""You & the others I have named, however, have clearly, to my observation, parroted accusations of 'racism' at any remark which might appear to name any specific demographic in any but favourable terms, whatever the facts of the matter.""

That, with respect, is a gross distortion of what I have been saying throughout this thread Mike, as I suspect you already know.

There has been no such blanket accusation stated or implied in any post of mine, and I think you owe me a retraction and an apology if you cannot point to any single post of mine which does contain or imply such.

Throughout this thread I have been arguing against exactly such biased behaviour by Keith in attempting, from far from sufficient evidence, to portray a specific racial grouping as potential cultural degenerates who are a danger to children.

My only mention of any racial grouping other than the group in Keith's gunsights, was made to show that the others with exactly the same cultural restrictions showed no such tendency.

Neither of course did his target group, except for the few in the localised criminal gangs involved in this crime.

We learned that Pakistani gangs tend to consist mainly of Pakistanis.

WOW, what a revelation!!

But Keith has managed to post the vast majority of the total number of posts in this thread with just one recurrent theme.

Blame British Pakistanis as a whole for the crime of on street grooming, and sex trafficking of underage victims.

This has been going on since the time when there were more Brits in Pakistan, than Pakistanis in Britain, but until very recently it has been lumped in with domestic grooming and other sex crimes. Keith may not have noticed, but this is NOT, as he would wish us to believe, a new crime.

It has been happening for decades past, and the earlist groups involved were people like the Krays and Richardsons. I can't be certain, but I don't think they were of Pakistani origin.

So you see Mike, no "parroted accusations". I don't do bird impressions.

Don T.