""'implicit' surely demonstrating that I was just offering what I saw as a likely explanation, not asserting any sort of "fact" --""
Now then Mike, you accuse me of putting forward a weak argument and then you present this.
Your knowledge of the English language is far too goddfor you to be unaware that the phrase "implicit in" is much more definite than that.
You are watering it down, and you know it.
Anyway, you have confirmed that you were offering an opinion and that's fine.
Yours is as good as mine or anyone else's, but I think we need to know how many of Keith's 2000 have committed, are committing, or will commit violent acts, before we can decid which of our opinions is correct.
So it all comes back to "might", or "might not" in the end.
If we treat them as criminals already, we precipitate the very results we are trying to prevent. Does that make any sense at all?