Oh, FFS, here we go again. Telling me what I mean

No. Telling you what you said.
You may wish now that you had not, but your meaning there was clear.

Let us examine the whole post.

Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:59 PM
I think the point is that British Pakistanis, and I only use the term to be consistent with the thread, are over-represented in these cases. I have no doubt as to the veracity of Keiths figures. Lox has even agreed that it is an over-representation.

There you have accepted the over representation based on the figures.

You then quote someone else's post,
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox - PM
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 02:59 PM

"BP" as you call them, are only overrepresented in these cases.

They are not overrepresented in sex crimes in general.

Having dealt with that you move on to the "motive" behind the over representation,

"The question of why there is an over-representation is the one that can be subject to racist conjecture.

The suggestion is, I guess, that simply by quoting the figures, it displays a racial motive? I don't accept that premise in all cases I am afraid. While I would suspect that certain right wing politicians, who shall remain nameless here, do have that hidden agenda, why should I suspect that Lord Ahmed or Jack Straw are acting in the same way?

Ahmed and Straw proposed a cultural explanation, and as you said not a "racial motive."
You clearly endorse their view.

Your final sentence, which again makes clear that you are discussion the explanation for the over representation, and not just the over representation itself,

I did, incidentaly, put up what I felt were reasonable reasons for such an over-representation earlier but only Keith chose to respond. And then to only agree that he, like myself, did not have an answer!