Keith.

No worries.

Please do me a favour and read this whole post carefully with a view to understanding my actual point.

You don't have to agree with it, just make sure you have digested it before you comment.

I begin with the short answer:

I believe your question is answered in my previous post.

If you make a claim, then you should be prepared to properly support it or concede that it is not properly supported.

You have provided support, but I have found reasons why that support is not sufficient.


Now to clarify that point in the context that you have specified:

If the subject was: "Is Kenny Dalgliesh a good manager", I wouldn't particularly care how ell you backed up your arguments.

But as the subject is whether an entire racial demographic is or isn't culturally inclined to abduction and abuse of teenage girls, it is extremely important that I am 100% sure of the claim before accepting it.

This is not just because it is important not to make cultural generalizations, but also because there are people, like the EDL, who would seize upon such hypotheses as "evidence" to justify their political stance.

If there were strong evidence, that proved beyond doubt that Pakistani culture was at the root of these crimes, then I would concede that the hypothesis had merit and face up to the tough challenge of finding solution.

And if there were evidence which ruled out all other possible explanations and contributory factors, then I would again concede that it was the only remaining alternative.

But the truth is that we are no nearer proving any link between Pakistani culture and these horrendous crimes than we are to proving that the moon landings were faked.

And no investigation has even been attempted to discover if there are other possible reasons why these criminals did what they did.

People may 'feel' or 'think' what they like, but people have a funny knack of getting swept up by feelings and hunches and not saying - "right, if this is true then its important and therefore I need to investigate it absolutely thoroughly because the potential ramifications are really serious" - and instead they go round in mobs and picket Paediatricians houses, or beat up peaceful people on the street, or shove excrement through families letterboxes, or threaten small children with dangerous dogs.

All the people who do that stuff are sure that they are right and they don't need much so called 'evidence' to motivate themselves into further acts of stupidity.


So when i see people presenting hypotheses that justify the most common excuses for violence, be they racism, misogyny, or ... religionism (sic) ..., yes I jump right in to put a stop to it.

It doesn't matter that you aren't racist, if your hypothesis supports a racist viewpoint.

When someone like Keith Vaz describes Jack Straws comments as "dangerous", he doesn't just mean that they are politically borderline, he means that ordinary people could end up becoming involved in violence, either from those wanting to punish their scapegoat, or from the scapegoats themselves.

The EDL and similar groups don't need any more political oxygen than they have.

So prove your point beyond reasonable doubt, as in a court of law, or concede that it does not stand the test of scrutiny.

Would the mothers of the girls who were kidnapped and assaulted win in court if they took an action out against the "community leaders"?

No way - it wouldn't even get beyond the preliminaries, as there is no evidence or argument that could possibly support Anne Cryers suggestions that community leaders could have somehow prevented these crimes.

Maybe OJ simpson was guilty of killing his wife, maybe he was innocent - we may speculate about that to our hearts content and it will not result in hatred, resentment, defensiveness and aggression brewing on our streets.

This issue of whether British Pakistani ethics and morals are somehow to blame for the actions of organized criminals is a whole different ball game.

If you want to assert it, you muust be prepared to prove it or concede it.

It is not a subject upon which we have the luxury to idly speculate.