""I still feel you have misunderstood the points he has made within an extremely, and avowedly, limited compass; and can only have interpreted his meaning as you have by widening the applications of his assertions to a point he has persistently disavowed,""

It is somewhat difficult to see how Keith's assertions can be "within an extremely, and avowedly, limited compass;" when he has repeatedly characterised the whole Pakistani culture as "slightly predisposed by their culture to crimes of sexual abuse of underage girls", ignoring the fact that his statement is based on a sample of 53 gang members who were from that culture.

He ignored also the fact that the 29 percent of British Pakistanis who live in the South do not exhibit any sign whatever of this predisposition.

He will not accept that the authors of the Dando report clearly stated that they were worried that some people were drawing from their report, the erroneous conclusion that this was (as Keith insists) a new crime type.

This type of grooming HAS been happening for many years, but until recently has not been recorded separately from general sex abuse, and trafficking of underage girls.

As this does not fit Keith's agenda, he simply chooses to deny it without attempting to check.

Lastly I take extreme exception to your comments about me attacking Keith personally, and if you take the trouble to check back (which I doubt) you will find that any personal comment I have made has been preceded by an ad hominem attack on me by Keith.

I have done my best to stick to discussing the issue, but Keith has chosen to ignore anything I suggest he should check out, and has openly admitted that he doesn't read my posts, because they are too long, doesn't check anything, insisting that I do the homework for him, and has described me as despicable, stupid, uncaring and a number of other epithets.

If I didn't care, it wouldn't matter enough for me to bother discussing the topic.

Don T.