""You can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else.
My case is only the over-rep, and only you Jim, Lox and maybe Don are still denying it.""

You can certainly question the validity of statistics as unsatisfactorily based as those upon which you build your argument. I repeat:- The conclusions you draw are suspect because the sample is

1. Too small
2. Too unrepresentative, in that your conclusion is based on a small and localised area, and a series of interlinked criminal gangs which happened in this particular group of cases to be predominantly British Pakistanis.
3. Too skewed, in that they excluded entirely the vast majority of the ethnic group you are attempting to tie into your preferred conclusion.
4. Much more plausible if applied to my alternative, which you have rejected without consideration.

One other thing is true. Your sources have at no time concurred with your "over representation" theory, in fact very much the contrary, yet you persist in presenting it as established fact, rather than as the unsupported opinion of one Keith A of Hertford, based on dodgy maths at best, which in fact is just what it is.

I hope that this is sufficiently on topic for you, though with little hope of getting the same in response (not a personal attack, just an observation based on the whole of your posting history in this thread).

Don T.