Whatever might be Keith's record on other threads, Jim, I prefer to judge each case on its merits (a casuist, perhaps, in the non-pejorative sense), and it has seemed to me that he was being attacked here because of what he might have said elsewhere, regardless of whether or not what he said here made sense: which does not seem fair dealing to me.

Once again, the only allegations to which I, at any event, was referring thruout were those, few but statistically significant in their undisputed demographic disproportion, where convictions for the offence at issue [grooming, NOT immoral earnings &c] had occurred; and these are not 'without proof'. These are the ones commented on by Straw, Warsi & all those others, and to which Keith's comments were addressed as I perceived it. It is no argument to go on, which seems to have been the basis many on here were working on, about how many other demographics have been involved in how many other sex-related offences: might just as well say that a proven rapist should be acquitted because he wasn't the only one, and anyhow murder is worse and there are lots of murderers.

Which is why I engaged with your involvement here, Jim, & challenged your conclusions, which I will frankly say do not appear to me to be worthy of what I know to be your usual clear-thinking intellectual level. And indeed you have now pretty well admitted that, misled by loose use of the word 'pimp', you were under impression we were writing of a different offence from the one actually at issue. As you once said to me when I tried to defend Margaret T from some of her less rational detractors, you are better than that.

~Michael~