""I think reasonably and as I have never concealed, that you are deliberately ignoring such evidence as there is, as it fails to conform to certain predetermined political doctrines which you embrace.""

And that wouldn't of course be exactly what Keith is doing in the opposite direction?

Your stance is, in my opinion, even more dangerous, in that you seem to be saying that these 17 cases involving 56 men over a thirteen year period are statistically significant in themselves (which any good mathematician will tell you is arrant nonsense), and that no consideration should be given to anything outside that narrow set.

This is akin to claiming that because a riot has taken place in a small eskimo village, Eskimos are over represented in the violent crime figures of Alaska.

It is both disingenuous and dishonest to state that the lack of similar incidents in the South is not germane to the issue. Keith has put forward a theory win which he asserts a number of "factoids":-

1. That British Pakistanis are over represented in the crime of street groomng.

2. That there have been no cases of street grooming which were committed by any other ethnic group.

3. That the reason for this is that their repressive culture slightly predisposes them to commit this crime.

From point 1, we now have you saying that in assessing whether or no any over representation occurs we must ignore 29% because taking them into account would destroy the average required.

You claim that taking the whole group when working out averages would be trying to prove a negative. Try getting that one past any competent primary school teacher, let alone a mathematician.

From point 2, another rent in the fabric of the claims. Street grooming has been endemic since well before the arrival of the first Pakistani immigrant, so if not committed by non Pakistanis, then who?

Point three completes the cycle of Keith misinformation, because it is apparent that it doesn't hold for any but the small contingent already exposed.

This is where we get the only true statement from Keith, when in response to a comment from me, he replied that there were only these seventeen cases, and 56 men

ONLY FIFTY SIX MEN!!........out of the British Pakistani population of SEVEN HUNDRED AND FORTY SEVEN AND A QUARTER THOUSAND.

And please don't feed me the tired old "tip of the iceberg" crap, because that would be introducing untestable conjecture, which by its nature cannot prove anything. A bit like trying to prove a negative, which as you can see, I was not.

Don T.