 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Muslim prejudice
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 21 Jun 11 - 01:53 AM A question for you first Lox. Remember all your posts sternly telling me that no-one, especially not CeoP, regarded street grooming as a separate issue? A five month investigation and 2000 identified child victims in just 3 years says you were totally and completely wrong and should have listened to me. Right Lox? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 20 Jun 11 - 08:45 PM Keith, I'd love to see you answer these questions. "And using "it happened because BP young girls are off limits to them", would you agree that implies a nationwide problem whereever there are British Pakistani's? " and "would you agree or disagree that a statement of this type implicates Pakistani communities throughout the UK? " Don't you understand them or are you unable to answer them without blowing your case wide open? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jun 11 - 01:33 AM Jim, Lox, Don et al. You were all wrong. You may say it is racist to suggest an over-rep, but it happens to be true anyway. 2,000 victims but child sex grooming is 'hidden issue' Richard Ford Home Correspondent Child sex grooming in Britain is a "hidden issue" that police, social services and charities are failing properly to investigate, a damning report for ministers has concluded. More than 2,000 victims identified over the past three years are likely to represent a fraction of the total, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) will say in the first assessment of the extent of grooming, to be published next week. Despite growing concern among children's charities, one of the main findings of the inquiry is that "it is not being identified as an issue", The Times has learnt. There are also fears that the report will provoke a race row over its findings on the ethnicity of perpetrators. The results of the five-month investigation show that 20 per cent of those identified are of Asian origin. Although it concludes that child grooming cannot be associated with a particular ethnic group, meetings have been held with… |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jun 11 - 01:08 AM Paedophilia is not a crime Don. It is a condition. I do not think these offenders are driven by it. Just ordinary lust directed at the easiest meat available. It has always been clear that non-BPs are involved. The Dando survey found only 95% of perpetrators were BPs. The rest were non-BPs Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 19 Jun 11 - 09:21 PM ""Jim, I keep telling you that I do not regard participation in this form of abuse as evidence of paedophilia. It is suggested, and I agree, that young teens are targetted just because they are easier to ensnare than over 18s. "easy meat.""" You really can't decide unilaterally to change the definition of a crime. The act of sexually abusing underage girls is by definition Paedophilia if the abuser is an adult. So Jim is absolutely correct in his assertion about your comments on a cultural predisposition to abuse of underage girls as Paedophilia. No amount of bluster and fudge will will change that. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 19 Jun 11 - 09:08 PM Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:12 AM -snip-""It has always been clear that none BPs are involved."" -snip- Certainly not what your comments suggest. Two examples below. Would you like me to produce the dozens more in which you said point blank that no other ethnic groups had been found committing the same offences? 14th June 6.20am -snip- ""There are hundreds of victims who say BPs were the perpetratores. I have heard of none saying otherwise."" -snip- 15th June 01.16am -snip ""When a campaign was targeted at the BP community in Blackburn, the incidence of this kind of child sexual abuse was eliminated. The journalist Bindel in a rigorous investigation found large numbers of girls who had been abused by BPs, but none by other groups. The German video report, no longer on YouTube, found exactly the same. Jack Straw spoke about his own personal experience and contact with victims. Ann Cryer said she had the same experience in her constituency. The Dando Institue report on On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that has resulted in at least two follow up studies of On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that found 95% BP perpetrators. Hilary Wilmer with her hundreds of cases, all BPs."" -snip- Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:22 PM Jim, you are wasting your time asking me about the reason for the over-rep. The reasons given are not mine and I can not defend or support them. My case is that there is an over-rep. I have put up ample evidence to support the fact of the over-rep. You have put up nothing against it. Do you have any argument at all against it? Time for another byeee? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:58 PM "How do you even know that the men involved have been made to marry late - you have no idea whatever of their ages, backgrounds, personal circumstances - still racial stereotping I'm afraid." ,,,,, This is an undisputed matter of common knowledge, Jim. I am afraid your arguments are getting a bit desperate. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:50 PM "but I have a horrible feeling that you mean these baseless accusations seriously." Then you apparently reserve the right to talk "facetiously" for your sole use. Jim Carroll === You seem here to be admitting that your assertions are facetious, then, Jim. Is that precisely the point you intended to make here? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:11 PM "How can you be certain (CERTAIN!!) that men, made to marry late but deprived of any intimate relationships, might not be, just very slightly, predisposed?"" As I said in that post, it was just a suggestion from me. No certainty. "How do you even know that the men involved have been made to marry late - you have no idea whatever of their ages, backgrounds, personal circumstances - still racial stereotping I'm afraid." Are you disputing the accuracy of that Jim? I did put up some source material from a German University to show that it was accurate. And all those BPs quoted on here seemed to be aware of it. Are you saying you are better informed on these issues Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jun 11 - 03:43 PM "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. It is a factor that most groups do not have to deal with, and it is only a suggestion. How can you be certain (CERTAIN!!) that men, made to marry late but deprived of any intimate relationships, might not be, just very slightly, predisposed?" You have put this up as a definitive statement - how can you be certain (CERTAIN!!) that it does predispose.....? How do you even know that the men involved have been made to marry late - you have no idea whatever of their ages, backgrounds, personal circumstances - still racial stereotping I'm afraid. However, it in no way explains this: "This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know. There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for." You don't pull any punches there - it is you that is lying - to take a leaf out of your book. And you still have not answered any of my (or anybody else's) points - including your gross misrepresentation of my opinion that brought be back to this cess-pit this time - more lies - as you would put it. "If you reported it, the police would have to follow it up" Having followed the Wikileaks saga with some interest, I very much doubt that Mike. I believe that the lengths Keith has gone to to make his case would breach the incitement to race hatred laws, but I would have thought it was the site administrator's job to have nipped this interminable thread in the bud, if for no other reason than to prevent bringing this forum into disrepute - I've seen it done here before now. "but I have a horrible feeling that you mean these baseless accusations seriously." Then you apparently reserve the right to talk "facetiously" for your sole use. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 19 Jun 11 - 03:36 PM Jon, do you hold that Allibhai-Brown, Ahmed and Saffiq are guilty of that? I'm not aware that I've attempted to discuss the issue with them, Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Jun 11 - 02:31 PM Mike "So why not put your principles where your keyboard is and try reporting Keith for a breach of the Race Relations Act" You know as well as I do that the internet is available to every scumbag who wishes to peddle whatever filth they wish without fear of prosecution. Was fascinated to see that you equate enforcing the incitement to race hatred laws with jackboots on the stairs at 3 in the morning though - they are a bit of an inconvenience, aren't they?+++ ,,,, No I don't know anything of the sort, Jim. There is no legal immunity to prosecution for anything posted online in a public forum ~~ is there, Richard? If you reported it, the police would have to follow it up ~~ if you think a prosecution could lie: but you know as well as I do that there would be no case to answer here under Race Relations legislation: you are exaggerating about the racism, just as I was about the jackboots ~~ except that I was clearly talking facetiously but I have a horrible feeling that you mean these baseless accusations seriously. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Jun 11 - 02:12 PM Jon, do you hold that Allibhai-Brown, Ahmed and Saffiq are guilty of that? Anyone who knows what they stand for would regard that as preposterous. There are no other theories Jon, unless you know of any? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 19 Jun 11 - 01:59 PM It all sounds plausible, at least the way they put it. If it does not lead to these offences in all communties, that is good. I do not know what factors are involved. OK Keith, it's probably time for me to leave this thread but it does seem to me that you are accepting statements which by my way of thinking do implicate British Pakistanis throughout the UK with very little to do go on and without leaving me with the feeling you have considered other suggestions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Jun 11 - 01:46 PM Here is the whole post that Jim keeps citing in various colours. Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:27 PM 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. It is a factor that most groups do not have to deal with, and it is only a suggestion. How can you be certain (CERTAIN!!) that men, made to marry late but deprived of any intimate relationships, might not be, just very slightly, predisposed? We are all individuals, with individual weaknesses. The over representation is a fact. This de-racialises it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Jun 11 - 01:39 PM Jon, I have no reason to doubt any of them. It all sounds plausible, at least the way they put it. If it does not lead to these offences in all communties, that is good. I do not know what factors are involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Jun 11 - 01:35 PM Jim, I keep telling you that I do not regard participation in this form of abuse as evidence of paedophilia. It is suggested, and I agree, that young teens are targetted just because they are easier to ensnare than over 18s. "easy meat." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jun 11 - 01:04 PM Whoops - went off before I finished Mike "So why not put your principles where your keyboard is and try reporting Keith for a breach of the Race Relations Act" You know as well as I do that the internet is available to every scumbag who wishes to peddle whatever filth they wish without fear of prosecution. Was fascinated to see that you equate enforcing the incitement to race hatred laws with jackboots on the stairs at 3 in the morning though - they are a bit of an inconvenience, aren't they? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:57 PM "Jim, I do not and have never made a " claim of 'culturally influenced phaedophelia'." Yawwwwnnnnn "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." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:16 PM Jon, Straw said it happened because BP young girls are off limits to them. Cryer said it the same and said that they had to wait for arranged marriages. She said older girls would know this but young ones could be deceived into believing they had a future. Ahmed blamed it more on the number of unhappy marriages and Allibhai-Brown thought all the above relevant. Shafiq put it down to the low esteem they hold for non-muslim girls. Which of these do you agree with or accept? And using "it happened because BP young girls are off limits to them", would you agree that implies a nationwide problem whereever there are British Pakistani's? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:04 PM Jon, Straw said it happened because BP young girls are off limits to them. Cryer said it the same and said that they had to wait for arranged marriages. She said older girls would know this but young ones could be deceived into believing they had a future. Ahmed blamed it more on the number of unhappy marriages and Allibhai-Brown thought all the above relevant. Shafiq put it down to the low esteem they hold for non-muslim girls. You should really read what they actually have written. Do you need help finding it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Jun 11 - 11:57 AM Jim, I do not and have never made a " claim of 'culturally influenced phaedophelia'." I have told you that many times but you persist with the pointless lie. "Suggesting that paedophelia is culturally connected" BUT I DON'T JIM! HOW MANY TIMES MUST I TELL YOU? All I claim is that BPs are over-represented in this specific crime in the Midlands and the North of England. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 19 Jun 11 - 11:15 AM So yes I do believe it but can not defend or support it, and I am not committed to it if someone can provide a more convincing alternative. OK Keith, one thing at a time... as far as I can make out the theory goes along the lines: "Cultural attitudes/values within the British Pakistani community leads a small number into sex trafficking." Is that a reasonable representation? If not, could you explain it to me in your own words. If it is, would you agree or disagree that a statement of this type implicates Pakistani communities throughout the UK? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Jun 11 - 08:51 AM Jim: This is a public forum, accessible at the click of anybody's mouse, so just as liable to the various Race Relations legislations as any of the more widespread media. So why not put your principles where your keyboard is and try reporting Keith for a breach of the Race Relations Act (& me too, I should cocoa ~~ you know I think he is largely right & has made no such assertions as you persist in attributing to him, & am to whit his Fairy Godmother [whatever the hell that is supposed to mean]), and see how far you get? Go on. Let's see you try it. I await the knock on the door and the jackboots on my stairs at 3 in the morning with bated breath! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jun 11 - 07:16 AM And still you deal with isolated cases in specific areas - in no way backing up your claim of 'culturally influenced phaedophelia'. Why aren't the effects visibly throughout the Pakistani poulation as a whole rather than the most deprived areas? That larger numbers of immigrants appear in crime figures of any sort in areas with a high immigrant population was accepted right at the beginning of the debate - nobody but you has claimed a "massive over-representation". One of the tendencies of British culture is to blame "foreigners" for the ills of our society rather than examining the real causes, poverty, poor housing, lack of amenities, high unemployment; these are facts that are as old as Dickens, Fielding and Defoe. In my youth it was the 'Windrush generation' from The West Indies who were corrpting our women and spreading their filthy habits - now, it appears, it's the 'Pakis'. You appear to want to defuse McLean's statement because it is delivering the wrong message, yet fall back on Straw, who, as Home Secretary, did nothing to clean up Thatcher's 'two nations - north and South' mess - little wonder he tried to lay the blame on the culture rather than the foul conditions he did nothing about. And Ann Cryer - the genius who suggested that speaking English should be a condition of entry into Britain. And a cossetted member of the House of Lords who kills people with his mobile phone - and then is let off. We can all do that if we've a mind to, but what's the point? Rather than hiding behind 'experts' why not work it out for yourself? Suggesting that paedophelia is culturally connected is racial stereotyping and if made on the media or in the press as persistantly as you have made it here, would be open to prosecution under the incitement to racial hatred laws. And still you have not answered mine or anybody's points, but continue to pretend they haven't been made. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Jun 11 - 06:18 AM The Times piece contains some very relevant information. Please read. http://www.sasorg.co.uk/docs/Muslim%20Grooming/%E2%80%98Some%20of%20these%20men%20have%20children%20the%20same%20age.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:25 AM McClean is an enigma. I found not later statements by him, and all other police officers who have been quoted were clear that there was an issue and it was huge. This is from Times 5th Jan. Fourteen years ago, Detective Chief Superintendent Max McLean, who has recently retired, led what seems likely to have been the first British police inquiry involving the grooming and sexual exploitation of white girls by a gang of British Pakistani men. It began with a plea for help from a Leeds mother whose young daughter was leaving via her bedroom window whenever she was summoned by the beeping horn of a private-hire car that would stop outside their house in the early hours of the morning. The investigation led to 23 arrests and the exposure of a sex-trafficking ring involving a network of private-hire taxi drivers and the sexual abuse of at least 20 girls. The victims had been groomed, held captive and some were driven as far as Newcastle upon Tyne to be used for sex by older men. In 1997, after the two ringleaders were jailed for kidnap, rape and assault, Mr McLean warned that what police had uncovered was the tip of an iceberg. He alerted forces across England to the possibility that similar networks were operating in their communities. Looking back now, his strongest memory is of the girls' extreme vulnerability and of the pleasure that their abusers so clearly took in exercising power and control over them. "The men held those young girls in extremely low esteem; they thought that this somehow justified the violation that was taking place. As the years have passed, the message should have gone out long ago that to ignore the scale and nature of this problem is to bury your head in the sand." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:12 AM Jim, I do not say Barnados support my case, they are neutral. They argue that the media should not discuss the issue. I think that is wrong and dangerous, but anyway it does not apply to us dicussing it. Narey stated that there was an over-rep, but said it was not just of BPs, listing other similar cultures. My case that they are over-represented is quite consistent with that. It has always been clear that none BPs are involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:04 AM Jon, I have no way of judging it, but I have accepted it because no other theory has emerged and because those proposing it are reputable and have first hand knowledge and experience of all these issues. Most of them are Pakistanis themselves. So yes I do believe it but can not defend or support it, and I am not committed to it if someone can provide a more convincing alternative. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:04 AM Jon, I have no way of judging it, but I have accepted it because no other theory has emerged and because those proposing it are reputable and have first hand knowledge and experience of all these issues. Most of them are Pakistanis themselves. So yes I do believe it but can not defend or support it, and I am not committed to it if someone can provide a more convincing alternative. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:52 AM Jon, I support no theory. My only case is that the evidence for an over-rep seems overwhelming. Keith, your stance appears to vary to me but perhaps I'm wrong and clarification is needed. It seems clear that you believe there is an over-rep in certain areas. I've no argument with that. I find your position with regards to the theory that the over-rep is explainable by aspects of the British Pakistani culture a bit of a puzzle. Please state clearly whether you. a) Do not agree with it. b) Have no opinion on it. c) Agree with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:32 AM "That is from that January Guardian piece that we have surely done to death already." These comments post-date and are responses to Jack Straw's statement which you have used throughout this thread to back up your argument (after careful editing). You continue to claim that the Barnados article backs up your conclusions when it patently does not; on the contrary, Barnardos have made the point that using race and culture in the abuse debate diverts the issue and runs the risk of adding to the abuse of children, yet you continue to do just that "Jim claimed it racist to consider child abuse in the context of culture or race" Please withdraw this piece of misinformation and stop deliberately distorting what I and others have said - it is you who needs to debate honestly; nobody else here has edited threads to make their point. You claim that we have put up no argument - yes we have and it is typical of your debating style that you have deliberately ignored what has been said - something that has been pointed out to you again and again, here and on other threads, Is time you stopped ignoring and distorting what other people have said. "There is an over-rep, but not exclusively of BPs." But you have been saying not only is there an over-representation of Pakistanis, but it is part of their culture - is this a change of direction? "That was your shortest goodbyeee yet Jim," I will come and go here as I see fit - if you find my presence so disturbing that you need to comment on it, stop mangling what I have said. And a reminder; as much effort as you have put into drifting this thread to prove Pakistanis are culturally perverted, it does not belong to you and those of us (and there are several, not just me) who have returned to it rather than allow you to continue to use it as a platform, will do so as often as we please. It might help if you didn't distort what we have said when you thought it was safe to do so. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:20 PM That is from that January Guardian piece that we have surely done to death already. There is an over-rep, but not exclusively of BPs. Lively said the same in her last posts. It does not deny an over-rep of BPs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Jun 11 - 04:01 PM Whoops JC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Jun 11 - 03:58 PM On the other hand: "I certainly don't think this is a Pakistani thing. My staff would say that there is an over-representation of people from minority ethnic groups – Afghans, people from Arabic nations – but it's not just one nation." Retired detective chief superintendent Max McLean, who led a previous police investigation into sexual exploitation involving the grooming and trafficking of young girls in Leeds, also questioned the suggestion of a cultural problem. "I'm not suggesting, and I do not think anybody is, that it is a problem within a community," he told Today. "What I am saying is that, when you take a crime type – street grooming – and see that the vast majority of people convicted are from a particular community, then there appears something we should do about those offenders. "But that is the very danger, that we say that all street groomers are Asian men. What we have found is that our investigations have led to convictions, generally speaking, for this type of crime. "That is a slightly different thing and it is incumbent on the police and professionals to engage with communities where we identify those offenders to see if there are preventative opportunities." Share: Law and Order News » "I certainly don't think this is a Pakistani thing. My staff would say that there is an over-representation of people from minority ethnic groups – Afghans, people from Arabic nations – but it's not just one nation." Retired detective chief superintendent Max McLean, who led a previous police investigation into sexual exploitation involving the grooming and trafficking of young girls in Leeds, also questioned the suggestion of a cultural problem. "I'm not suggesting, and I do not think anybody is, that it is a problem within a community," he told Today. "What I am saying is that, when you take a crime type – street grooming – and see that the vast majority of people convicted are from a particular community, then there appears something we should do about those offenders. "But that is the very danger, that we say that all street groomers are Asian men. What we have found is that our investigations have led to convictions, generally speaking, for this type of crime. "That is a slightly different thing and it is incumbent on the police and professionals to engage with communities where we identify those offenders to see if there are preventative opportunities." Share: Law and Order News » Politics » UK News » Crime » IN NEWS Lord Stoneham's question on Goodwin super-injunction Sian O'Callaghan murder Night Stalker convicted Map gives public view of local crime Most dangerous neighbourhood identified by crime map |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Jun 11 - 03:49 PM "Barnados said ethnicity was a factor, and they had previously stated that there was an "over-representation."" Over-representation of what? " Barnardo's chief executive Martin Narey said street grooming was "probably happening in most towns and cities" and was not confined to the Pakistani community. "I certainly don't think this is a Pakistani thing. My staff would say that there is an over-representation of people from minority ethnic groups – Afghans, people from Arabic nations – but it's not just one nation."" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Jun 11 - 03:49 PM That was your shortest goodbyeee yet Jim, and you have had so many! No-one here has ever claimed a link between paedophilia and culture. In this issue, the suggestion has always been that young teens were targeted just because they were "easy meat." How many times have I reminded you of that now? At least ten. Try to debate honestly Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Jun 11 - 03:08 PM "Jim claimed it racist to consider child abuse in the context of culture or race" No I didn't - said it was racist to claim that paedophelia has anything to do with culture or race. Anybody who claims paedophelia to be part of British Pakistani or any ethnic culture is guilty of racist stereotyping . Please do not distort what I have been saying for long enough for you to have grasped my meaning otherwise I will have to assume that you are doing it deliberately - perish the thought! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Jun 11 - 01:29 PM Don, my point was that Jim claimed it racist to consider child abuse in the context of culture or race, but they were doing just that. Barnados said ethnicity was a factor, and they had previously stated that there was an "over-representation." There is nothing in the CeoP quote that I disagree with, and nothing that refutes an over-rep. It is quite wrong to describe me as being "diametrically opposed" to the stated views of either organisation. I am not. I do think that Barnados are wrong to call for the media not to report the issue of ethnicity. That gives ammunition to the far right who are already claiming that there is a conspiracy to keep these things secret. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Jun 11 - 06:30 AM ""Professional association for social workers in the United Kingdom, the BASW, are holding an event. BASW - Child sexual abuse - Intersections of Controversy - Race - Culture - GenderEvent Date: 24th June 2011 Location: Manchester One of the "key themes" "the cultural and gender context of sexual abuse""" And your point is.............?? That is a headline with no indication as to the direction or content of the discussion. In short, it gives no support to your claims. Are you now reduced to quoting everything you see featuring the words "culture", "ethnic", or "sexual abuse", in the vague hope of rescuing your argument? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Jun 11 - 06:21 AM """From our experience, we know that in some areas ethnicity is a factor,""" Please give us the rationale by which you got from this statement any hint of over representation. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Jun 11 - 06:09 AM """The sexual exploitation of children cannot "be simplified along ethnic lines", the head of the child protection agency said today. Peter Davies was announcing that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) centre is to investigate "on-street" grooming, leading to abuse and exploitation. He said: "Child sexual exploitation is not exclusive to any single culture, community, race or religion - it cuts across all communities. Neither can it be simplified along ethnic lines where the victims constitute one ethnicity and offenders another.""" Seems conclusive enough, and comes from one who has at his fingertips all the relevant data. Keith, of course will continue to believe his so-called "sources", since he has never been one to let the facts get in the way of his culturally biased theories. ""The quote acknowledges that ethnicity is an issue, at least in "high profile cases." "" This is the weakest comment yet. The only high profile cases are the group of cases upon which you based your original skewed theory, and those are the ones involving British Pakistanis. My hat is off to you. The heads of CEOP and Barnado's are diametrically opposed to your point of view, having between them infinitely more experience than you and your "sources" added together, and you still produce the perfect circular argument to defend the indefensible. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Jun 11 - 04:41 AM Four monthts ago. That is almost to the day when you came in Jim. In all that time you only ever produced one arguement, and now you are deprived even of that. Byeeee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Jun 11 - 03:04 AM "the one who called me a 'parrot" I wasn't referring to you Mike. I believe that everything that needed to be said was said at least four months ago and that this vile thread should have been put out of its misery then. Byeeee. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: MGM·Lion Date: 18 Jun 11 - 01:22 AM Well, Joe, it looks as if you might at last have killed this thread off. Probably not before time: it was certainly getting a bit repetitive ~~ the one who called me a 'parrot' was being much more of a PrettyPolly than me, being apparently unable to do anything but endlessly iterate that 'name-call' you rubricate above. I think, mind you, with all due respect to your moderating office, that maybe you are being a bit prissy. You have let some much more offensive sequences go without interference ~~ like e.g. that charmer who went on & on with no sort of provocation about all sorts of embarrassing physical disabilities my life was supposedly [but inaccurately] subject to. You let him just get on with it unimpeded, thought I protested at the time at your not having deleted those entries and taken some sort of action against him. Remember that?* Still ~~ there it is. Goodbye Keith, Jim, Don, Ake, et al. It's been fun while it lasted. ~M~ *(A clue: think ~ I admit irrelevantly and mnemonically ~ of a pink delicacy usually eaten with black pepper and lemon juice.)
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Jun 11 - 04:05 PM OK. I think this thread went over the top at about 8:20 AM today, and it became a name-calling match. I have deleted the 8:20 message and all subsequent messages. Please continue your discussion, but with a more civil tone (i.e., don't go calling people racist and such. Describe and refute what they say, if you must - but no name-calling). Thanks. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Jun 11 - 04:12 AM Professional association for social workers in the United Kingdom, the BASW, are holding an event. BASW - Child sexual abuse - Intersections of Controversy - Race - Culture - GenderEvent Date: 24th June 2011 Location: Manchester One of the "key themes" "the cultural and gender context of sexual abuse" Are they racists then Jim? http://www.nationalworkinggroup.org/events/88-basw---child-sexual-abuse----intersections-of-controversy---race---culture---gende |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Jun 11 - 04:12 AM Jim, we are not the media. Our discussion is not putting children at risk. Anyway you need two sides for a discussion. I will stop when you stop. "From our experience, we know that in some areas ethnicity is a factor," If by that they mean an over-representation, and they previously described it as just that, that is my whole case. If you accept it too we can stop there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Jun 11 - 03:43 AM "I have seen no Barnados statement that refutes the over-rep." Have you seen one that supports your claims that there is; I have seen no report that they have even been presented with the question of over representation - where it came up in Straw's statement they were among the protesters, as was CEOP . Barnardos postition on race: "The recent media and political focus on race issues within sexual exploitation cases could put more children and young people at risk, according to the new chief executive of Barnardo's. "From our experience, we know that in some areas ethnicity is a factor, but in many other areas it isn't," Anne Marie Carrie told Community Care. Carrie takes over this month from chief executive Martin Narey. If you focus on one model of sexual exploitation, children who are being exploited in different circumstances won't see that it's an issue for them as well. Young people who need support won't come forward because they don't fit the model that's being presented The recent media and political focus on race issues within sexual exploitation cases could put more children and young people at risk, according to the new chief executive of Barnardo's." Far from heeding their advice that race was a diversion in all this, you have attempted to distort and use their statement to back up your racist hatred, diverting the spotlight away from abused children and making it part of your racist crusade - you really must hate Pakistanis. They have made none of the claims you describe, and were among the protesters at Straw's 'culture' statement' They said openly that race, far from being an answer, was a hinderence in the fight against child abuse; despite this open statement, you deliberately distort their position and continue to use Barnardos as a platform for your hatred. By doing this you have, in your own little way, become part of the abuse yourself, using the victims as a means of getting across your message that Pakistanis are cultural perverts - two birds with one stone - about as low as you can sink, but fits perfectly into the slime-pit you have pretty well single-handedly managed to make this thread - and doeesn't it make all those crocodile tears part of the slime-flow they always were. Despite the pleas of Barnardos, you continue to make this a race issue, thus doing your bit to prolong the suffering of abused children. CEOP has not made its report; a bit of a waste of their time and resources really - you've provided them with all the answers they need here - and all without the effort and expense of gathering proof. Interesting to see the mind of a fanatic in action and up close though! Jim Carroll |