BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 01:50 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 02:07 AM

Ollaimh, you know nothing about us, yet you hate us with a vengeance.
Had you used my links, or Googled Ahmed yourself, you would know that he is no blue blood aristo!

He is a BP and the son of an immigrant.
He is a lifelong socialist who has worked tirelessly for the poorest of that community.
The Labour party put him in the Lords to continue his work there.
No better witness. Why do you dismiss and discredit such a man?

Don, I made no ad hominem attack, just a generalised insult to people unable to distinguish culture and race.

Unlike other "istans" Pakistan is not named for any single tribal group.
It has been a separate country only since the partition.
Pakistanis in Britain form a well defined and distinct cultural group.
First cousin marriage for instance is part of their culture but not based in Islam or any racial characteristic.

Don, when you flounced out you threw a groundless slur on many contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 04:04 AM

BTW Don, I think that the culture of first cousin marriage is wrong, because it has led to the suffering and deaths of thousands of BP children.
Your opinion?
Be warned, Lox has decreed that "A theory that wilfully and exclusively discriminates on Racial/cultural grounds is a racist one."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 04:49 AM

The issue of first-cousin marriages is very complex in both social and genetic terms and is certainly not just an issue for British Pakistanis. You need to do a lot more research to support your opinion, Keith. I have a feeling you'll struggle with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:09 AM

So you want to have the last racist word and then have the thread closed. Tell me, are all Christians like you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:28 AM

Poster is "Jon"
EDL

Britain is a Christian country

You reckon?

This will never be allowed to happen.

I suspect you are right that it will not become a Muslim state. But it won't be because of or for Christianity.

----
Tell me, are all Christians like you?

Are all athiests like you or all they all like MtheGM?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:30 AM

EDL

Britain is a Christian country

You reckon?

This will never be allowed to happen.

I suspect you are right that it will not become a Muslim state. But it won't be because of or for Christianity.

----
Tell me, are all Christians like you?

Are all athiests like you or all they all like MtheGM?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:59 AM

These last 3 posts seem to be in response to an odd one from one EDL which seems to have been deleted; so they are rather flapping about in a vacuum, as happens when a post gets deleted but the replies to it don't.

You mention me, GUESTJon; but I don't quite get your point in doing so. Would you care to elucidate?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 06:13 AM

Sure MtheGM, I was responding to the Steve Shaw posting "Tell me, are all Christians like you?" The he was commenting on was made by someone else and has been deleted so I guess that adds to the confusion.

The reasons I picked on your name was I thought you had stated "religion is rubbish" (so atheist assumed) earlier and that you and Steve disagree quite hotly over most things in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 06:20 AM

Ah, thank you, Jon.

Not sure why EDL's post was deleted. IIRC it appeared somewhat racist & chauvinistic, but not all that unduly so in comparison with some. Did someone complain to the elves, maybe; or what?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 06:32 AM

Could even have been an accidental deletion, MtheGM, eg. intending to combine out my nameless post and apology for no name and clicking the wrong delete link...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 06:38 AM

It is estimated that at least 55% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins and the tradition is also common among some other South Asian communities and in some Middle Eastern countries.

British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with genetic disorders than the general population - they account for just over 3% of all births but have just under a third of all British children with such illnesses.

Indeed, Birmingham Primary Care Trust estimates that one in ten of all children born to first cousins in the city either dies in infancy or goes on to develop serious disability as a result of a recessive genetic disorder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm

Their culture predisposes BP children to genetic disease.
Is it racist to say that?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 06:43 AM

Also, there is a theory that some racial groups have prowess in certain sports.
E.g. NW Africans seem to excel in marathons.
Racist?
But Lox says, "A theory that wilfully and exclusively discriminates on Racial/cultural grounds is a racist one."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 07:03 AM

my uncle married his first cousin, neither of them were Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM

What's your point, Dick? Nobody has claimed it as an exclusively Muslim or Pakistani custom; simply that it is far more prevalent in such communities than in many others. Your having pointed out an exception does not invalidate this.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 08:01 AM

I have an uncle who did not marry a cousin GSS, so I'm afraid that demolishes your otherwise excellent point GSS.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 09:17 AM

The genetic risk from first-cousin unions depends on repetition of the practice down generations. There is a similar level of genetic risk resulting from the practice of western women having their babies older and older. If you have a baby at 40 you're taking approximately the same risk as you would be in a one-off first-cousin union. You're taking risks for your baby if you drink, smoke or abuse substances, or if you're obese or otherwise malnourished. I'm interested to know why this particular issue has been homed in on here. No, let me guess....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:01 PM

I have not "homed in" on that issue Steve.
It was just one of the examples I used to show that it is legitimate to discuss how predispositions may arise from cultural and racial differences.

You are wrong to state ". There is a similar level of genetic risk resulting from the practice of western women having their babies older and older."
There is not, but anyway your theory falls foul of Lox's edict.
He would have to call it a racist theory.
Are you happy with that?

People like you, Lox and Don use that accusation as a means of censorship, to close down any debate that challenges your ideological dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:06 PM

Ist cousins are very weird. I never knew my first cousins: they were sisters and they lived on the other side of the country.

Any waY i used to follow this band around called Brownsville Banned. When you think of all the bands in EnglaND - THEY HAD A PRETTY SMALL FOLLOWING.

Years later I found out that both sisters had married two of the guys in the band. We had been in the same room and not known.

Sorry thread drift. But iys not as though you're going to reach a denoument in the next five centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: ollaimh
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:35 PM

we live in an upside down world that would have shocked george orwell. criticizing an empire thst pushed drugs in china, muddered innoncent native children profited from the slave trade for three centuries before they got religion, and murders its own citizens on bloody sunday is now hate.

well keith you are so delusional ans ignorant that hate is probably the only real idea you can master.

the american continue on with military cap[iitalism, frrely killing civilians in iraq. see the wikkileaks video of good ole american boys gunning down a cameraman and a van full of children try to help the wounded, while laughing at them.

to get people to commit atrocities you have to get them to self dehumanize. that's done with the ideology of empres and the perversions of re;igion called the anglicam church(among others). people don't easily kill. in the first world war they found the recruits would only fire their gins about seven per cent of the time, so you have to motivate them with perverted religion and ideology, and they still do it.

for the purveyors of this perverted religion to be criticizing muslums is the height of hypocracy but we live in a wicked age when the liars cheats and killers are aok if they can find some spin.

the fact remain that muslims have no worse record that the british empire. many times they have no better a record but islam isn't to blame for the abuses in the world today. military capitalism shoulders most of the blame.

and its the height of shameless hypocracy for the house of lords or any british institution to be pointing fingers untill they clean their own house. the way thats done is by confessing the pasr rather than pertending it didn't happen or to pretend that evil done was somehow justified. thats what truth and reconcilliation commissions are about--i\d love to see one for the british and american empires but that willhave to wait untill the chinese rule the world.

as to the two types of deities. many religions recognize the jealous gods as a lesser form of deity. they have devas and ashuras, also called ahuras, titans and jealous gods. the ideology of the old testiment is that of self confessed jealous gods. gods of war and power. well thats what most of the followers have been up to and maybe christians should consider that. muslums as well.

finally the reason the bhopal disaster victums got so little and the bp got so much (or will get so much)is that the bp abuses were subjrect to american litigation which has a high value on compensation to even the werakest and pooreest .while the indian system puts very low compensation on the harm done to the lower classes. so does any body know where the indian government got their legal system? the one that puts almost no value on lower calss suffering and death. guess???

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: ollaimh
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 12:43 PM

and individual muslims who commit crimes are no more committing muslim crimes that individual christians who commit crimes are commiting christian crimes, to say other wise is in fact spreading hate, real hate not just imaginary hate as back sass from the colonies. oh the brits on these lists do hate the back sass from the colonies--n reminders of how they pillaged raped and plundered the world.

now the difference is when it is the stated aim of governmet policy and established church. which the british imperial abuse is. that is general responsibility of the people in question and that does requre some fessin up before forgiveness can be given. instead keith and others are pointing fingers again at others in hopes their own evils will be missed.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 01:19 PM

Ollaimh.
"its the height of shameless hypocracy for the house of lords or any british institution to be pointing fingers untill they clean their own house."

Er, they are not.

"and individual muslims who commit crimes are no more committing muslim crimes that individual christians who commit crimes are commiting christian crimes"

Er, obviousdly not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 02:38 PM

You are wrong to state ". There is a similar level of genetic risk resulting from the practice of western women having their babies older and older."

I notice you left out half of what I said. The risk of birth defects from having a baby at 40 is comparable to that of having a baby resulting from a one-off first-cousin union. I went to the trouble of wording it carefully and you come along and misrepresent it. Tsk.


There is not, but anyway your theory falls foul of Lox's edict.
He would have to call it a racist theory.
Are you happy with that?

I have no idea what you're talking about. My statement is a neutral stating of the position. I didn't even mention race. Wassup, Keith?

People like you, Lox and Don use that accusation as a means of censorship, to close down any debate that challenges your ideological dogma.

But Keith, we've been debating with you 'til the cows have long gone home and there's not a whiff of censorship in sight. Now why don't you go and have a nice pint of McMullen's at the Old Barge.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 04:22 PM

Censorship.
I said that the accusation of racism is used to close down debate.
As you say, it did not work here.

The risk of chromosome disorders increases to a maximum of about 1 in 21 at age 45.
The risk of genetic disease given in the BBC report was 1 in 10 for first cousins.
More than double.

I agree that the statement was neutral, but it was based on culture.
That makes it a racist theory by Lox's edict.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:29 PM

"I agree that the statement was neutral, but it was based on culture.
That makes it a racist theory by Lox's edict. "

I see that Keith is still making shit up in my absence.

Keith, pay attention.

The reason that we know that procreation between cousins creates a higher risk of birth defects is that volume upon volume of medical research has been done on the subject.

There is no research anywhere that deals with any alleged link between British Pakistani or Moslem culture and the crimes of British Pakistani pimps.

Keiths generalized cultural behavioural profile of British Pakistani men is not based on any research, but purely on his amateur anthropological musings.


Same strategy - make shit up and continue to refuse to answer your opponents arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 05:43 PM

Keith....They are starting to babble ....how long can they attempt to refute the excellents points you make, with incoherent gibberish

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 11 - 07:37 PM

Achy old bean, Keith's "excellent points", especially with regard to his birth defect statistics, are totally inaccurate. A little googling will reveal all. And note that my statement was based on neither race nor culture. He wants it to be, but, sadly for him, it wasn't, and it never actually occurred to me to make it so.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:27 AM

Steve, it was not a good point, and clearly not well put.
I was referring to your remark about western women having babies later.
That references Western culture so comes under Lox's edict, is all I was saying.
If my stats are wrong I am sorry, but they came from an authoritative site. I will be surprised if you find different.

Lox, I do not need to make shit up.
You gave us your clear definition of what constitutes a racist theory.
I just applied it to a few situations.

And Lox, we need no experts to tell us that a sexually deprived male may be predisposed to this kind of offence, albeit just the weak and wicked.
Extrapolate that to a whole tightly knit community of overlapping extended families, and you have a reasonable explanation for the known fact that they are massively over represented in this crime.

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:59 AM

Site used for stats.
http://www.acog.org/publications/patient_education/bp094.cfm

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,alan Whittle
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 03:30 AM

same old, same old then......

Lets get one thing straight....the other bloke is wrong. A bit of a bounder!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lara Logan
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 06:00 AM

All this is a lot more complex than most of think. I agree totally with Keith, I simply don't understand the case of defence put up by Steve.

In Saudi Arabia and other countries where the genders are rigorously separated, many men have their first sexual experiences with other men, which affects their attitudes toward sex in marriage. Many men who had anal sex with men before marriage want the same thing with their wives, because they don't know anything else. This is one reason they need sex education in their schools.


Pashtun men commonly have sex with other men, admire other men physically, have sexual relationships with boys and shun women both socially and sexually — yet they completely reject the label of "homosexual."

Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot "love" another man — but that doesn't mean they can't use men for "sexual gratification."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 06:27 AM

Let's leave it here before more "Laras" join us.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 07:26 AM

Lara Logan is prominent in a report in this morning's papers. This from The Times ~~

TV REPORTER [Lara Logan] WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED AND BEATEN BY MOB OF 200 IN TAHRIR SQUARE

An 'analysis' insert by James Hider reads:~

The frenzy of the sexual assault on CBS correspondent Lara Logan shocked many people, but a woman being sexually harassed was not surprising. Egypt has a terrible reputation for men molesting women, especially foreigners, who are seen by many of the poorer-educated men as having looser morals. Few women visit Egypt without encountering some abuse. While many brush it off, there is a sinister aspect.

The results of a 2008 survey by the Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights found that 83% of Egyptian women have suffered some form of sexual abuse ~ and that rises to a staggering 98% among foreign women.

Part of the problem is a culture of impunity, with inadequate laws and a corrupt and incompetent police force. Women are often led to believe they are to blame for any sex abuse and discouraged from reporting abuse.

60% of men in the 2008 survey admitted harassment, and they are often shocked when Western women they have groped turn on them, shouting or kicking them.


Further comment would be superfluous.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 08:06 AM

OK, so western women was a somewhat loose expression (the expression, not the women) which was intended to mean women in the US, UK, Europe... I could have said it better, but had I been arguing against me I doubt that I would have been arsed to up the ante over it. Women in the west are not a race, neither do they all share the same culture, so it's hard to know what else I could refer to them as. The point is that the trend for, er, these groups to have children later in life has increased, slightly, the risk of birth defects. For all I know that could be sperm, eggs or both contributing to that. I have no axe to grind. The statistic I quoted was that the slightly-increased risk of a birth defect arising from a birth to a 40-year-old is approximately the same as that from a one-off first-cousin union. Now that's the third time I've typed "one-off," and I did indicate that the risk increases in cases where serial first-cousin marriages occur. I did also point out the other, equally-important, elective risk factors. Saying all this is not in any way meant to be tendentious. I'm just saying it. Though, I repeat, I do wonder why it's come up in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 08:12 AM

Sorry I raised that issue Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:44 PM

""Don, I made no ad hominem attack, just a generalised insult to people unable to distinguish culture and race.""

Of whom you are obviously one. So are you calling yourself a moron?

The fact that there are a number of targets, rather than a single one, does not change the ad hominem nature of the slur.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:47 PM

""Gosh, and being somewhat amused...was that a compliment?..because I was ACCURATE in describing a reality??.....or an opportunity to use my words to illustrate clearer, some 'name calling' by innuendo, that You're attempting?..or both??...nonetheless, you're use of "GonefromSanity" demonstrates you're own participation in such activities, (as per fore accurately describe by me), and puts you in a rather awkward circumstance!...not only that, if I'm "GonefromSanity", but accurate, and you call accuracy, "GONE", well, (and with a big grin on my face), May I suggest you, that if you are so disconnected from separating and equating accuracy (in the calling of a situation),....and then proceed to do the same thing, without the awareness of what you are doing........well, need I say more????""

And for those of us whose first language is English........??

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 02:57 PM

""Also, there is a theory that some racial groups have prowess in certain sports.
E.g. NW Africans seem to excel in marathons.
Racist?""

No, not racist. Just inaccurate and meaningless.

If you ever took the trouble to do your homework you would be aware that it is not being a North West African which gives them this extra ability, but being born and living at high altitude.

Virtually all of this group of marathon runners hail from territory in excess of 7000 feet above sea level.

But then, you admit to lacking the stamina to read posts on this forum, if they are more than a few sentences long, which possibly explains why you get your opinions pre-digested from self styled experts.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 03:14 PM

""Censorship.
I said that the accusation of racism is used to close down debate.
As you say, it did not work here.""

Of course it didn't, because the only one determined to close down debate is your good (though prejudiced) self.

Lox, Steve, and I have been asking throughout for you to discuss i.e. read our posts, respond to our posts, and admit and discuss the possibility of another reason for the problem than that Muslim British Pakistanis are culturally predisposed to paedophile rape and trafficking.

You are the one who cannot (by your own admission) be bothered to examine what others have to say on the subject.

So how do you expect to find out what our position is?......OSMOSIS?

Now, I am supposed to be recovering from a heart attack, and you are just beginning to piss me off with your hidebound, self righteous capacity for seeing in everybody else the faults you possess in abundance.

Enjoy!

Don T

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 04:52 PM

Awaw tae yer knittin'!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Feb 11 - 05:37 PM

Don T: "And for those of us whose first language is English........??"


Huh?...Somehow that connection got by me....but, as pointed out by my previous post, of which you're commenting on, your response makes sense to me, in the fact that it makes no sense, (or disconnected sense from disconnected thought patterns) from you!....

We've gotten to expect these sort of things from you!


...Unless it was a joke?..quip?....ummm..I give up....


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 01:47 AM

Don, you obviously do not read MY posts!
I have said repeatedly that it is not the race, or the religion, but the culture of BPs that I believe has led so many of them into this crime.
It is utterly groundless to say I do not distinguish race and culture, which would be moronic, wouldn't it? (and not ad hominem!!)
I have not made mistakes like that about anyone's posts.

If YOU read posts how could you say this about contributors here??
"There are NO alternatives for them. Muslims are all evil, oppressive, chauvinist, paedophile rapists, made so by their cultural upbringing."
Totally and utterly groundless Don, and offensive to decent people.

You might be right that adaptation to altitude is a factor in NW Africans' predisposition to marathon running (though you might expect more Swiss marathon runners.)

My point was that it is OK for you or anyone to theorise about it.

The theory I have described is that the over representation may be caused by a culture that denies men any intimate relationships before a late marriage.

Not unreasonable.
Of all the alternative explanations that you and Lox have put forward, which would you say is the most reasonable Don??

Having said all that, I am very glad that you saw off that heart attack, and wish you a full recovery.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:03 AM

Er, I meant NE Africans, ie Ethiopia and Kenya.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:26 AM

""Of all the alternative explanations that you and Lox have put forward, which would you say is the most reasonable Don??""

You've tried that route too often. You said yourself that you don't bother reading our posts.

Read the bloody posts, then you might know the answer to the above question.

1. At least half a dozen others have pointed out that Paedophilia, Rape and Trafficking are not intrinsically religious crimes, but committed by criminals of every class and culture.

2. The circumstance you describe regarding Muslim restrictions on sex might lead to promiscuous sex outside their own community, but, with the number of willing and promiscuous young women available in almost every town in Britain, why would that lead to the crimes under discussion? The easiest and safest course would be to avail themselves of those girls and avoid the risk of jail.

3. The obvious conclusion is that they are first predisposed to these crimes, and only incidentally British Muslim Pakistanis. It happens that a number of cases have appeared in an area where there is an anomalously high population of Pakistanis, and it is no surprise that the gangs are composed primarily of such, given that most of the surrounding white population share your view of immigrant minorities.

Don T.

P.S. Keith will only read the first four lines or so, bless him. It's all his attention span can manage.

P.P.S. Akenaton, you have added nothing of value in the last three hundred posts. Why not just STFU and leave it to those who have.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:31 AM

""I have said repeatedly that it is not the race, or the religion, but the culture of BPs that I believe has led so many of them into this crime.""

Their Culture is an integral part of their Religion and of their Race. Explain to me how you remove the precepts of Islam and the Pakistani Heritage, and are left with a separate entity identifiable as "Culture".

And I do wish you would show them the respect of dropping that dehumanising BPs tag.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 10:39 AM

Don, I would just like to know which of the alternative suggestions YOU find most convincing.
No amount of my reading will answer that.

Your point 1.
No one could possibly disagree with that.
What is the point of that point?

Your point 2.
"The easiest and safest course would be to avail themselves of those girls and avoid the risk of jail."

The expert witnesses did address that.
It appears, despite your low opinion, that most girls are hoping for some kind of relationship, and only the young and naive do not realise that these men are all promised in marriage.

Your point 3.
Even in these areas, BPs are not the majority.
But these areas are the hot spots and BPs are overwhelmingly responsible.

Your best explanation?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 11:28 AM

The BP culture is quite different to other British Moslem cultural groups, e.g. Somali, Turkish, Arab, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 11:31 AM

Keith,


Its time you defined British Pakistani culture.


Your hypothesis is based on yor implied claim that you have a comprehensive understanding of it.


If you don't claim to understand it then it is more logical bullshit to claim that you can hold it responsible for anything.


Then once you have accurately defined it in a way that stands scrutiny, you can clarify exactly which common feature of British Pakistani culture makes them more likely to enslave and rape underage girls than other cultures.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 11:43 AM

I read in the Metro this morning that the ringleader of another group who groom underage teenagers for sexual abuse and rape was arrested in Devon.

Was he British Pakistani? ...

... guess ...

(the answer doesn't rhyme with guess)


So the most recent reports on this subject so far have been about a romanian gang - and now a white british paedophile ring.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Feb 11 - 12:00 PM

700...and still as stupid as ever!

GfS