In the absence of specific responses Keith it can only be deduced that you are unable to respond.


Dando investigated the 'Question' of Street Grooming. They found it was not a new crime type.

Keiths latest suggestion is that they meant it was an old crime type.


It is actually entertaining to watch Keiths torured logic in action.

The suggestion that Dando were clarifying the age of a (previously unknown) alleged crime type is as far fetched as they come.


Then there is this bit of pseudo-rationale.


"I do not care about the explanations.
You are totally obsessed!
Yet you deny there is anything to explain!"


So Keith proposes a hypothesis, and then to support it claims an overrepresentation. He continues to support it for more than 2 and 1/2 months

I dispute his position - its that simple.


But Keith manufactures some idea that it makes no sense to dispute the hypothesis if one disputes the overrepresentation ...

They are both your assertions Keith.


The final and most absurd of Keiths claims is that his position is supported by mountains of "unknown" evidence.

Fascinating!