""If you want a response to all that other stuff, one at a time please.

And yes, find anything by me that is racist and I walk.""

How convenient!

We read through your longest posts and respond to them, but you pick and choose, and ignore what you either can't, or don't want to answer.

Coincidental I'm sure, but the post you want to ignore is the one in which your comments as documented do indeed have overtly racist overtones.

In nine posts you used the word "Pakistani" once, the word "Islam" once and the word "Muslim" six times, every time in direct connection with words such as "grooming", "crime", "terrorism", and in opposition to the words "white" and "Christian".

If you are, as you claim, a man of tolerance and integrity, read that post and respond, as I have no intention of re-posting it one question at a time.

It was posted in its current form in direct response to your claim never to have stated that this problem was a Muslim problem, or the responsibility of Islam.

(""From: 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."")

That claim now lacks any vestige of credibility in the face of comments fom you, such as: ""This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know."", people whom you do not see fit to identify, and comment for which you provide no source, credible or otherwise.

In fact the person best placed to know, the policeman in charge of the enquiry, holds a directly opposite view, as I quoted in that long post you couldn't be bothered to read.

If you are unable or unwilling to read it and respond, then members will be entitled to draw their own conclusions as to your agenda.

Don T.