BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 06:51 PM

""It is a minority group nationally, but overwhelmingly the majority in this rare type of crime.""

It is not a rare crime!

It has simply been reported together with other types of sex crime until this outbreak up North started, involving 56 originally, and now another 8.

If you understood the concept of statistical significance, you would know that any conclusions drawn from this size and make up of sample, are disastrously unreliable.

As to your ludicrous claims about hundreds of victims with NO arrests and NO convictions.........not worthy of consideration.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 01:00 PM

You must have missed this Jim.

Jim, I am not in a position to know how the culture might impinge on this issue, but we have all now read the opinions of knowledgeable people who think they do.

That is what I was asking you to accept.

I have come to accept it Jim, because they are highly respected people with an intimate knowledge of the culture, and no other explanation has emerged.
If you have a different explanation, I will give it full and unprejudiced consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 12:04 PM

"Jim, I am not in a position to know how the culture might impinge on this issue,"
You said
"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
Then you said (after fine tuning to slight:
"You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,
Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment."- seems pretty authorative to me - and as racist as these statements come.
Why do you believe them if you don't understand them rather than the denials from members of the community that you are maligning?
Would welcome a reply when you get time Lively
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 11:58 AM

"we have cultures in our midst whose members should never be trusted near children is that right?"

Cultural norms differ. Some traditional cultures have very different beliefs about women and how women should behave. Gender inequality can foster both prejudice against women and the abuse of women, both here and elsewhere in the world.

Indeed we have had plenty of such abuse in this country in the past.

Not ALL abuse of women is rooted in gender inequality, but a proportion is. Education is the key to eliminating abuse that may have it's roots in racist and sexist prejudices, formed from traditional beliefs about the role of women in society and how women should behave.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 10:37 AM

I agree Lively.
And, it has to be acknowledged before it can be addressed.

Jim, I am not in a position to know how the culture might impinge on this issue, but we have all now read the opinions of knowledgeable people who think they do.

That is what I was asking you to accept.

(And Jim, conferring a title on someone does not exclude them from their community or turn them into aristocrats!)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 10:35 AM

Then you are agreeing with Keith that we have cultures in our midst whose members should never be trusted near children is that right?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 10:10 AM

It seems that internal trafficking of teenage girls (rather than young children) is a crime almost exclusively committed by particular immigrant communities, including but not exclusively, Pakistani. Cultural factors can be an issue where immigrant groups from very traditional communities are concerned, particularly those where gender inequality particularly around sexual behaviours, is the norm. The issue here is arguably one not of sexual deviance, but of cultural differences which can lead to sexism and racism, and from such prejudice, thence to sexual exploitation. As a number of commentators I have read on the topic argue, education and work within the communities where this crime is occurring, is the key to controlling this crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 08:34 AM

You said:
"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
Then you said (after fine tuning to slight:
"You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,
Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment."
For someone who has admitted to ignorance of the subject, I'm at a loss how you are able to discuss degrees of cultural inclination, but let that pass.
If a culture is inclined to sexual abuse, slight or otherwise, as you have clearly said - twice, then any member of that culture falls under suspicion of that crime and cannot be trusted - why is this ridiculous?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 08:14 AM

" conclusions are based on no more than a couple of hundred criminals at most."

Not true Jim. It is based on the testimony of many hundreds of child victims.

"He has further stated that it is a cultural tendency which promotes paedophila in the Pakistani community"

Not true Jim. How would you or I know what promotes it.
Also, it is suggested that children are targetted because they are easy meat, not because of paedophilia.

"If Keith's accusation is to be accepted, every Pakistani living in Britain is never again to be trusted within a mile of a child - that is the logical conclusion of his statement."
Now you are making yourself ridiculous Jim.
That is nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 07:52 AM

Keith's racist conclusions are based on no more than a couple of hundred criminals at most.
His selecting a certain method used in pimping is, as far as I'm concerned, an attempt to implicate the Pakistani culture as a whole in a crime that, as has been stated by his own sources, one which crosses all racial barriers, the vast majority being white British.
He has further stated that it is a cultural tendency which promotes paedophila in the Pakistani community.
This is blatent racist stereotyping of the most extreme kind - not stupid 'black men have big willies' nonsense, but hard-line racism.
He has cited one member of the Pakistani community (a member of the House of Lords), along with a couple of politicians and a comparatively tiny handful of cases; totally ignoring the outrage within the Pakistani communities that these accusations have elicited - why should the word of 1 British peer carry more weight than that of those still living in the communities?
If Keith's accusation is to be accepted, every Pakistani living in Britain is never again to be trusted within a mile of a child - that is the logical conclusion of his statement.
Please don't come wingeing about being accused of being a racist - your statement is a racist one, your continud attempts to prove British Pakistanis are cultural paedophiles is a racist act (a hard fought campaign, from the efforts you have put in here), and your cynical manipulation of non-existant research and the ignoring and editing of your own evidence makes you a classic racist.
This is Keith's opinion, no matter who else he attempts to hide behind, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make that clear on the appropriate thread, I'll leave you to your wallowing and get on with my life.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 07:11 AM

Oh hell, here we go again. If I had the sense I was born with I should shut the hell up, or else I shall be accused by someone of not caring when nursery workers abuse 6-year-olds in Tooting & Mitchum or whatever.

But I haven't got the sense I was born with ~~ so

All the nationwide proportionate statisitcs & ratios you all keep producing are accurate & demonstrable. All the other nasty things you adduce as in Jim's last post are true too. But they do not contradict the vital statistic here

~~ that, in a specific area of the country where a particular offence is endemic & epidemic, an inexplicably enormous percentage of those committing it are of a particular demographic.~~

Those so offending are, of course, a small minority of that demographic, who also represent a higher %-ge of the local population thereabout than in other parts of the country {but still under 10%}.

BUT this statistic in itself must surely give concern to anyone but an ostrich: which concern must be multiplied manyfold by the attempts to conceal these facts that were made, in apprehension of the inevitable attempts that would occur to denigrate those compiling them by such as the ostrich-population of this forum; which apprehension is here multifold confirmed.

If you persist in remaining unalarmed by these facts, & that initial reaction to them, then I hope it is comfortable for you with your heads down there in the sand.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 06:41 AM

The rare crime I was referring to was on street grooming and pimping by groups.

I acknowledge that they are under-represented in most or all other crimes, but they appear to be massively over-represented in this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 06:31 AM

Then, unless you ar indulging in selective racist stereotyping, as I have said, this must be described as a Britsh white crime as it is indulged in mainly by white males in Britain - do I have tet right (from yeterdays paper btw.
Jim Carroll

Nursery worker pleads guilty to raping toddler in his care
A NURSERY worker in England has pleaded guilty to raping a toddler in his care and to a string of offences linked to the online grooming of more than 20 other young girls.
At Birmingham crown court, Paul Wilson admitted two counts of raping a girl aged two or three years old and a further 45 charges of making and distributing indecent images and inciting youngsters to engage in sexual activity on the internet. He was warned that he should expect an indeterminate jail term when he is sentenced next month.
Wilson (20), Nechells, Birmingham, was charged with rape in January after his arrest on suspicion of child abuse prompted an investigation into his employment at Little Stars Nursery, which was temporarily closed after the arrest but later reopened.
The investigation by West Mid¬lands police revealed Wilson's online grooming of young girls whom he threatened if they did not comply with his wishes.
One of Wilson's internet victims said she was left feeling shocked, violated and ashamed. The girl, who cannot be named for legal rea¬sons, said she now felt "pure hatred" for Wilson, with whom she communicated via MSN instant messaging and on the youth community site Netlog    The teenager initially engaged in normal conversations but was eventually pressured into exposing herself to Wilson via a web-cam. She was then told that the images would be distributed if she refused to follow his orders.
The girl, now 17, said she broke off her contact with the offender up to a year before his crimes were uncovered by police, and said she had not realised he had any hidden agenda.
Asked to describe her emotions when she discovered what the nursery worker had done to other victims, she replied: "I felt violated - it just betrayed all my trust. I felt quite stupid and ashamed that I had succumbed to what he had asked me to do. To know that it was the same person who I was talking to and felt that I trusted and had a relationship with - it just made me feel I had been violated."
She said Wilson had threatened to send images of her to her friends. "It was the choice of carrying on doing this - which I just did not want to do - or going through a few months of total humiliation from these images."
Eventually, the teenager got to a point where she "just didn't care" whether he distributed the images and she deleted him from her MSN account.
"It has really affected me in the way that I go on the internet now," she added. - (Guardian service)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 05:13 AM

It is a minority group nationally, but overwhelmingly the majority in this rare type of crime.

I acknowledge the truth in your post Jim, that it is only a miniscule sub group of the community involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 05:04 AM

Eight men have been charged over allegations of grooming"
Making your total score of examples - what?
Must be at least 100 now - big percntage of a population of 1.2 million - certainly an over-representation!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 04:04 AM

Eight men have been charged over allegations of grooming and committing sexual activity with teenage girls in Rochdale, following a three-year investigation by police.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/08/men-charged-grooming-girls-prostitution

The alleged offences include rape, sexual activity with a child, prostitution, paying for the sexual services of a child, allowing premises to be used for prostitution, and conspiracy to commit sexual offences with children.

Four girls have been identified as potential victims but police have interviewed more than 40 people as witnesses. All the girls are aged 13 to 15.
http://menmedia.co.uk/rochdaleobserver/news/crime/s/1422855_men-are-quizzed-again-in-rochdale-child-sex-ring-probe

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 11 - 09:44 AM

Here is a German news report about this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMnDqolR34o

The journalist is Annette Dittart.
She studied politics, philosophy and German in Freiburg and Berlin. She worked in Warsaw, New York and London as foreign correspondent and bureau chief. In 2001, Annette developed and directed the documentary series Abenteuer Glück as special correspondent for which she received the prestigious Adolf-Grimme-Preis and an International Emmy nomination.

She states that this information is being suppressed here because it is ammunition for the far right.
The suppression is even worse ammunition for them.
It is them who uploaded this report.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 11 - 02:34 AM

For the record, this was my first post on this subject, 3 days after Lox and others started posting about it.

Notice i defend the victims, and point out they are not all white.

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 23 Jan 11 - 09:43 AM

The victims are not all sluts.
They were not all picked up on the streets late at night.
Those ones tended to be girls within the care system.
Girls from respectable families have given their stories of being enticed away from shopping malls in daylight.
Not all white either.
Just not muslim.
They are off limits to young muslim men.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 03:05 AM

Things I have never said, and personal abuse.
Standard Jim post.
No refutation of any of the evidence, and no contradictory evidence, because there is none.
The over-representation is real.
Jim knows it is real but thinks it should be kept secret.
That is how this evil has been allowed to go on unchecked for nearly 20 years.

And I am supposed to be sorry for mentioning that the victims are real children.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Apr 11 - 02:46 AM

"I regard the over-rep in the specified area as proven."
Of course you do - why wouldn't you?
The fact that you have neither had the courage nor the ability to face the logistical facts of your argument, the figures and how they compare with the overall scene, the dangers of branding people as 'culturally challenged' and above all, the effects that the behaviour of pond-life like you has on the lives of the poorer people of our society, particularly the victims of these crimes, which you appear to have been quite happy to use to make your case - all this says what needs to be said here.
As far as I'm concerned, this world is a shitty enough place without people making it even more shitty by dividing black against brown against white, or Christian against Jew, against Muslim, by trying to prove that one is good and one is bad, by taking a bunch of iffy figures, carefully selecting them, then editing them even further, just to prove that the other guy is a cultural degenerate, is about as low as anybody can sink.
You really are welcome to your miserable, squalid little life - enjoy!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 03:33 PM

Lox made 3 posts, one very long, before I made my first post on this subject, 2 days after his first.
You can not blame me for it.

The NI case was not on-street grooming and so totally irrelevant to this discussion.

I regard the over-rep in the specified area as proven.
You failed to refute anything, and have provided no contradictory evidence since you arrived.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 03:13 PM

"Any open minded person would agree."
Then you and your two silent friends are the only ones with open minds - do I have that right?
You have proved nothing and you have answered nothing - do yourself a favour and count the number of criminals involved in underage sex from your own 'evidence', find what percentage that number is of one-and-a-half million and tell me how you come up with "massive over-reperesentation" and "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency towards paedophelia".
You have yet to acknowledge the FACT that the 'evidence' you have mustered here is unqualified and localised and has comes from unqualified people not in the position, nor having the skill to make whoesale judgements, and so can have no possible significance to the British Pakistani population as a whole.
From the 'evidence' available to us all, that is the only way you will get the vaguest idea of what is happening, never mind being able to make such racist definitive statements you have made - statements that would have put you behind bars for incitement to race hatred had you made them elsewhere.
"Passing reference! Passing lie"
In fact it was Akenaton who first made reference to the subject of gangs and underage abuse (23 Jan 11 - 05:19 AM), Lox made passing reference to it and then you took it up (23 Jan 11 - 09:43 AM) - but it is you and you alone who has made this thread the racist attack on the Pakistani community that it became under your guidance.
Were I to take a leaf out of your book I would accuse you of lying, but I have no doubt it was an honest mistake on your part.
You have still not responded to any of my points - particularly why you will not even refer to white, christian criminals and prefer to stick to British Pakistani ones which, on your admission, you have neither knowledge nor experience of.
I ask again; is there any cultural significance in the report that over one in ten teenagers in Northern Ireland have admitted to having been sexually groomed, 75% of these being under age.
If your answer is still that you are not qualified to give an answer, in the light of your own admittance that you have neither experience nor knowledge of the subject under present discussion, what gives you the authority to make the sweeping racist statements you have here?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 01:59 PM

===Jewish men, women, and children. These were not members of a homogeneous culture. They were Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Yugoslavian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Albanian, French and many many more, whose only shared characteristic was their Jewish religious beliefs.===

Not really reading this thread any more ~~ decided I would rather fill the shining hours watching the neighbours' newly applied paint dry...

But will just nip back long enough to tell you, Don, without any intention of offence or aggression, that if you believe the above you really don't know lickerty-schpitsch about Jews...

Or else you are being disingenuous...

Shalom

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 11:27 AM

Lox made three posts about this issue, including one that was a page and a half of solid text, before I got involved.
(Passing reference! Passing lie.)
My first post on this was a reply to one of his.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 11:13 AM

I regard it as proved.
Any open minded person would agree.
Not you obviously.

Your reply to the evidence is so laughably weak, I am going to leave it there.
If that is all you have, we are done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 10:47 AM

"Lox and others began discussing this on 21st Jan."
Lox mentioned it in passing; you took it and turned into a 'Paki bashing' session ( a well-know term, along with 'queer-bashing' which sums up perfectly the behaviour of white racists towards members of the Pakistani community - as displayed here)
I don't use the term out of context - that would be racist - I use it to describe your activities here on this thread.
"It is IRREFUTABLE that Wilmer and others state"
And it is irrefurtable that Wilmer's evidence is hearsay and locally based and has no value is assessing the general picture of British Pakistani life.
"It is IRREFUTABLE that senior police officers have stated that this crime is a serious problem and it is mainly by BPs."
See Wilmer reference; and it is irrefutable that other senior police officers, judges, social workers and politicians have said that there os no socil or cutural conclusions whatever to be drawn from these crimes - including Jack Straw.
"It is IRREFUTABLE that Hindu and Sikh organisations have stated that they have a problem with BPs abusing their girls."
And it is equally irrefutable that, as with Wilmer and the above-mentioned police, these are locally based and involve small numbers of criminals.
For the rest of your 'irrefutable evidence' - as above.
It is also irrefutable that these crimes are also committed by members of other racial and cultural groups and according to Jack Straw again, white christians are by far the largest group represented in the overall picture.
All your irrefutable examples, when added up are little more than a pin-prick in the numbers of underage young women used for sex.
It is impossible to come to any overall conclusion as no properly conducted survey has ever been carried out, yet despite this and despite your own ignorance and lack of knowledge of the subject you have informed us that "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency towards paedophelia".
You have also added - as far as I can off your own bat as I am unable to find anybody else who has used the phrase - that the British Pakistani population is 'massively over-represented in grooming and procuring underage girls for sex.
These are extremely inflammatory statements that can only be made confidently by experts in the field and only then after carefully conducted research.
No such research hs been carried out and no such experts have offered such an opinion.
These statements might have been lifted straight out of the BNP literature; even our sewer tabloid press have not ventured to experss them as you have.
Despite your self - confessed ignorance and lack of experience in thes subjects, you continue to make your accusations and scurry behind your locally based witnesses with their limited experience when challenged, yet when asked to proffer an opinion on Northern Ireland, which you have claimed some knowledge of in the past and even have relatives there, you refuse to offer one, claiming it to be beyong your eperience and knowledge.
What puts you in the position to make such damaging and culturally divisive pronouncements on one community and not the other?
I suggest it is a question of one being Pakistani and Muslim and the other being white and christian - do you have another explanation?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 09:38 AM

Jim,
"When you joined the debate the subject was Muslim prejudice - you single-handedly turned it into a Paki-bashing exercise."

Not true.
Lox and others began discussing this on 21st Jan.
I carried on posting on the original subject until 23rd January.

Is "paki" a more acceptable abbreviation than BP Jim?
Most people regard it as racist in the extreme.
I would never use it, but I am no racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 09:09 AM

It is IRREFUTABLE that Wilmer and others state that these cases are but the tip of a vast iceberg.
It is IRREFUTABLE that senior police officers have stated that this crime is a serious problem and it is mainly by BPs.
It is IRREFUTABLE that Hindu and Sikh organisations have stated that they have a problem with BPs abusing their girls.

All this and more is more than enough to convince me.
I regard it as irrefutable proof.

You will deny it.
Jim has already stated that his mind is closed to even the possibility that it is true.
I am sure Don thinks the same.
No-one cares what Lox thinks, obviously.

I would be happy to leave the debate there as we will never agree.
I don't want to prolong this thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 08:02 AM

It is IRREFUTABLE that the MP for Blackburn stated that this form of abuse was a serious issue and BPs were mainly responsible.
It is IRREFUTABLE that the MP for Keighly has stated the same, and has been stating it for many years.
It is IRREFUTABLE that prominent BPs like Saffiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown have acknowledged that this is a particular issue for BPs.
It is IRREFUTABLE that investigations by journalists like Bindel and Norfolk find that this is a particular issue for BPs
It is IRREFUTABLE that 94% of all the convictions over 17 years are BPs.
It is IRREFUTABLE that 100% of the hundreds of cases dealt with by
Wilmer are BPs
It is IRREFUTABLE that none of you have found any cases not involving BPs, because there are few if any of them.
It is IRREFUTABLE that even in these areas BPs are a minority, and if majority offenders are massively over-represented.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 07:48 AM

Others have said that BP culture makes them do it.
I took that to mean that all those subject to it would be affected to a greater or lesser extent.
If that is wrong I withdraw it, but first explain why it is a wrong assumption.
In any case, I do not care about the explanation.
I have certainly not "made it my own"!
Why does it matter so much to you?
Only because you think you can use it against me.
You are wrong.
It is of no consequence to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 07:06 AM

"I would like you to state ANY EVIDENCE to back up your statements - the interminable repetition of irrelevant and unrelated personal observations in small isolated areas" ---- "Not a contention of mine, as I keep telling you."
Proof enough?
"Because that was the kind of grooming being discussed here when I joined the debate."
When you joined the debate the subject was Muslim prejudice - you single-handedly turned it into a Paki-bashing exercise.
You have carefully chosen the type of grooming you wish to discuss because (according to you) it only involves Pakistanis. Even then you have blatently ignored the facts presented to you - that street grooming goes on in every ethnic community, mainly in the indigenous one, and always has - this is deliberate racialist distortion brought about by deliberately and wilfully ignoring the plain fact that - STREET GROOMING GOES ON IN EVERY COMMUNITY AND ALWAY HAS - it is racism to claim otherwise.
"I am not qualified to draw such conclusions about any crime."
Yet you have done so here on Pakistani criminals involved in paedophelia; making huge, unsubstatiated cultural claims. If you can draw cultural conclusions here, why not compare what has been discovered officially in Northern Ireland, where you have a properly conducted survey and verified data, not unconnected hearsay reports - or does the NI survey involve criminals of the wrong colour and religion?
Answer the questions please!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 06:43 AM

Add to that of course the fact that you, because you refuse to look into it, are completely unaware of the number of street, and railway, and bus station, grooming cases over the last fifty years, preferring to simply state categorically that there were none.

The degree of intellectual laziness involved in your assessment of this situation is stunning.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 06:25 AM

""The cultural explanation is not mine.""

You made it yours when you extrapolated from what your sources actually said something more than they intended, chose to believe it, and posted to that effect on this thread.

""Don I do now " believe that " but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb.""

Like Jim, I find that ""Simple, straigtforward, uncomplicated; you put that forward because you believed it. As far as I can see, nobody else has said it; it is your summing up of what you believe.""

With respect to your constant claims of a "massive over representation", let's examine that.

You have 53 British Pakistanis convicted, and 400 individual cases brought to light by Hilary Wilmer. I have been accused of maligning that lady by asking what seems to me a very reasonable question, namely ""What makes Ms Wilmer so certain that all 400 were Pakistanis, and how did those 400 terrified children all instantly identify their abusers as Pakistanis?""

I'm seventy years old and I haven't yet found a way to tell apart the different Asian races.

Ignoring all that let's suppose for the sake of argument you have 453 abusers.

In a British Pakistani population of 1.5 million this is 0.03%. Even if this were (which is pure speculation, given the lack of any hard evidence) the tip of the iceberg and the real figure was ten times larger (you would think that would be noticed), it would still only be 0.3% of British Pakistanis.

Where is this massive over representation?

The answer is that Pakistanis are massively over represented in a few Pakistani criminal gangs, and nowhere else.

WELL BUGGER ME! What a surprise.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 06:11 AM

Jim,
I would like you to state ANY EVIDENCE to back up your statements - the interminable repetition of irrelevant and unrelated personal observations in small isolated areas is not proof, it isn't even evidence until it is placed in the context of the areas it was collected.
My case is that there is an over-representation, at least in the areas I specified.
That is all.

"And your evidence on Pakistani inclination towards paedophelia?"
Not a contention of mine, as I keep telling you.

"And your proof that street grooming is mainly a Pakistani crime?"
Basically because they are a minority group, but a large majority of the offenders.

"And your rationale of separating street grooming from any other sort of grooming?"
Because that was the kind of grooming being discussed here when I joined the debate.

"And your persistant refusel to draw cultural conclusions from the same Christian/white crimes?
I am not qualified to draw such conclusions about any crime.
Are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 05:56 AM

"The issue was first raised about 20 years ago by CROP."
Stop hiding behind other peoples' reports - you put it up, you take responsibility for it.
The 'evidence' of all the groups and individuals you have put up are individual accounts of personal experiences in limited areas - they in no way impact on Pakistani culture as a whole.
They certainly don't constitute proof, they don't even count as evidence outside their own small disconnected areas.
The 'massive over-representation' is purely of your own making. I have long realised that you have no ideas of your own, only those you have managed to cut-'n-paste. At least have the balls to come out from behind them and state your own case.
Where is YOUR EVIDENCE of the 'massive over-representation' that you, and you alone claims to exist?
"Would you really like me to restate the mass of irrefutable evidence"
I would like you to state ANY EVIDENCE to back up your statements - the interminable repetition of irrelvant and unrelated personal observations in small isolated areas is not proof, it isn't even evidence until it is placed in the context of the areas it was collected.
And your evidence on Pakistani inclination towards paedophelia?
And your proof that street grooming is mainly a Pakistani crime?
And your rationale of separating street grooming from any other sort of grooming?
And your persistant refusel to draw cultural conclusions from the same Christian/white crimes?
"Why are you so determined to make me look a bad person?"
I am not attempting to make you look an such thing - I couldn't hope to compete with your own efforts in this respect.
You have lied, cheated, distorted your own and others evidence, you have accused others of behaviour you have been guilty of ten-fold....
You have shamed yourself with your own behaviour, and the fact that you have displayed no shame, shames you even more.
How could anybody possibly compete with that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 05:13 AM

Further to this crime under discussion however - as I posted below (and I think as mentioned by another poster) - the positive influence of one Pakistani community's evident cultural and religious values (once awareness was raised of such crimes within that community) was such that they were both motivated and able to successfully eliminate this crime in their area.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 04:59 AM

"this in no way alters the racist nature of your 'implant' statement"

Thanks for this clarification on your position Jim. I wasn't attempting to split hairs, but in difficult topics like this small words can mean a lot. I asked for clarification from Lox previously about his use of the word "girl" in a particular statement, by which he clarified that he meant "young woman".

For the record, while I do believe that cultural conditioning can certainly predispose particular groups to particular behaviours (cannibalism in certain tribal groups as one extreme example, though such practices are now no longer with us) I agree that there is no where near enough information to make such a blanket generalisation about supposedly culturally instilled (or "implanted" if you will, but such a phrase does appear to have physiological connotations) sexual tendencies of British Pakistani men.

You will find arguments, particularly from a feminist perspective, which argue that cultural factors do have a role to play in crimes of abuse against women, and in crimes of abuse against women (including organised crime) from specific groups, but that is a long way from arguing that "all Pakistani males have a culturally implanted tendency to abuse girls". So I'm going no-where near that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 04:48 AM

Jim, I just told you that paedophilia was not a contention!

"What is your rational for presenting street grooming as separate from any other form of sexual grooming"
Not me again.
The issue was first raised about 20 years ago by CROP.
Google their site.
I first heard of it when Straw made it headline news.
For a while everyone was talking about it.(All the media did reports including Guardian, BBC, and Bindel and Norfolk.)
It was not even me who raised it on this thread.

Why are you so determined to make me look a bad person?
It is a total obsession with you, and nothing to do with this debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 04:25 AM

You have presented no proof whatever beyond a small handful of examples in specific area - if you are going to claim these as proof - don't bother, they prove nothing whatever about British Pakistani culture as a whole and you are the only one making that claim.
Where is your proof of a massive over-representation among the one and a half million British Pakistanis?
Where is your proof that the Pakistani male population is in any way inclined towards paedophelia?
Where is your proof that street grooming is mainly a British Pakistani activity?
What is your rational for presenting street grooming as seperate from any other form of sexual grooming - internet, within the family, clerical sexual grooming, date rape drugging - all are forms of sexual grooming with the same objective in mind?
If the British Pakistani population is culturally inclined towards paedophelia, why isn't the white christian population of Northern Ireland culturally inclined to the same crime when systematically gathered data has produced vastly larger percentages of underage sex (over one in ten)? Why is this not even worthy of discussion when the sexual grooming of underage girls is aimed to produce the same result, however it is carried out.
If I have misinterpreted your stance on the genetic connection to this crime, as it seems I might have, I apologise unreservedly and withdraw my comments (something else for you to use at a later date), but this in no way alters the racist nature of your 'implant' statement, and it in no way absolves you from answering the above questions - one by one or all together, as you please.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 03:47 AM

The contention is that children are easier meat than older girls, not that the offenders are necessarily paedophiles.
The suggestion that the drive to offend is culturally implanted comes from others.
I got it from them, not the other way round, and it is not an issue with me anyway.

Would you really like me to restate the mass of irrefutable evidence for the over-representation?
I would be happy to oblige, but your preconceptions and prejudices will only make you reject it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 03:37 AM

"all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."
Where does your culturally implanted tendency come from?
You have claimed over and over again that you have not attacked the British Pakistani culture yet you have talked about a culturally implanted tendency towards paedophelia - what is the evidence for that tendency, and if it is not genetic, what is it - you have already introduced the accusation of genes in regard to members of the immigrant communities in Britain into this argument?
Where is your evidence of of any tendency within the Pakistani population to any degree whatever towards paedophelia?.
Where is your evidence of any massive over representation whatever?
These are total inventions of yours; nobody else has said them nor even hinted at them outside of specific situations involving small numbers of criminals.
You have persistantly attempted to present paedophilia as a commonplace among British Pakistanis.
You have attempted to make the grooming of underage girls a mainly Pakistani crime, when every parent in Britain has warned their children at one time or another not to take sweets from strangers - this throughout history and when it is recognised that street grooming is a common occurence in all communities, including the indigenous one.
You have refused to even discuss the grooming of underage teenagers by white, christian men, even when it occurs to the extent of more than one in every ten, as it has in Northern Ireland.
You have set out to show, totally without proof, that the British Pakistani communities are cultural degenerates.
These are not Pakistani paedophiles; they are a relatively small number of criminals alongside a far greater number from the indiginous and other communities (according to Jack Straw), who you have presented as a cultural threat.
If that is not racism - what is?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 02:54 AM

Jim, I have never mentioned "genetic implant" or anything about race or genes.
That is a blatant, disgusting lie, and another attempt to smear me

Those authoritative people all stated that BP marriage practices were to blame.
It follows that while some are driven to offend, others are affected to a lesser extent.
If you can explain why that is a false assumption I will withdraw it.
I am not concerned about the cause the over-representation.
Unlike you obviously

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Apr 11 - 12:10 AM

"Jim, I believe in the over-representation."
Sorry Keith; doesn't work like that.
You have said - in full:
"Don I do now " believe that " but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."
Simple, straigtforward, uncomplicated; you put that forward because you believed it. As far as I can see, nobody else has said it; it is your summing up of what you believe.
It was not correct for me to have described it simply as racist.
The Pakistani bit makes it racist, the Muslim bit makes it bigoted, the male bit makes it sexist; it is a racist, bigoted and sexist attack on Pakistani, Muslim men.
The 'genetic implant tendency' puts it on par with the excuse that the Nazis put forward for the extermination of six million Jews, and the sterilition of many so the genetic fault could not be passed on - it is a racist statement of the worst kind.
Your stumbling efforts to explain your statement away, first by misrepresenting Nazi history and then, breathtakingly, eventually claiming "No Jim, I did not put it up as an argument at all" makes you an extremely stupid and dishonest individual.
Your claiming that you only put it up because "It was proposed by highly authoritative, reputable people including BPs" (perhaps you can point out who has claimed "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"), makes you not only stupid, but extremely cowardly in lacking the courage to stand by what you have said, and what you obviously believe.
So we are left with a stupid, lying, cowardly, racist, sexist bigot who is prepared to put forward the oldest racist weapon in the book, genetic deficiancy, to show that male, Muslim Pakistanis are genetically inclined towards paedophelia.
Do you take bookings?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 10:44 PM

Don,
"he has repeatedly characterised the whole Pakistani culture as "slightly predisposed "
No I have not.
The cultural explanation is not mine.

"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."
I could speculate but without evidence what would be the point?
I neither know nor care.

"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."
Not true.
I have accepted that.
I have only ever referred to their conviction stats.
I said it may not be a new crime type, but it is a crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 10:36 PM

Jim, I believe in the over-representation.
Any rational person would. The evidence is overwhelming.
Naturally I am curious as to why.
Only one explanation has emerged and that from the most reputable and authoritative people.
Why would I not believe it?
If anyone comes up with a better one, I will accept it at once.

My case is that there is an over-representation.
The explanation does not matter to me.
Why does it to you?
Because you have no answer to the over-representation!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 08:26 PM

The Nazis murdered six million Jewish men, women, and children. These were not members of a homogeneous culture.

They were Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Yugoslavian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Albanian, French and many many more, whose only shared characteristic was their Jewish religious beliefs.

There was, and in certain quarters still is, a public perception that Jews amassed fortunes and used their money to acquire political clout.

Hitler needed some way to unite the German nation behind some pretty harsh government so he gave them a scapegoat to fear and loathe, and he chose the Jews whom he personally detested to fill that role.

The concept of uniting a nation by giving them somebody to hate wasn't new, and it didn't matter who was chosen for the role, but it did help that they were already disliked and distrusted by many Germans.

No parallel then with anything pertinent to this thread.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 07:58 PM

""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.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 06:00 PM

"It was proposed by highly authoritative, reputable people including BPs."
You started out a few postings ago explaining why you believed it - now you say you don't - you really need to think before you put finger to keyboard Keith.
Lively:
"all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"
Keith's comment was aimed at male Pakistanis - an atatck on "all male Pakistani Muslims "how else am I to regard it other than racist - unless you want to split hairs?
He didn't mean it anyway!!!!
Mike:
Maybe a longer spoon was in order?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 05:35 PM

Jim, respond to Lively, and above all, start debating issues instead of constantly trying to prove me bad.
I am not, and if I were, everything I have said is still true.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 05:07 PM

I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb.
"You mean you put this up as an argument because you didn't agree with it?"

No Jim, I did not put it up as an argument at all.
It was proposed by highly authoritative, reputable people including BPs.
I said that I thought they were right.
That is all.
My case is the over-representation.
That is all.