 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Muslim prejudice
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Apr 11 - 11:49 AM Lox, This from the Guardian. The view points to the convictions of 56 men, all but three of whom were Asian and most from the British Pakistani community, found guilty of sexual offences involving on-street grooming. There have been 17 court cases in 13 urban areas in the north and Midlands since 1997. This from your link It was reported yesterday that while most British sex offenders are lone white men, details of court cases in 13 towns showed that out of 56 men convicted of multiple offences of grooming girls for sex, 50 were Muslim, mostly of Pakistani heritage. That is my case Lox! Have you changed sides? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Apr 11 - 11:42 AM The NI survey was not about on-street grooming and was thus totally irrelevant. You are desperate to change the subject because you have no case. Expect no help with that! "your selectivity in making British Pakistanis the target for your hatred " I have expressed no hatred. BPs as offenders were indeed the subject of this discussion. I did not start it. I did not count in the two non BPs who were aquitted of rape and murder on a technicality. I only used Wilmer's stated number and the Dando findings. My case was that there is an over-rep. in this crime. I have shown by irrefutable logic that there is. Your case was that there was no over_rep. That requires you to show a larger number of non BPs as offenders. In three months you have found, ...er.......NONE. So Jim, what exactly are you crowing about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 15 Apr 11 - 11:41 AM 2000 I wonder if Keith wiill continue to see no reason to disbelieve Straw now ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 15 Apr 11 - 11:40 AM URL too long Straws comment comes from this Article. http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/hyndburn/8969605.50_East_Lancashire_men_warned_over_child_grooming/?action=complain&cid=9294071 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 15 Apr 11 - 11:38 AM Funny what news the Daily Mail and the Times will report and what they accidentally miss. Here's an interesting quote from Jack Straw. "The breakdown by ethnicity is consistent with what I've said all along, that the majority of perpetrators of this type of crime are white." From This Article |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 15 Apr 11 - 11:35 AM "Lox, the 56 were convicted of grooming, trafficking and rape." I see - but not of any seperate cime called "Street Grooming" If they were, now would be a good time to provide the first evidence of this. ""Even though the victims said that it wasn't young men?" I do not remember that Lox. I suspect you have made it up." No - its the Alzheimers Again Keith. The victims said that the young men were merely used as bait by highly organized crime units. That contradicts the notion that young men instigated these crimes as a result of their fizzing popping testosterone. So to clarify - were the young men involved (a) as a result of fizzing popping testosterone needing an outlet? or (b) was it because they were members of highly organized crime cells who used them to trap young girls? The answer is (b) - it is an orgabnized crime issue. You have actually commented on this fact already, though i understand that your short term memory .. and long term memory are severely damaged. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Apr 11 - 10:56 AM Your refusal to compare or even acknowlege the Northern Ireland survey brings this thread to the finalé it merits as far as I'm concerned: wrong religion, wrong colour, wrong race - and in your case, wrong move . Your silence underlines your selectivity in making British Pakistanis the target for your hatred - doesn't count if the perps are white or Christian = racism. Throughout this thread this has been obvious, but this tops and tails it nicely. Your contempt for the other members of this forum, your triumphalist gloating when you found 'even more victims', your attempts to include two innocent (to the extent of being heavily compensated) Pakistanis in your head count, your lying, cheating and selectivity in choice and exclusion, and your denial of black-and-white evidence, especially on your previous and disgusting stance on race.... all goes to make a rather sad and twisted individual. To indulge in a little triumphalism of my own: game, set and match, I think Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Apr 11 - 09:04 AM Lox, the 56 were convicted of grooming, trafficking and rape. That is why they were counted by the Dando Institute survey of On-Street Grooming. All young men have testosterone. Straw said why he thought it affected BPs differently. Argue it out with him. "Keith proposes a slightly different cultural explanation to Straw, Cryer et al." NO! Keith proposes no explanation at all. "Even though the victims said that it wasn't young men?" I do not remember that Lox. I suspect you have made it up. It would be despicable to corrupt the testimony of young rape victims. Quotes please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 15 Apr 11 - 08:24 AM So to clarify, Keith proposes a slightly different cultural explanation to Straw, Cryer et al. And it is founded on the idea that Pakistanis are overrepresented in the crime of street grooming. And it is that there is an inherent problem with Pakistani culture in Britain. Even Ake doesn't share this view. He thinks its about Moslem culture and isn't specific to Pakistanis. While Keith states that Moslem culture is not to blame, these crimes being a symptom of a Pakistani cultural problem. As for Abbreviations, I'm surprised Keith that you don't just abbreviate your whole argument as you have repeated the same points ad nauseam for weeks and weeks now without making any attempt to engage your brain with them. Just think of all the time you would save. We would know exactly which arguments you were repeating as we know them off by heart having heard you chant them over and over again. I've heard of a captain going down with his ship, but who'd want to set sail on one so full of holes. I can see you, clinging to the flag pole ... at the bottom of the ocean ... remaining firm ... "I will not respond" ... You silly stubborn old fool. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 15 Apr 11 - 08:06 AM "56 people have been convicted of that crime." There goes the Alzheimers again. No they haven't Keith, they have been convicted of Trafficking and rape. Please try and remember. "I did not "propose" any explanations." What about your hypothesis? Straw et al talked about young men fizzing and popping with testosterone. Only you argued that Pakistanis are culturally predisposed to kidnapping annd raping underage girls. Only you stated that generally they are able to overcome this urge. That was a suggestion that you proposed. "I have no reason to doubt them" Even though the victims said that it wasn't young men? When Jack Straw cryer etc said it was? But I forgot - you don't accept that their opposing viewpoints are in any way contradictory. So the fact that they do categorically contradict each other is not grounds for doubt. Regardless of the fact that none of them is qualified to make psychological diagnoses about any individual, let alone a whole racial demographic. No - they are all prominent politicians and journalists and we know for a fact that politicians and joutnalists nevr tell lies or capitalize on hot topics for their own personal Gain. Long may they reign! Hip hip - hooray. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Apr 11 - 08:05 AM Reduced to calling me racist again. Pathetic and shameful tactics. Not one of the hundreds who turned to Wilmer had been abused by non BPs. Bindel failed to find a single victim not abused by BPs. Every known victim of this crime suffered at the hands of BPs The only logical conclusion is that few, IF ANY, are victims of other than BPs. That means a massive over-representation. Not racism. Cold logic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Apr 11 - 07:35 AM I take it from your radio silence about Northern Ireland that you have no opinion - isn't it nice when it goes quiet. The rest is prevaricating bollocks - the massive over-representation continues to be your racist opinion - the indigenous population are vastly superior in number when it comes to paedophelia, sexual grooming and pimping - Jack Straw said so - so it must be true. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Apr 11 - 06:15 AM Jim, "As I said, isolated incidents." No! That is every known victim. If every victim of this crime was groomed and raped by BPs, that is a MASSIVE over-representation of that minority group in that crime. That is my case. It stands unless a greater number were abused by non BPs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Apr 11 - 05:09 AM A new figure to add to your pile. This morning's Irish Times reports on the results of an organised survey carried out by Ark - a joint initiative by Queens University and The University of Ulster. They have found that 10% - 1 in 10 - of the teenagers in the North of Ireland have experienced sexual grooming and more than 75% of them were under the age of 16 when it occurred. Following your reasoning, can we draw any cultural conclusions on the people of Northern Ireland from these figures - do they not indicate a "massive over-representation" of the British population. Don't you have relatives there, and does not such a report place them under suspicion - following your own 'logic' of course. "We know from Wilmer it is at least 400." Out of an overall population of one and half milion - the needle didn't even twitch!" As I said, isolated incidents. "So far you have not found any at all!" Yes we have - in your convoluted selection system you have chosen not to count them. As I said, agenda driven Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Apr 11 - 04:52 AM Lox, I said that it might not be a new crime type, but it is a crime. Have I got that wrong? 56 people have been convicted of that crime. Are you saying it is not a crime? I did not "propose" any explanations. I reported explanations proposed by people of stature, knowledge and experience. I have no reason to doubt them or to believe the likes of you, but I don't care about the explanation anyway. The crime is what counts, wicked and evil as it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Apr 11 - 04:45 AM Jim, "basing a total condemnation of a whole culture " Nonsense! No-one has done that. I say BPs are over-represented in one crime type. "You are providing no overall numbers," We know from Wilmer it is at least 400. This is said to be the tip of an iceberg, so you would need about 1000 non BP offenders to make a case for them not being over-represented. So far you have not found any at all! The only people I have laughed at is you twats, hopelessly trying to defend the indefensible. None of you have shown any concern or compassion for the victims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 15 Apr 11 - 04:24 AM In the absence of specific responses Keith it can only be deduced that you are unable to respond. Dando investigated the 'Question' of Street Grooming. They found it was not a new crime type. Keiths latest suggestion is that they meant it was an old crime type. It is actually entertaining to watch Keiths torured logic in action. The suggestion that Dando were clarifying the age of a (previously unknown) alleged crime type is as far fetched as they come. Then there is this bit of pseudo-rationale. "I do not care about the explanations. You are totally obsessed! Yet you deny there is anything to explain!" So Keith proposes a hypothesis, and then to support it claims an overrepresentation. He continues to support it for more than 2 and 1/2 months I dispute his position - its that simple. But Keith manufactures some idea that it makes no sense to dispute the hypothesis if one disputes the overrepresentation ... They are both your assertions Keith. The final and most absurd of Keiths claims is that his position is supported by mountains of "unknown" evidence. Fascinating! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Apr 11 - 03:57 AM Keith - you are basing a total condemnation of a whole culture on a tiny handful of unexamined and unanalysed cases. You are providing no overall numbers, or the pertaining conditions, rather, you rely on parrot like repetitions of your tiny handful of examples you have managed to dredge up, repeating them over and over and over and over...... again - on you past record, I doubt if you have read those properly. This is not evidence - it's a chanted mantra In the course of this you have cynically used the suffering of young women, sneering and even laughing at what has happened to them because you thought it enabled you to score points, then almost drowning us in a flood of your crocodile tears in order to try and extract yourself from the clarts your sneering had got you into. On this basis you have insult and demeaned a whole people, making you an obsessed racist who, in your campaign, has also insulted the intelligence and integrity of almost every other contributor to this thread. And you are on your own - which is the way it should be. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 15 Apr 11 - 01:24 AM Lox, on-street grooming may not be a new crime type, but it is a crime. It was the subject of The Dando Institute Survey and is the subject of follow up studies by CEOPs and BBC. There are many hundreds of victims. It exists. My case was and is that BPs are over-represented as offenders for this specific crime. I also reported cultural explanations that were nothing to do with me. I do not care about the explanations. You are totally obsessed! Yet you deny there is anything to explain! Post your supposed contradictions again. They damage your case and help mine. I am quite happy to leave them unchallenged. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 14 Apr 11 - 06:52 PM Blimey, How could I have missed this ... From the same post: "No I am not going to respond." and "I still dispute any contradiction." or in other words - I refuse to accept the evidence in front of me - but I have no good reason for denying it. Why do you dispute the victims contradiction of your hypothesis Keith? Are they lying? Why won't you believe them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:44 PM "It was what was IN THE TITLE of the Dando Institute Report." Mmmm hmmm .... That was the title of the investigation. Keith - do you know what came after the title? The actual report. Do you know where the information actually is? is it (a) in the title or (b) in the reports conclusions The answer is (b) ... the title is just telling you the subject under investigation. So what were the conclusions? The researchers who conducted the report state clearly that they are concerned about people misrepresenting the data into a new crime type. What alleged crime type do you suppose they are talking about Keith? is it (a) Poaching (b) indecent exposure or (c) Street grooming hmmm ... I'll give you a clue its in the title of the report ... any luck? ... oh blast that alzheimers ... The answer is (c) Street grooming. The Dando report authors clarify that Street grooming is not a new crime type. So what is your response to that inconvenient, and very specific and literal contradiction to your position Keith? Will you go and sulk in the corner and refuse to respond to that one as well? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:31 PM So to clarify, You have presented a hypothesis, which you described, literally and specifgically as your hypothesis. This Hypothesis is that Pakistanis are predisposed to trafficking and rape due to cultural restrictions on their sexuality. And you state that this hypothesis originates with Straw, Cryer, Ahmed etc, who refer to young men (fizzing and popping with testosterone) being forced to act out their sexual urges on unwilling children. It is in fact the whole purpose of you entering this discussion. It is your whole purpose for trying to establish some kind of overrepresentation. You agree that it is a cultural issue and you are trying to prove it. You have shown great interest in it up til now. Yet you have suddenly lost interest ever since it became clear that the victims testimony clearly and unequivocally contradicts your hypothesis. Why are you ignoring the victims Keith? They are telling you something very specific. They are telling you that their ordeal is a consequence of organized crime. Why won't you believe the victims Keith? How can you ignore the testimony of these raped children Keith? Hmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:29 PM Woops! I forgot the convictions again. 53 out of 56 BPs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:22 PM Jim, "And still you have failed to provide any evidence for your claim I say your "massive over-representation" claims are all your own invention and ask for proof - without response of course." Here it is again. You must have missed it. BPs are a minority group. They should be a minority of any group of offenders. They are a majority in this crime, making a massive over-representation. Evidence. Victims' families went to Straw and Cryer. They all said BPs were the perps. For these polticians to make public such a sensitive issue tells us that significant numbers were involved. Hillary Wilmer. Hundreds of cases. She states that the perps were ALL BPs. Bindel. Interviewed large numbers of victims. All perps BPs. Sikh ans Hindu groups also raise the same issues. Senior police officers state this is mainly a crime of BPs Saffiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown from within the BP community ALL stated that this is a real issue for BPs. I am just talking about on-street grooming by groups. I have always acknowledged from long before you came on the scene that BPs are under-represented in other crimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Apr 11 - 04:50 PM And still you have failed to provide any evidence for your claim I say your "massive over-representation" claims are all your own invention and ask for proof - without response of course. "You have made an arse of yourself all over again." And you howl at the moon all on your own by substituting invective for argument - where is your proof, and where is your support if I am the arse? "But you come in and demand we not talk about that....." Where have I or anybody, apart from yourself, demanded we don't talk about anything - I don't expect an answer to this one of course - It is you who has contantly attempted to take propriotorship of this thread, not me, nor any other participant. Sleep well - and maybe tomorrow you'll emerge from behind your cut-'n-pastes! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 11 - 04:12 PM Jim, "No you're not - you are attempting to confine the discussion to your ignorance zone. It is a totally artificial division to separate different types of grooming and the only reason you are attempting to do so is you believe there to be racist capital to be made from it." Shite. On-street grooming was what Straw was talking about when he made this the main news story of that week. It was what was IN THE TITLE of the Dando Institute Report. It was what Cryer had been making an issue of for years. It is what Wilmer's CROP was set up to deal with. it is what all thase senior police officers were talking about. But you come in and demand we not talk about that because it is mainly a crime of BPs and you have no case against it. You actually are ridiculous. You have made an arse of yourself all over again. Thanks Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Apr 11 - 03:26 PM "I can not stop you confusing the issue with other crimes, but this crime is what I am discussing" No you're not - you are attempting to confine the discussion to your ignorance zone. It is a totally artificial division to separate different types of grooming and the only reason you are attempting to do so is you believe there to be racist capital to be made from it. "You want to change the subject because you can not make a case." There is no case to make - you still have not provided one single shred of evidence to back your claims and while you continue to fail to do so you you expose yourself to being a racist. What is your case and why have you been trying to give the impression it is not just yours - you have no produced evidence to back up what you claim. Where did your 'massive over-representation come from as applied to the Pakistani community as a whole - if not from your own twisted brain. "5 times the number of criminals being discussed here." No - we were discussing the 56 convictions which you have tried to base your 'over-representation' claim on - I pointed out the anti internet phaedophelie raids in the first place (and did ot have to look them up as you have just done) - remember. "Unless you claim they are racist, it is ridiculous to accuse me." I am not accusing them of being racist, nor am I contradicting their isolated personal findings - I am accusing you of being a racist because of the way you have manipulated and edited and presented out of contex and lied about what they have to say in order to do exactly what they warned against; using it to make racist points - it is you that is the racist, not they. "It can hardly be construed as racist to abbreviate British Pakistani to BP." I didn't say it was, but you have obviously taken the point that it is and have spinelessly made my using it as an excuse for your doing so. "You are ridiculous." More empty invective - and yet it is still you who is on your own here. You have behaved abominably on this thread - you have lied, you have distorted, you have ignored points others have made and claimed they have not made them, and you have claimed to have had evidence you simply are unable to produce, and whanever you have been challenged you have hidden behind your self-apponted 'messenger role. Don't you wish you had stayed away just a little longer, and maybe read up a little on the subject you are making such a balls of? And I withdraw my Doctor Goebells remark - at least he hid his anti-Semitism behind some pseudo- scientific mumbo-jumbo - you have just lied badly and obviously. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 11 - 03:21 PM No I am not going to respond. I do not care what these wicked, evil crimes "resulted from." I do not care what opinions are expressed about that, but after all you said I still dispute any contradiction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 14 Apr 11 - 03:04 PM "Your argument is ludicrous." I haven't presented an argument, I have made note of the fact that The victims account contradicts the opinion of Straw etc. One set of witnesses gives their 'opinion'; that these crimes resulted from frustrated young mens uncontrollable need to fulfil sexual urges repressed by their culture. The other set of witnesses state their 'experience' that these crimes were premiditated by highly organized trafficking gangs. These are clearly two contradictory assessments of the nature and causes of these crimes. Are you able to respond to that point? Your adoring fans are pinning their hopes on you ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 11 - 02:39 PM Lox, "Straw, Cryer et all, say that these crimes are the result of young men, fizzing and popping with testosterone, whose urge to sow their wild oats is frustrated by their culture. The victims say that the fizzing and popping of young mens testosterone is not responsible, they are merely used as Bait." Some of the young men were part of the rape gangs. The ones with the smart clothes and flash cars. There were also some very young boys. Your argument is ludicrous. Straw and Cryer stated that this is a BP problem. All the victims state that their abusers were BPs. If they did it driven by testosterone, that makes no difference and excuses nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 11 - 02:32 PM Jim, "The last swoop on internet abuse alone netted something like 5 times the number of criminals being discussed here." The police hailed it as the biggest ring in the world. 264 victims worldwide. This crime has hundreds of victims from just a small part of Britain. I can not stop you confusing the issue with other crimes, but this crime is what I am discussing, and it was what Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Wilmer, Allibhai-Brown and the Dando Institute were all referring to. You want to change the subject because you can not make a case. The Dando Report was about 17 cases involving 56 convictions. 95% BPs. Again you try to make a case based on me being a bad person. It will not work. It can hardly be construed as racist to abbreviate British Pakistani to BP. That is ridiculous. Referring to the crime, I have said no more than Ahmed, Saffiq and Allibhai-Brown, all BPs and proud defenders of their community against racism and bigotry. Unless you claim they are racist, it is ridiculous to accuse me. But that is all you can do. You are ridiculous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 14 Apr 11 - 02:15 PM "I do not accept that there are any contradictions." I see, well lets look at this again then. Straw, Cryer et all, say that these crimes are the result of young men, fizzing and popping with testosterone, whose urge to sow their wild oats is frustrated by their culture. The victims say that the fizzing and popping of young mens testosterone is not responsible, they are merely used as Bait. So one source say it is young mens need for sexual release, and the other says it isn't. Those are opposing viewpoints. They contradict each other. On what basis do you not accept that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Apr 11 - 01:01 PM "17 multi-victim court cases. Perpetrators 95% BPs " Just as we have been saying - your case for massive over-representation is based entirely on 17 criminals Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Apr 11 - 12:58 PM " Jim, if you want to bring in unrelated crimes, you will just create a new debate." I won't have to do anything of the sort - and coming from someone who has deliberately manipulated a thread from one on Muslim prejudice into an attack on British Pakistanis, you have to be joking!!! When will you understand that YOU DO NOT OWN THIS THREAD. You are still failing to provide any proof to your claims and attempting to keep this thread within your self-confessed ignorant comfort zone. Grooming is grooming, the only difference is the stage on which it takes place. On street grooming has been part of street life for as long as we have had streets - today it is believed to be one of the one of the main ways that the Eastern European gangs stock up on victims. Apart from anything else, attempting to discriminate between different types of grooming in realation to cultural groups is the equivilent of saying you're only going to count left handed groomers - read my preveios letter on the matter. "I do not dispute what you say about internet grooming and loner grooming, but the numbers of victims are comparatively small." WHAT?????? The last swoop on internet abuse alone netted something like 5 times the number of criminals being discussed here. "Lox, the over-rep is a matter of fact." NO IT ISN'T - you are the only one claiming it - prove it. Good old Dr Goebells technique of repeating a lie until it becomes accepted YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE CLAIMING THIS AND YOU ARE REFUSING TO PROVIDE PROOF TO BACK IT UP - IT IS PART OF YOUR RACIST PSYCHE - IT IS NOT TRUE - WERE IS YOUR PROOF OF IT AND WHO ELSE IS SAYING IT APART FROM YOU??? You are still failing to produce any evidence for your claims - so lets play it your way You are a racist who has decided to mount an attack on the British Pakistani population. In order to do so you have manufactured a case for there being an over -representation (a massive one, you have repeated 28 times). You have done this in order to project your own racist prejudices. Much of this is self evident from your massive number of contributions, but even if it weren't, I would have no need whatever to justify my statement as you do not feel the need to justify your continual racist ones - where do we go from here?. "Jim used BP as an abbreviation in one of his posts." Absolutely pathetic, justifying your general approach by using one slip on my part (my having picked up on your constant repetition of the term), just as you did when you doctored Jack Straw's statement. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 11 - 12:28 PM Unknown numbers. The Dando report. 17 multi-victim court cases. Perpetrators 95% BPs |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 11 - 12:21 PM Unknown numbers. Wilmer states 400 cases, all BP offenders. Cryer and Straw. Unknown numbers but for Left Wing politicians to speak out publicly on such a sensitive issue, the numbers must be significant. Now, where are there enough cases of non BP offenders to make those BPs a minority? Not a rhetorical question Lox. You have had three months and produced nothing, because there are NONE. I do not accept that there are any contradictions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 14 Apr 11 - 11:30 AM "Unknown numbers" Indeed? - mountains and mountains of unknown and unseen evidence? So how come you know so much about it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 14 Apr 11 - 11:27 AM "Unknown numbers who told their stories to Straw and Cryer." According to Straw and cryer that is ... but the available victim testimony contradicts them ... ... so either their testimony is unreliable, or the testimony we have actually seen is unreliable ... Which would you see was more reliable Keith ... the victim testimony we have all seen or the testimony you believe Straw and Cryer are giving an accurate picture of? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 14 Apr 11 - 11:21 AM "What superior knowledge has been revealed to you? I have no reason to disagree with such people, and no reason to believe the likes of you!" The victims evidence directly contradicts their view. So if you see ne reason to disagree with them then you must be ignoring the victims. Whay aren't you listening to the victims Keitth? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 11 - 10:50 AM Jack Straw offered the explanation. You disagreed with it. Culture based explanations were also provided by Cryer, Ahmed, Saffiq and Allibhai-Brown. You knew better than all! How did you? What superior knowledge has been revealed to you? I have no reason to disagree with such people, and no reason to believe the likes of you! In any case, the explanation is not an issue to me. Give me a more plausible one and I will drop it, but really I don't care. You refer again to three victims only. The Bindel pieces refer to about six. Unknown numbers who told their stories to Straw and Cryer. Hundreds who told their stories to Wilmer. Many more Sikhs and Hindus. Many, many hundreds and said to be the tip of an iceberg. Is no one going to respond to Lively? I tend to agree with him, but I would like him to make clear where he stands on the over-representation. He did say it was wrong to dismiss "tip of iceberg" statements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 14 Apr 11 - 10:37 AM "I do not understand your obsession with explaining something you claim not to believe. I am not interested in any explanation." Jack Straw offered the explanation. I disagreed with it. You joined the discussion to defend it, and state that you still believe it. You continue to defend it, even though it is contradicted by the victims testimony. Why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 14 Apr 11 - 10:34 AM "If all the victims say their abusers were BPs, that proves the over-representation. If you deny one you deny both. " No Keith. Another logical non sequitir. There are three testimonies on this thread from girls who have been abused by British Pakistanis. They tell us nothing about Pakistani representation in trafficking and rape crimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 11 - 09:59 AM Lox, I need an abbreviation. Please provide an acceptable one if BP is unacceptable. Jim used BP as an abbreviation in one of his posts. I do not understand your obsession with explaining something you claim not to believe. I am not interested in any explanation. The cultural explanation was for those involved in the grooming and/or raping of the children. That would hardly apply to the youngest of the boys acting as bait. They were said to be schoolmates or even classmates of the victims. If all the victims say their abusers were BPs, that proves the over-representation. If you deny one you deny both. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 14 Apr 11 - 09:31 AM By the way, just to clarify ... MP is a standard abbreviation for either Member of Parliament or Military Policeman. BP is a standard abbreviation for British Petroleum. All of the above abbreviations are self imposed. BP is not a standard abbreviation for Pakistanis of British origin, nor is it self imposed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 14 Apr 11 - 09:26 AM "You deny that this is mainly a crime of BPs. The victims all say their abusers are BPs." mm hmm ... and do the victims say that this is mainly a crime of Pakistanis? No they don't The victims do state that young boys were used as bait by highly organized criminals. Your "experts" say that young boys are driven to these crimes by sexual repression. That is a contradiction. Which testimony do you believe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 11 - 09:08 AM Lox, "1. Show me where I have disputed or contradicted any victim testimony." You deny that this is mainly a crime of BPs. The victims all say their abusers are BPs. "do you still believe the opinion of Jack Straw, Anne Cryer, Lord Ahmed etc? " Yes, but only because of their superior knowledge and experience. How are you CERTAIN that they are wrong? Voices? I do not accept that they contradict victims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 14 Apr 11 - 09:00 AM "Lox, the over-rep is a matter of fact. The explanation is opinion, and I am not interested. The victims all state that their abusers were BPs. I believe them. Why won't you? " 1. Show me where I have disputed or contradicted any victim testimony. 2. You state that you believe the opinion of Anne cryer, Jack Straw, Lord Ahmed and others, but in doing so you are taking an opposite position to the Victims whose evidence flatly contradicts that opinion. So to clarify your opinion, do you still believe the opinion of Jack Straw, Anne Cryer, Lord Ahmed etc? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 11 - 08:42 AM Jim, if you want to bring in unrelated crimes, you will just create a new debate. I do not dispute what you say about internet grooming and loner grooming, but the numbers of victims are comparatively small. Returning to on-street grooming by groups, we have many hundreds of victims where the perps. are BPs, and so far none where the perps are from any other group. You would need many thousands of such to make BPs minority offenders. I say there are few if any. You can not produce any at all. Lox, the over-rep is a matter of fact. The explanation is opinion, and I am not interested. The victims all state that their abusers were BPs. I believe them. Why won't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Apr 11 - 08:23 AM "Do not try to claim that some imaginary rules remove any requirement of evidence from you." No imaginary rules - the burden of proof lies entirely with the accuser - how could it be otherwise, expecially as you have not provided an iota of evidence to back up your claims of over-representation or massive over-representation, nor do you intend to do so. How can we disprove what you have not proved "You claim there are more than many hundreds, but you choose not to produce them." I merely totted up the cases you have provided so far and pointed out that they wouldn't even make the needle twitch - it is up to you to substantiate your claims. Any nasty little racist can make unsubstantiated claims implicating any section of the population - they have in the past and they no doubt will continue to do in the future - just as you are doing here. "Can you help Jim find the many thousands of non BP cases needed to make BPs minority offenders?" Don't need any help - I have already done this here - internet grooming by non-Pakistanis alone would put your pitiful numbers into non-existence, and that's without counting the street grooming, outside schools, childrens parks and playgrounds, date rape drugs - that is part of indigenous British culture and history and has been from time immemorial - even Jack Straw admitted it in his statement. As you have been accused on every thread I've met you on, you deliberately fail to read what others have posted because you have no answer. Where is your evidence of "over-representation or massive over-representation?" It is your accusation - prove it. And your continued rhetoric of my being ridiculous continues to make me believe that evidence does not exist and you are substituting it for real argument - if I am ridiculous, we are all ridiculous - why have you no support here? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Lox Date: 14 Apr 11 - 08:14 AM "Lox, a cultural explanation has been put forward. I believe it, but only because of the stature of the proposers and absence of any alternative." The victims testimony contradicts that cultural explanation. Do you still believe the cultural explanation or do you believe the victims? |