AJP Taylor's book was "fraudulent?" Which it didn't?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 11:25 AM

"If it does, please quote it."
You have been given the blatantly racist poster twice
Is illitracy yet another of your qualities
Your entire response is to ignore facts
Any progress on thoe quotes about imlantes yet?
No?
Then you lied
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:14 PM

Rag, I said I believed it, but only because all those Left Wingers were adamant it was the case.
Read the whole post and read it in the context of the previous posts in that thread from six years ago.

You people are so desperate to make this thread about me that you have to go back six years and still come up with nothing!

Steve,
You mean like you did when you declared that "the Guardian" said that AJP Taylor's book was "fraudulent?" Which it didn't?

I had already quoted both the actual words used to rubbish the books, so it was no deception to lump them together when referring to it again.

The FACT is that both books were rubbished.
The FACT is that in rubbishing them he rubbished your case and supported mine.
The FACT is I had no need to misquote. He was on my side and rubbished your case.
You are so desperate to make this thread about me that you have to go back over two years and still come up with nothing!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:26 PM

Thank you Keith for confirming that you believe Pakistani males are all culturally implanted to abuse.

I really could not have any clearer than your last post.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 12:47 PM

I have no reason to disbelieve all those people.
Do you?

It is their opinion and not mine. I know nothing about that culture.

I believe them as I would believe a doctor's diagnosis or a meteorologist's weather forecast.
They are in a position to know. I am not.
It is their opinion, not mine.
I just need a reason not to believe.
What is yours?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 01:18 PM

"I have no reason to disbelieve all those people."
What people - where are their quotes
If yoyu believe all male Pakistanis are prone to ral[ping children - you are a raving racist - even if Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu had sung it as a chorus
Claiming such a thing puts you on par with the Auschwitz executioners - such things gets petrol poured through letter-boxes.
Take your scummy racism off this forum
As Raggy said, THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING YOUR EXTREME RACISM
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 01:57 PM

Culturally implanted to abuse what Raggy? Themselves? Children? Women?

If it is the latter then Keith A's beliefs were shared By Napier who saw it at first hand over 160 years ago.

The scale of crimes perpetrated on those young girls in Rotherham at the hands of twenty British-Pakistani males can only be described as horrendous - the Police started out with over 300 suspects. Are you trying to tell us Raggy that a culture that regards women as being chattels is not abusive? But what is even worse was the fact that these men got away with it for so long (1997 to 2013) due to the "institutionalised political correctness" on the part of South Yorkshire Police force and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council for their handling and covering up of the abuse.

An independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in the town, led by Professor Alexis Jay, was established in 2013 for Rotherham Council. The inquiry's initial report, published on 26 August 2014, condemned the failure of the authorities in Rotherham to act effectively against the abuse or even, in some cases, to acknowledge that it was taking place. The report estimated that 1,400 children had been sexually abused in the town between 1997 and 2013, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men. Abuses described included abduction, rape, torture and sex trafficking of children.

On this horrendous crime on 16 February 2015 Labour Party leader Ed Miliband said that the Labour Party "did let people down in Rotherham, absolutely".

But that wasn't the only instance was it Raggy?

The Aylesbury child sex abuse ring was a group of six men of British Pakistani heritage who committed serious sexual offences against two under-aged girls in the English town of Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.

The Banbury child sex abuse ring was a group of seven men who committed serious sexual offences against under-aged girls in the English town of Banbury, Oxfordshire. Those convicted - Ahmed Hassan-Sule, Kagiso Manase, Takudzwa Hova, Mohamed Saleh, Said Saleh, Zsolt Szalontai, Shane Bonas.

The Bristol child sex abuse ring was a group of 13 Somali men who committed sexual offences against underage teenage girls in Bristol, in southwestern England. - The gang coerced the girls into sex with small payments of money, gifts of drugs and alcohol, and by persuading them that having sex with many men was part of "Somali 'culture and tradition'

The Derby child sex abuse ring was a group of thirteen men, most of whom were from Pakistani backgrounds who sexually abused up to a hundred girls in Derby, England.

The Halifax child sex abuse ring was a group of 15 British Pakistani men who committed serious sexual offences against two under-aged girls in the English town of Halifax and city of Bradford, West Yorkshire.

The Keighley child sex abuse ring was a group of 12 Muslim men who committed serious sexual offences against two under-aged white girls in the English town of Keighley and city of Bradford, West Yorkshire.

The Oxford child sex abuse ring was a group of seven men who, in May 2013, were convicted of sexual offences including rape, conspiracy to commit rape, arranging or facilitating child prostitution, trafficking for sexual exploitation, and procuring a miscarriage.

"In March 2015, a report revealed that more than 300 people, mostly girls from the city of Oxford, had been groomed and sexually exploited by such gangs in the area. It accused the Thames Valley Police, then led by Chief Constable Sara Thornton, of disbelieving the girls and failing to act on repeated calls for help, and Oxfordshire Social Services of failing to protect them despite compelling evidence they were in danger. The report also called for research into why a significant number of perpetrators of child grooming came from Muslim backgrounds.

Those responsible for perpetrating these crimes: Mohammed Karrar (38) & Bassam Karrar (33) and Akhtar Dogar (32) & Anjum Dogar (31) with three other men: Kamar Jamil, 27, Assad Hussain, 32, and Zeeshan Ahmed, 27. Five were British Pakistani and two, the Karrar brothers, of Eritrean heritage.

The Peterborough sex abuse case involved 10 men of Pakistani, Iraqi Kurdish, Czech and Slovak Roma heritage who committed sexual offences against under-aged girls, some as young as 12, in the English city of Peterborough, Cambridgeshire.

The Rochdale child sex abuse ring involved under-age teenage girls in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, England. Twelve men were convicted of sex trafficking and other offences including rape, trafficking girls for sex and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child, on 8 May 2012. The men were British Pakistanis except for one Afghani which led to discussion on whether the failure to investigate them was linked to the authorities' fear of being accused of racism.

The Telford child sex abuse ring was a group of seven men, mainly British Pakistanis who were found guilty of sexual offences against four teenage girls, aged 13 to 16. The offences occurred between 2007 and 2009 in Telford, England.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:14 PM

Well, Keith, as you repeatedly pontificate to us about quoting things, etc., I'll say it again. You declared that "the Guardian" said that AJP Taylor's book was "fraudulent." Which it didn't. You put it in quotes, Keith. Quotes. Yet it wasn't the Guardian and no-one said his book was fraudulent, nothing like. And you've never retracted that severe terminological inexactitude. So, until you do, it would be sensible for you to desist from lecturing anyone else about their quoting I should think, hmmm? And just look at your reply at 12.14. No retraction, more lies. Tsk. Disreputable.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:16 PM

Hmm Terikins,

I know you are fond of "research" would you like to conduct the same "research" into white caucasian groups of men who have perpetrated similar abuse.

Perhaps you would find information you didn't like.

Try starting with Peter Jaconelli, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris.

Just to give you something to begin with.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:45 PM

Try perspective Raggy.

"white caucasian groups of men who have perpetrated similar abuse."

You did say similar abuse?? didn't you Rags.

Please indicate where any of those you mention groomed girls and pimped them round for years then trafficked them. I know Saville was a prodigious offender but his tally came nowhere near even the Rotherham Abuse Circle of over 1,400 victims.

In his original posts on the subject Keith A gave the statements made by prominent Pakistani and Muslim Leaders who in condemning the abuse mentioned a possible cultural link. Carroll and the rest deliberately ignored that Keith A was quoting the words of others and attributed those statements to Keith himself. A well worn tactic of his that no longer has any traction.

On the Wheatcroft thing Shaw, the two historical works you were using to support your argument were described by Wheatcroft as being vulgar (That was A.J.P.Taylor's book) and fraudulent (That was Clark's). Personally I couldn't care a toss which was which, what was important was that it helped demolish your case and having done that all Shaw was left with was this petulant, pedantic bleat that has been going on now for years - what a sad b*****d you must be Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 02:55 PM

Not more racist and Islamophobic shite ???
There goes the forum under the jackboot of tese fascists
Is there an overseer in the house?
B.N,P. trolls have no place on this forum
Interesting comparison with the Labour Party thread about gangs though
Keith starts his Nuremberg rant about implants and soon they're all goose-stepping
Can Joe or somebody half decent please bring this Hatefest to a close please?
Jiim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:37 PM

What is it about presented recorded fact that disturbs you Jim? Are your "debating" skills not up to countering those facts?

Rotherham
Aylesbury
Banbury
Bristol
Derby
Halifax
Keighley
Oxford
Peterborough
Rochdale
Telford

Quite a list - or is anybody about to deny it ever happened? That it did not raise questions by those entrust with enquiries into the reasons the problem wasn't dealt with properly.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:37 PM

The important phrase Teri was that the professor BELIEVED that Pakistani males had a culturally implanted tendency to abuse children.

He stated he BELIEVED this was the case, no if's, no but's, no maybe's.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but Jaconelli, Saville, Harris cannot be considered to be Pakistani males.

As for the numbers involved Jaconelli and Saville allegedly ran a ring for decades so who can say how many children, boys and girls were involved.

So unless your contacts are as wide in the Police service as you claim them to be in the Armed Forces you have absolutely no idea how many adults or children were involved.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 03:53 PM

"Quite a list - or is anybody about to deny it ever happened?"
Those tried and convicted for these crimes number in the hundreds - ot of a population of around a million and a half - some implant
In 2015, when these arguments started, there were 6,400 cases of pedophilia up to March,
As less than 100 of those were of Asian origin it must be assumed that the rest where Caucasian, overwhelmingly indigenous - paedophilia in Britain is overwhelmingly a White, Christian crime.
What is it about those statistics that disturbs you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 04:19 PM

So let me understand you Raggy, you just state that something is similar, without there being anything to substantiate it, and we, for some reason must be obliged to believe you. Sorry neither discussion or debate works like that. YOU said similar abuse didn't you? As it was you who set the bounds, the least you can do is put some effort into countering the evidence put before you. While you are at it best to remember it was those who conducted the enquiries into the Rotherham, Bristol and Oxford that called attention to the predominance among the perpetrators of their "cultural" background and the reason the abuse went on for as long as it did was due to institutionalised political correctness.

What similarities we are looking for are as follows:

Abduction of children
Rape of children
Torture of children
Sex trafficking of children.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 05:33 PM

As you like "research" so much Teri the people and cases I mentioned have been much covered in the national media. Look them up.

Your attempts to sidetrack the main issue here won't work.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:04 PM

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:34 PM

Are your "debating" skills not up to countering those facts?


But did you not say elsewhere, Teribus, that this is not a debating forum but a discussion forum? Why is it that, when it suits you, you introduce debating rules but when it goes against that, you state that this is not a debate?

Just wondering.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 06:42 PM

On the Wheatcroft thing Shaw, the two historical works you were using to support your argument were described by Wheatcroft as being vulgar (That was A.J.P.Taylor's book) and fraudulent (That was Clark's). Personally I couldn't care a toss which was which, what was important was that it helped demolish your case and having done that all Shaw was left with was this petulant, pedantic bleat that has been going on now for years - what a sad b*****d you must be Shaw.

Cheers for the gratuitous insult.

However.

You may not "give a toss" which was which, but your mate Keith clearly did. He stated that "the Guardian" described both authors as "fraudulent," whereas in fact Wheatcroft (not "the Guardian") described Taylor's as rather vulgar and Clark's as largely fraudulent. Even you can't get that quite right, can you? Wheatcroft, note, Teribus, not "the Guardian." Wheatcroft did not describe Taylor's as fraudulent, contrary to what Keith asserted, an assertion which, after all this time, he still won't retract. It's pretty simple, Teribus, and it's staring you in the face, no matter how much you want to close ranks with Keith. Keith's defence of himself in this thread simply doesn't stand up. You pick the rest of us up on our transgressions, no matter how slight, yet you want to give Keith a bye on this blatant piece of dishonesty. And you call US a gang. Wow.

Er, and I didn't "have a case" in that thread, Teribus. Read it again. It's very simple. Keith misquoted from the Guardian. I take the Guardian every day (have done for forty years), I'd read the piece on the 9th that Keith quoted a week later. I suspected a misquote. I checked. I was right. I took him up. He denied it. He was lying. He had every chance to correct himself. He wouldn't. He neither confirmed nor denied any "case" because I didn't have one. All that is lies too. Go on, go back and check. You won't, because you don't "give a toss," in your words. You think that something that was wrong two years ago will somehow be all right today. Lies go away if you wait long enough, eh? You don't "give a toss" who's telling lies as long as it's someone on your side. I dare you. Go through the thing forensically, like you do with me and Jim. You won't like what you find. Though of course you've probably already found it. And just not sayin'. Because you don't "give a toss." For the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 07:40 PM

"Abduction of children, Rape of children, Torture of children, Sex trafficking of children."
Now an openly ranting racist - no wonder the B.N.P. expelled you for being a risk to their respectability
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 17 - 08:37 PM

Muslim Paedophelia in context
Jim Carroll
SCALIA COVER-UP
ONE IN THIRTY FIVE BRITISH MEN POTENTIAL PAEDPHILES
BRITAIN'S WORST PAEDOPHILE _ DEVOUT CHRISTIAN
BRISTOL PAEDOPHILES RAPE TODDLERS
MI5 and THATCHER COVERED UP PAEDOPHILIA IN HIGH PLACES
HIGH UP PAEDOPHELIA - 1970s//80s

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:41 AM

Dave the Gnome - 20 Feb 17 - 06:34 PM Comment was directed at Jom, who for some reason does think that this IS a "debating" forum - that is why the word debating was enclosed with inverted comas.

Just answering like - something none of you clowns ever do.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 02:31 AM

Taliking about "picking up on" or pointing out transgressions Shaw. Why are you so one sided in doing so?

On the Wheatcroft thing - "Wheatcroft, note, Teribus, not "the Guardian." - Well Wheatcroft's article did appear in the Guardian didn't it? So according to Jim Carroll's logic the Guardian was/is responsible for what it prints - Wasn't that the tack he took when accusing Boris Johnston of being "racist"? Because he, as Editor of the Spectator, allowed certain articles written by others to be printed. If memory serves you didn't see fit to correct him. Could be because you are a two faced hypocrite who firmly believes in that good old "socialist" principle "One law for the goose another for the gander".

Your case on the thread when Wheatcroft was first brought up challenged Keith A's stance related to three points put by modern day historians specialising in the period of the First World War. You challenged the statement that they were of the opinion that, in comparison to the other combatant powers involved, the British Army was generally well led. To back up your case you mentioned two works, A.J.P. Taylor's book "The First World War: an Illustrated History" and Alan Clark's "Donkey's", Keith A, myself and others pointed out that both those works had been critically reviewed by historians at the time and both had been found wanting. (Clark himself admitted that the quote from which the title of his book was taken had been made up by himself - so that would account for the "largely fraudulent", i.e. based on a falsehood.) It was also pointed out to you that any historian writing about that period in the 1960s (Taylor & Clark) did not have access to vast amounts of material available to historians writing about the subject in the last thirty years. As you based your "case" on works that were regarded as being unrefined, uneducated, illiterate (all synonyms for the word "vulgar" used in it's intended sense) and largely fraudulent that was yet another WWI thread in which your "mobbing" of Keith A did not quite pan out as you had hoped.

Now when it comes to continually dredging up past transgressions as both you and Jom have done repeatedly whenever you feel you are losing an argument, should I start doing the same highlighting yours and his? Something to do with people, stones and glasshouses comes to mind because you have dropped some real bollocks, to use your expression, over the years.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 03:34 AM

Jim Carroll - 20 Feb 17 - 08:37 PM - Good to see that your "links" are up to your usual standard Jom.


1: SCALIA COVER-UP

Operation Midland - Police inquiries closed with no charges being brought after it took 31 detectives 16 months to find absolutely nothing. The three "prime suspects" are now in the process of suing the Police.

2: ONE IN THIRTY FIVE BRITISH MEN POTENTIAL PAEDPHILES [sic]

"Potential" being the operative word. Article itself puts an estimated 750,000 males in the UK could possibly be interested in underaged sex. Of that estimated number they further estimated that 250,000 may actively pursue that interest. No idea what yardstick they used but one thing the article does not say about the research undertaken by the NCA was that the male population of the UK they looked at excluded Muslim males in the UK.

3: BRITAIN'S WORST PAEDOPHILE _ DEVOUT CHRISTIAN

First paragraph of the article Jom states quite clearly that the man in question masqueraded as a Christian to gain access to his victims. Look up what the word masquerade means.

4: BRISTOL PAEDOPHILES RAPE TODDLERS

Ah starting to get somewhere now - you provide details on one gang in one city - I have provided you with details based on hard convictions of eleven gangs in eleven cities.

5: MI5 and THATCHER COVERED UP PAEDOPHILIA IN HIGH PLACES

All part and parcel of 1 above. Investigations wrapped up, no substantive evidence found to back up any of the allegations made, no charges brought against multiple suspects named by both the police and the press, who are now suing the police.

6: HIGH UP PAEDOPHELIA - 1970s//80s

All part and parcel of 1 above. Investigations wrapped up, no substantive evidence found to back up any of the allegations made, no charges brought against multiple suspects named by both the police and the press, who are now suing the police.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:09 AM

Rag,
He stated he BELIEVED this was the case, no if's, no but's, no maybe's.

That is deliberately and dishonestly wrong. A lie.
You say you have read the post. It was only three sentences.

The first sentence was a list of things I did not believe, which includes everything you accuse me of.
The third sentence just asks why anyone would not believe those well informed folk.
In the second I said I believed it, "but only because...."

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:19 AM

Steve,
You declared that "the Guardian" said that AJP Taylor's book was "fraudulent."

You are dishonestly partially quoting what I said to make a false case.

I declared the passage IN FULL. I gave both words used to rubbish those texts.
Referring to it later I conflated the two, BECAUSE THE FULL DISMISSAL HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN.
There was no deception and no need for deception because the article supported my case and dismissed yours.

But why are we here?
If you could challenge what I put in this thread you would.
Instead Steve goes back to 2014, Jim and Rag to 2011 in the desperate search for something to use against me personally.
And still you fail to find anything!

You sad, obsessive men.
If you can't argue the thread, leave it or talk flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:24 AM

"Operation Midland - Police inquiries closed with no charges being brought after it took 31 detectives 16 months to find absolutely nothing"
That's what I said - a cover up
""Potential" being the operative word. Article itself puts an estimated 750,000 males in the UK could possibly be interested in underaged sex."
Which is exatly what Keith said about Muslims and you have supported
Make up your mind - you can't reject one and accept the other
"irst paragraph of the article Jom states quite clearly that the man in question masqueraded as a Christian"
Many "Christians" pose as being such (Keith being a typical example), but sho no affinity to Christian beliefs - doesn't matter - they are officially Christians - they are certainly not Muslim.
The point of your argument is the dominance of Muslim Paedophelia
"All part and parcel of 1 above. Investigations wrapped up"
As above - the article points out that MI5 and the government were part of "not finding any evidence" on behaldf of leading members of the British establishments - what else were they going to claim?
NO evidence has ever been produced to link the Muslim religion with Paedophelia, yet you and Keith are claiming it here
Both ways again!!
THe 1970sw Paedophelia case was not part and parcel of the later case - to tally different and still unresolved and i=unpunished
The point of my putting these up was to show that paedophelia is a dominantly indigenous phenomenon and has nothing whatever to do with the Muslim religion or culture, as you are attempting to make it out to be by your use of a minute number of young criminals who have rejected their culture and adopted the British one.
Islam forbids sex outside marriage - these criminals openly indulge in it
Islam forbids alchohol - these criminals openly imbibe
THe actions of these (no more than a thousand) criminals spread all over Britain have nothing to do with being a Muslim.
Your attempting to claim otherwise makes you the racist you are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:25 AM

I know what you said, so does anyone else reading this or the other threads where this has been mentioned.

Like I said yesterday it is here for prosperity.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:39 AM

Rag,
I know what you said, so does anyone else reading this or the other threads where this has been mentioned.
Like I said yesterday it is here for prosperity.

Yes it is, fortunately.
All your attempts to change what I said expose you as a despicable liar.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:49 AM

I have not changed a single word professor.


I quoted you verbatim.


As Omar Khayyam wrote:

The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on, Nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel out half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 05:48 AM

Your case on the thread when Wheatcroft was first brought up challenged Keith A's stance related to three points put by modern day historians specialising in the period of the First World War. You challenged the statement that they were of the opinion that, in comparison to the other combatant powers involved, the British Army was generally well led. To back up your case you mentioned two works, A.J.P. Taylor's book "The First World War: an Illustrated History" and Alan Clark's "Donkey's", Keith A, myself and others pointed out that both those works had been critically reviewed by historians at the time and both had been found wanting. (Clark himself admitted that the quote from which the title of his book was taken had been made up by himself - so that would account for the "largely fraudulent", i.e. based on a falsehood.) It was also pointed out to you that any historian writing about that period in the 1960s (Taylor & Clark) did not have access to vast amounts of material available to historians writing about the subject in the last thirty years. As you based your "case" on works that were regarded as being unrefined, uneducated, illiterate (all synonyms for the word "vulgar" used in it's intended sense) and largely fraudulent that was yet another WWI thread in which your "mobbing" of Keith A did not quite pan out as you had hoped.

But I didn't mention those works AT ALL except in the context of Keith's misquote. I certainly did not try to use them to back up any case. Know why not? Because I haven't read them! I have no argument with Wheatcroft's analysis because I don't know the books. I don't know anything about Wheatcroft either. I didn't challenge the statements of any of these chaps, contrary to what you have said. You must be mixing me up with someone else, mate. The quote from you in this post appears to be an attempt to deflect from from the problem with Keith. If you are of the OPINION that the books were fraudulent, vulgar, whatever, I believe you. But this has nothing to do with my opinion or your opinion or Keith's opinion. It's really, really simple. I'll distil it into a single sentence for you. On Dec 16 2014 in the thread "I'm not a historian but..." Keith stated that The Guardian had called Taylor's book " fraudulent," whereas no such comment had appeared in the paper. Now I don't really see why you can't set aside all the bluster and flannel that you and Keith have surrounded this very simple matter with. When you say that someone called a book "fraudulent" when that someone did no such thing you are misquoting, misrepresenting. Accidentally, maybe: it happens. But when I picked Keith up he went all defensive and has consistently refused to admit that he ascribed a comment to a person who did not make that comment. You have the option of going back to the thread to check what I'm saying. You have the option of ignoring this. But what you seem to have done is to have relied on a sort of half-memory without checking back, then indulging in a sort of mythology of what happened in the thread. Everything I've said here is true, checkable and neutrally-put. If you and Keith wish to stand by the fiction you've both created around this, fine. We can make our own conclusions about your lack of integrity and honesty from that.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:38 AM

Rag,
I quoted you verbatim.

No. You partially quoted, leaving out the bits that explained what I actually meant.

Steve,
refused to admit that he ascribed a comment to a person who did not make that comment.

I declared the passage with his actual comments IN FULL. I gave both words used to rubbish those texts.
Referring to it later I conflated the two, BECAUSE THE FULL DISMISSAL HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN.
There was no deception and no need for deception because the article supported my case and dismissed yours.

But why are we here?
If you could challenge what I put in this thread you would.
Instead Steve goes back to 2014, Jim and Rag to 2011 in the desperate search for something to use against me personally.
And still you fail to find anything!

You sad, obsessive men.
If you can't argue the thread, leave it or talk flowers.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 08:00 AM

You can't "conflate" vulgar and fraudulent any more than you can conflate cornflakes and raspberry ice cream. You quoted the thing in full only after you were challenged for incorrectly stating that Taylor's book had been called "fraudulent." Hope you don't mind my putting that in quotes all the time, after all it's what you did. You weren't conflating anything. That's just a devious way of trying to legitimise telling a bare-faced lie.You were making up a porkie to suit whatever case you thought you were making. That's lost in the ether and I care not a jot about who was making what case (I certainly wasn't using that stuff to make any "case" - go on, have a look), but your disreputable behaviour is there for all to see. Your continuing efforts at deception seem to indicate that you hope no-one will bother looking. But there's always one. Me.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 09:33 AM

The moving finger writes ...................

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 09:56 AM

Jim Carroll - 21 Feb 17 - 04:24 AM

As a response to my last post that Jom is pathetic.

So all the detectives assigned to Operation Midland, the Government and M.I.5 are all corrupt. If that was the case numbnuts it would not have taken them 16 months to find nothing, for budgetary reasons it would have been wrapped up a damn sight quicker than that. If it was a cover up then no way in God's creation would those named and who were being "protected" in this supposed cover up would be f**kin' stupid enough, or allowed to take legal action to sue those responsible for blackening their names and reputations - Don't you ever think, question or reason before you write anything??

"Article itself puts an estimated 750,000 males in the UK could possibly be interested in underaged sex"

And those 750,000 males includes Muslin males in the UK Jom {Not all of them by any means before you launch yourself down that route}. Those 750,000 males are NOT paedophiles, if you think they are then you obviously did not read the article.


Which is exatly what Keith said about Muslims and you have supported

A blatant and deliberately told LIE. What Keith A stated on this forum were the opinions of three influential members of Devout Christian - the text of the article does not make any claim that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian as a means of gaining access to children. In other words Jom it is an irrelevance, if he thought that masquerading as a devout Muslim would have gained him access would you still be saying the same thing?

"NO evidence has ever been produced to link the Muslim religion with Paedophelia, yet you and Keith are claiming it here"

Who said any evidence had been produced to link the Muslim religion with Paedophilia? Three prominent members of the Muslim community and those investigating these sex gangs in Rotherham, Bristol and Oxford all commented on the predominance of perpetrators being British-Pakistani males suggesting that there may be "Cultural" reasons - Note that Jom CULTURAL reasons NOT RELIGIOUS reasons - Don't say they are the same because they most certainly are not.

In the case of the Bristol Gang:
"The gang coerced the girls into sex with small payments of money, gifts of drugs and alcohol, and by persuading them that having sex with many men was part of "Somali 'CULTURE AND TRADITION'

No mention or reference there to RELIGION.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:07 AM

Haven't a clue what happened to the text of my last post:

A blatant and deliberately told LIE. What Keith A stated on this forum were the opinions of three influential members of Devout Christian - the text of the article does not make any claim that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian as a means of gaining access to children. In other words Jom it is an irrelevance, if he thought that masquerading as a devout Muslim would have gained him access would you still be saying the same thing?

Should read:

A blatant and deliberately told LIE. What Keith A stated on this forum were the opinions of three influential members of Muslim Community of the United Kingdom coupled with the conclusions drawn from those investigating the incidents that there appeared to be a cultural dimension linking the perpetrators along with "institutionalised political correctness".

Devout Christian - the text of the article does not make any claim that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian as a means of gaining access to children. In other words Jom it is an irrelevance, if he thought that masquerading as a devout Muslim would have gained him access would you still be saying the same thing?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:23 AM

"that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian"
It makes no difference
The point I put him up was he was an example of an indigenous paedophile
Surely you are not suggesting that Christians are not paedophiles?
You want examples of Christians using their position to molest children - no problem
This is the man's actual background
"The former grammar school pupil, born to devout Christian parents in Ashford, Kent, led a secret life as a prolific paedophile, targeting children as young as six-months-old to satisfy his depraved desires."
Smoke and mirrors again
"What Keith A stated on this forum were the opinions of three influential members of Muslim Community of the United Kingdom "
A blatant lie - he has never produced examples of anybody saying anything resembling his statement and has refused to do so.
You want to prove that is not true, you ***** produce them
There is no evidence whatever of a cultural link between Islam and paedophelia, which is Keith's claim.
Now - come back when you have evidence of "cultural implants" and until you do, do not call me a liar
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:25 AM

DtG Did you get my email about the song info for Dave in Scotland.


PS Don't worry they'll never crack our cypher!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:00 AM

Steve,
You quoted the thing in full only after you were challenged for incorrectly stating that Taylor's book had been called "fraudulent."

That is a lie Steve. I quoted in full when I first introduced that article into the debate.

It is not necessary to quote in full every time it is referenced.
I conflated his terms of dismissal when further referring to his rubbishing of those texts thereby rubbishing your views and supporting mine.
No deception, and no need to deceive. He was supporting my view and rubbishing yours.

But why are you rehashing a 2014 discussion here?
If you could challenge what I put in this thread you would.
Instead you go back to 2014, Jim and Rag to 2011 in the desperate search for something to use against me personally.
And still you fail to find anything!

You sad, obsessive little gang of "men."
If you can't argue the thread, leave it or talk flowers

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM

Jim,
There is no evidence whatever of a cultural link between Islam and paedophelia, which is Keith's claim.

That is a lie Jim.
You will find no single quote of me claiming that, but numerous quotes in that thread of me refuting that it had anything to do with Islam.

You only ever quote one of my thousands of posts. You misrepresent that one and the rest make a liar of you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:08 AM

"NO evidence has ever been produced to link the Muslim religion with Paedophelia, yet you and Keith are claiming it here"

A classic example of Carroll's misrepresentation and "Made-Up-Shit"™, it's what he resorts to when presented with facts that destroy his argument.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:24 AM

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 06:43 AM

Don, on 24th January I said about this issue "It is nothing to do with Islam. "
I do not "see the problem as a Muslim one,"
I have always said specifically that it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:30 AM

"A classic example of Carroll's misrepresentation and "Made-Up-Shit"
Feel free to prove it is not true Bobad
Can't you get your own dialogue instead of repeating Teribus's mindlessness - whoops, I forgot you are a member of the Fucked Up Four
All male
"You will find no single quote of me claiming that, but numerous quotes in that thread of me refuting that it had anything to do with Islam."
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" "
What the **** are "male Pakistani Muslims" - Bush Baptists?
And you still have not produced an example of somebody talking about "cultural Implants
DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR UNLESS YOU WISH TO HUMILIATE YOURSELF EVEN FURTHER
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM

If we are a "gang" Jim, we are willing to debate/discuss any issue seriously. We do not move off topic or start screaming obscene insults, we respond to whatever comes up in the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:52 AM

Interesting Ake that you don't move off topic, because the title of this thread is UK nuclear subs.

As I posted earlier I really don't care, very much like a conversation in a pub over a few pints the topic varies wildly.

The crocus are now in flower.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 12:31 PM

"That is a lie Steve. I quoted in full when I first introduced that article into the debate."

Chapter and verse, time and date, please.

"It is not necessary to quote in full every time it is referenced."

It is necessary to not misquote. Wheatcroft did not call Taylor's book "fraudulent." You said he did. He didn't. That isn't conflating or speaking generally or anything else. It's a lie. Very, very simple. You are bang to rights.

"...thereby rubbishing your views and supporting mine."

You were not rubbishing any views that I had expressed even remotely in connection with this matter of the two books. This attempt at deception has nothing whatever to do with my views. It has everything to do with your dishonesty, pretending that someone said something that it is glaringly obvious they didn't.

"No deception, and no need to deceive. He was supporting my view and rubbishing yours."

See above. Completely untrue. Bears no resemblance to how the matter was being discussed.

"But why are you rehashing a 2014 discussion here?"

It isn't the discussion I'm rehashing. I have no interest in doing that. You were
pontificating about people's quotes. I am demonstrating that your past behaviour, over which you are unrepentant, clearly shows that you are the last person in the world who should be lecturing other people about their quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:04 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:08 PM

Wrong book, Prof.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:09 PM

AJP Taylor - Vulgar
Alan Clarke - Largely Fraudulent

It's in the passage you have just cited.