BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 11:18 AM

Hyperthetically, if it were true, would it be racist?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 11:52 AM

Oops! That last one was me.

"Cookie corrupted" apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 11:54 AM

That last one which was me with the "corrupted cookie" has apparently been eaten by the cookie monster.

Dayum! One of my best posts as well. Can't be arsed to re-type it since Keith likely wouldn't answer the questions anyways.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:01 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:01 PM

"So, is it racist to say it if it happened to be true?"

If in your search for the truth, after examing all the evidence and looking at all the possible explanations, you discover that the ONLY explanation is one based on Race and culture, then you have yourself a case.

In this case,we started with a conclusion based on racial discrimination, and you have been fighting tooth and nail to support it for around a month.

If you were genuine about investigating the causes of crimes like these you would do so by examining all possible influences and doing genuine comparisons with other trafficking gangs.

Until then all you have is racial slander.


"And Lox, where is this from?"

If you can remember where to find the original post you will find it.

It is in the Guardian Article.

As it is already posted to this thread you can go and find it for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:03 PM

I promised, but no more than 2 at a time please.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:16 PM

I can not find it Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:19 PM

In fact, keith has been diligently and loyally defending a hypothesis based exclusively on racial grounds since January 23rd (more than a month).

This is despite the fact that British Pakistani Men are subject to a myriad of multicultural influences, not least many aspects of British culture.

It is also despite the fact that the Racially grounded hypothesis is contradicted by the evidence.

It is also despite the fact that The only academic study and the Keiths star witness Helen Wilmer both contradict his hypothesis.

It is also despite the fact that his hypothesis has been shown not to stand up to logical scrutiny.

Keith has refused to respond to the logical problems raised.

He has refused to consider that there are other cultural influences, much less consider any of those cultural influences as possible candidates.


All he has done is restate a behavioural hypothesis grounded on a racial p[remise and back it up with the opinions of people who agree with him.


That is it - no more no less.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:40 PM

You have said all that before, and none of it stands up.

Was that statement in the Guardian piece or not?

If it was true that a sexually repressive culture caused a predisposition, would it be racist to say it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dessert Dancer
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:50 PM

I think there is something in what Keith says here. For example, here is an example of statistics I compiled for month moth last September 2010. These are complied from police reports.

September 24th,  "ANGRY and rejected" at being spurned by a woman on a night out, Yassin Mohamed reacted by dragging a 19 year old student off an Oxford street and raping her. Mohamed told her not to scream or he would kill he. Mohamed inflicted hours of a humiliating series of sexual acts", on the young woman, that lasted until after 6am.  The young woman's bank card was used to remove £300 from her account — the offender having forced her to tell him her PIN." Aside from the horrific and repeated rapes, the victims - who had never had sex before- suffered 13 injuries to her neck and head and was too distressed to have a full doctor's examination. Mohamed pled guilty.

Eleventh --- September 27th, Police release an e-fit image of a many who sexually assaulted a West Yorkshire woman while she was slept in her own bed in her own home. The man is described as an "Asian man in his 20s or 30s".  "The victim of this attack is currently being cared for by specially trained professionals" 

Twelfth --- September 29th, a 23-year-old woman was seriously sexually assaulted by a man who approached her as she walked along a canal tow path in Lancashire. The woman was walking along the bank off Colne Road in Burnley on Tuesday when a man came up to her and struck up a conversation. The man then forced her to some rough grassland where he attacked her. Police said the man is Asian, 5ft 8in (1.7m) tall with a round face and cleanly shaven.

Thirteenth ---September 30th, A 24-year-old Oldbury man who took part in the brutal gang rape of a teenage girl has been put behind bars for eight years. Ibrar Mohammed was one of five men involved in the terrifying sex attack on their 17-year-old victim after she had been taken to a house in the area. Mohammed of Walford Street together with Harjinder Singh 25 and Haider Kanwal 30, both of Vicarage Street. All found guilty by a jury at Wolverhampton Crown Court. All three men they must register as Sex Offenders for the rest of their life. One man wasn't prosecuted and a fifth man has fled the country.

Fourteenth ---September 30th, Minicab driver, Qamar Zaman, 33, is being tried for grabbing, stroking and molesting a pregnant woman who was a passenger on a taxi journey from Haworth to the Keighley area. The woman was left shocked and shaken after the sexual assault. Mr. Zaman says that he is the victim as the unnamed woman "racially abused & underpaid" him.

** UPDATED ** Fifteenth --- September 30, A serial sex offender is suspected of carrying out a string of attacks on women in south Manchester in the last month. Police have released details of the six attacks they believe were carried out by the latest suspected offender:
Wednesday, 1 September 2010 - 1pm: a nurse aged in her 30s was sexually assaulted on Nelson Street
Wednesday 15 September 2010 - 4pm: a student was assaulted on Curzon Avenue
Saturday 18 September 2010 - 7.30pm/8.30pm: two teenage girls were sexually assaulted in Crowcroft Park
Wednesday 22 September 2010 - 3am: a teenage student was assaulted on Old Hall Lane
Saturday 25 September 2010 - 3am/4am: a woman in her early 20s was sexually assault on Booth Street West Thursday 30 September 2010 - 9pm: a woman in her 40s was assaulted on Hart Road

Police said the offender is described as an Asian man between 5ft 4in and 6ft tall. He is described as having a medium to "chubby" build with a rounded or chubby face.

Thus there has been an actual sexual assault or the prosecution of a sexual assault, committed by Muslim men, approximately every 1-2 days throughout the month of September 2010. There are 23 known victims along with untold numbers of little girl (as young as 4) victims of a paedophile ring and scores of young "virgin" teen girls pimped out to muslim millionaires.  27+ Muslim male rapists (including a serial rapist), sexual assaulters, paedophiles & 1 male and 2 female Muslim pimps committed these crimes.

We know that the Muslim population of Great Britain is mushrooming at a rate 10 times faster than the non-muslim population leaving one to make the educated conjecture that the numbers of rapes, sexual assaults, etc will also continue to explode.

Is it any wonder that half of teenage girls living in the UK's say they don't feel safe going out after dark? Plan UK chief executive Marie Staunton was quoted as saying: "Violence and fear of violence should not be allowed to rule girls' lives." SOURCE
She is right - nor should (sexual assault) violence be allowed to ruin men's, women's and boy's lives - but it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 12:58 PM

Here are Keith's latest contributions to open and honest discussion:-

1. "I promised, but no more than 2 at a time please"

and

2. "Lox I can't find it"

Both of the above reflect Keith's absolute refusal to acknowledge anything which others put to him in the course of discussion. In the case of #1 above, that is his way of telling me yet again that he will not read my posts where I have asked for clarification of his position on a number of points. He has claimed that it would take "at least a week" to respond so he instead requests that I resubmit my queries in separate posts containing "no more than two at a time".

Item no. 2 is his response to Lox when it was suggested that the information which Keith falsely posits as a defence of his position is already published further up the thread.

In both these instances what Keith is actually saying is that he prefers to obfuscate rather than have to admit that his "position" (he has no opinions of his own, remember)is untenable. It is not in Keith's make-up to meet anyone halfway so he will prevaricate and filibuster if it means he can avoid answering direct questions. It is typical of a playground bully's behaviour when he is fronted up. And that is what has happened to Keith.

That is why I, for one, will not be playing his shabby little game. My points requiring responses are all recorded on the thread. More than once, I might add. If Keith wants to act lazy that is his prerogative. What is undeniably clear now is that Keith's arguments have no moral or intellectual validity. He is not even man enough to put himself up for scrutiny and prefers to drag out the farce and throw in the occasional red herring. He has absolutely no cojones.

What chance is there of an honest and open dialogue with someone who has shown himself to be a pathological liar, someone who has been caught out in a deceit but denies it. Go on, Keith, tell me you were not warned by Joe for your duplicitousness. I dare you.

I think the only reason people do not fade away and allow you to wallow in the slurry of your racist, sectarian mind is that there is a very real need to challenge small and narrow-minded little fools like you in all your septic rantings.

You sad little man.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:02 PM

I could not find it because it was not there.
Lox got it wrong.

Now, If it was true that a sexually repressive culture caused a predisposition, would it be racist to say it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:05 PM

All very interesting Dessert D. Two points however.

First, you cite a number of police reports - six to be precise. What do numbers two through tweelve say?

Second, the subject under consideration on this thread is the grooming of underage girls. I am not sure how the abhorrent crimes you cite are germane.

Please explain. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:09 PM

You say you could not find the piece to which Lox referred "because it was not there".

I dispute that but I will allow Lox to hoist you on your own petard in relation to that.

What I want to know is why you steadfastly refuse to address the questions I have raised with you.

PROMISE you will answer. Just PROMISE...lol.

I.....am..... so..... sleepy...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:11 PM

If you dispute it cobra, you find it!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:13 PM

So you refuse to answer the questions which I have put to you - on numerous occasions now? What a surprise!

And you also do not deny your deceit and admonition by Mods on this forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:14 PM

Desert Dancer
I wonder what the result would be if you compiled statistics on any other racial or cultural group?
Nobody is defending rapist thugs - that would be heartlessly stupid.
Nobody is claiming that there aren't rapist thugs in Asian communities - that would be blinkered and stupid.
Is anybody claiming that the result you have come up with is only to be found in the Asian community? That would be racist and stupid.
Is anybody claiming that it is Asian cultures that are at the root of such behaviour - that would be.... oh sorry, Keith is!!
"So, is it racist to say it if it happened to be true?"
What are you asking, or did you put this in to get your 900?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:45 PM

If it was true that a sexually repressive culture caused a predisposition, would it be racist to say it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:52 PM

So you refuse to answer the questions which I have put to you - on numerous occasions now? What a surprise!

And you also do not deny your deceit and admonition by Mods on this forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:56 PM

I have PROMISED to answer them.
But you wont put them.

You are afraid of my answers cobra.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 02:20 PM

Keith writes:

"I have PROMISED to answer them.
But you wont put them.

You are afraid of my answers cobra."

Oh yes, you have PROMISED to answer them. But, as a currency, your PROMISES are valueless. You will find I HAVE put them. But your game-playing so as to hide the paucity of your argument means you want them re-submitted. Were I to do that I am confident you would find another excuse not to answer.

As for being afraid of your answers, my sole concern would be that any effort you would need to put into answering a question from anyone on this thread would lead to a stroke. The detail of any answer would stand or, more likely, fall on its own...

You are fast becoming a parody of yourself.

So, tell me more about your deceit, Sheepshagger. :-)) You were caught out weren't you!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 02:23 PM

BTW, are you prepared to tell me yet what my alleged "sick, twisted agenda" is, and how you managed to deduce it from yours amd my "previous?

People are curious.

But then it is merely one more question you cannot and therefore will not answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 02:37 PM

No one remembers your questions cobra.
If you REALLY want me to answer, ask them again.

BTW, I did answer what your sick, twisted agenda was.
I do not have problems repeating things if you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 03:25 PM

This has now degenerated into one of those veryveryveryveryveryvery
BORING THREADS!

Goodbye thread....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 03:33 PM

"If it was true that a sexually repressive culture caused a predisposition, would it be racist to say it? "
If you could prove it beyond a doubt, and that it was the sole reason for such behaviour no, but until such time it remains firmly in the "all black men have big willies which they want to use on our white women" league.
You haven't even taken the firt tottering step of proving that (a) All the members of that culture are sexually repressed (nor how it effects the dominant males to the extent of making them potential rapists) and (b) How it appears not to have affected other communities with strong and distinctive sexual morays.
Nor, for that matter, how it appears to have no affect in their native country where sexual laws would be far mor stringently adherred to.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 03:46 PM

Keith says: "If you REALLY want me to answer, ask them again".

Too easy, Keith, and yet more obfuscation. Your unwillingness - no, inability - to answer speaks volumes. You know where my questions are. Deal with your own laziness and sophistry.


"BTW, I did answer what your sick, twisted agenda was.
I do not have problems repeating things if you want."

Please do. And, for good measure, please give me the date of the post so everyone can see you are talking through your hat once again.

Oh, and when you have done that, tell me all about being caught in a deception. Remember it? It was when you used Oakville to try and wriggle off your own hook. And when you are at it, who IS Bill Woodcock? Do you have many imaginary friends in that little head?

Now,in the meantime if it helps you, the following are the posts between us which deal with me being "bitter (and) twisted) and being "... agenda ridden...". The only other point you have made is that you and I fundamentally disagreed on Northern Ireland and that I once referred to you as a STAB (Stupid TA Ba**tard. I withdraw the STAB part now that I have more to do with you via this thread. Lumping you together with the TA is an insult to the men and women of that regiment. Abit harsh to use that as justification for me being those things you have claimed.

HERE YA GO....

"...someone as bitter, twisted and agenda ridden as Cobra..." to Lox, 14 February 0600hrs.

"... I note that on 14 February in this very thread you suggested that Lox was siding with someone you described as "bitter, twisted and agenda ridden ...(as Cobra)..." (see post dated 14 February). I would be grateful for an understanding as to how you reached that view. As far as I am aware we have no personal history. ...I am also intrigued to hear from you how you have deduced that I am "agenda ridden" ....what is my agenda and what proof do you have for your assertion? In specific terms, how, when and where have I articulated a "twisted agenda"? " - Cobra to Keith 23 Feb 7.28pm

"..I have nothing ... to add about your agenda.
Perhaps twisted was a bit strong.
I withdraw it...." Keith to cobra 24 Feb 7.33am

Please elaborate on how you identified my bitter and twisted agenda outside of these posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 03:55 PM

But, hypothetically, if true it would not be racist to say it.
As you say, we do not have absolute proof, but it might be true.
You can not be certain it is untrue, so it might not be racist to say it.
Supposing you truly believe it true.
Is it racist then?

BP Lord Ahmed does believe culture has caused a predisposition.
Is he a racist?
Likewise BP Mohammed Shafiq.
Is he a racist?
Likewise Jasmin Alibhai-Brown, a Muslim and half Pakistani.
Racist?
Would you like to tell her that?!
And, if anyone is convinced by their statements, do they become racists?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 04:09 PM

I am in agreement with MtheGM. This thread is now terminally boring. I will not indulge Keith;s BNP agenda any longer.

Goodbye thread and pi$$ off Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 04:09 PM

Cobra, we are trying to have a debate, but you just want to talk about me.
That is a bit creepy.
And you keep talking about Bill somebody.

My first answer about your agenda.

We have previous, on NI threads.
I speak against paramiltaries, blaming them for immense suffering and setting back the cause of a United Ireland.
You speak for Republican paramilitaries, and against Britain and me.
That is the agenda I referred to.
You have previously called me "STAB Keith."
My understanding is that the S is for stupid, and the B for bastard.
Your agenda.

I would like to add.
You admit to searching through OVER FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED of my posts.
That is more than a bit twisted cobra, but I am grateful.
You found not one post, worth putting up, that contained lies, racism or bigotry.
That is some testimonial.
Thank you.
Also it proves that Oakwood never found any.
So I only put true words in his mouth.
So no harm done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 04:43 PM

"I could not find it because it was not there.
Lox got it wrong."


More made up shit.

And Keith, just this once I will go and do your dirty work for you.

From the Guardian article:

-snip -

"But Brayley and Cockbaine, whose six-month study was cited as evidence, said they were worried that limited data had been extended "to characterise an entire crime type,""

- snip -


So Just to clarify, Brayley and Cockbaine Disagree with your view that this is a new crime type.


Keith - YOU have got it wrong.

You continue to support a racist idea for more than a month, regardless of the evidence and the arguments that have demolished your position.

Your facade of neutrality and respectability is gone.

You are 100% partisan and you are 100% loyal to an unsupported racist view.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 04:51 PM

"But, hypothetically, if true it would not be racist to say it.
As you say, we do not have absolute proof, but it might be true.
You can not be certain it is untrue, so it might not be racist to say it.
Supposing you truly believe it true.
Is it racist then?"

This is the most insane bit of utter nonsense ever committed to text.


If Keith says Pakistanis are closet perverts, and there is no evidence that it isn't true, then it might be true, and therefore if he believes its true then it isn't racist?


Well Keith, By your logic, If I believe you are a closet paedophile, though there is no evidence that you are, as there is no evidence showing you are not, then it could be true, in which case calling you a paedophile is not slander.


Prove that you are not a closet paedophile Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 05:39 PM

I was looking for some statement about new crime type.
There was not anything.
I do not understand your reasoning.
If that was what you meant, why did you not say so???

I am an outsider looking in.
Straw, Cryer, Ahmed , Allibhai-Brown say there is a cultural issue about that crime.
OK.
They know more than any of us.
I have no reason to doubt them, and certainly no reason to believe you and Jim over them.

That is no grounds for calling me racist.
Is Ahmed racist?
Allibhai-Brown racist?
Ridiculous!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 08:26 PM

"Cobra, we are trying to have a debate, but you just want to talk about me."
No he doesn't Keith - he has consistently challenged your obnoxious racist agenda. Once again, as you have been told on other threads many times before, you do not read what others have to say - it is you who wishes to draw attention to yourself.
Are the people you listed racist - who said they were? - I challenged the ones I did only on the basis of your claim that they were "impeccible sources" - such claims always arouse my suspicions.
If you want to present researched evidence (theirs or yours) that the behaviour in question is in any way culturally based, please feel free to do so.
So far, despite your somewhat pompously self-important "In all my researches on this", (not unlike your wonderful foot-in-mouth "my work is done here"); as in the past, your own 'researches' are half-digested cut-n-pastes which you then present, usually out of context, as in the case of the one headed "CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING STUDY SPARKS EXAGGERATED RACIAL STEREOTYPING" which you presented as a support to your argument, but which, in fact does the exact opposite and, even in its title, warns against the stereotyping arguments you are putting up. It doesn't come any more stereotyped than claiming that races as a whole behave the way they do because of flaws in their culture.
If you want to be taken seriously, for christ's sake, read what is being said, by others and by yourself!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 01:19 AM

Neither Cobra, you or anyone has ever identified a racist post of mine because I am no racist and have never made one.
You shout "RACIST" instead of debating arguments.

A typical Guardian headline, but the truth is there for all to see.
The survey proved a link between BPs and this crime, but did not prove it was widespread because of its limited scope.
Wilmer's statement provided unequivocal evidence that it is widespread.

You would make yourself ridiculous if you accused Allibhai Brown of racism.
My views are the same as hers.
You are ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 01:27 AM

Jim: 'It doesn't come any more stereotyped than claiming that races as a whole behave the way they do because of flaws in their culture.'
===
OK, I know I said goodbye; but Jim is usually worth responding to, so I have returned for the moment ~~ not the first time anyone has opted out & back in again: try counting the # of times SickoLox has done just that on this thread alone!

Jim, be fair. That is not what Keith claimed. It was rather that a very small but disproportionately over-represented minority of the race in question acted in a manner which needed explanation. It seemed to Keith, & seems to me too, that the answer might be found in some peculiarity of their culture occurring there more prominently than in that of others: such as e.g. the cultural conditioning to marry a relation late in life and be forbidden to approach one of one's own community before that, which is demonstrably an aspect of the culture concerned. That was surely all that Keith was [I use the word again, whatever that fool PsychoLox thinks] *speculating*.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 01:32 AM

To clarify even further, Jim, it was especially your use of the phrase "as a whole" which I considered particularly unfair to Keith, as he had never made any such claim. ~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 02:08 AM

If it was true, it would not be racist to say there is a link.
But it IS racist to say that, on the evidence, there is probably a link.
Ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 04:29 AM

"A typical Guardian headline,"
Which you quoted in support of your argument, but, as I said, is a warning against the very attitude you are displaying here.
And now has become "A typical Guardian headline".
Mike
"as a whole"
Statements such as this leaves me, and obviously others, with the impression that Keith is referring to the Muslim culture as a whole, or as near as '****' it.
"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.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 04:39 AM

"The survey proved a link between BPs and this crime"

No it didn't.

The Authors made very clear that the study was too concentrated to support ANY such assertion.

They also clarified that not only is there no new crime type, but that there is no racial aspect.

Which CONTRADICTS Keiths view.

Keiths dishonesty is not fooling anyone.

An analogy (which I have used before)

It would be like drawing conclusions about Italian culture based on an analysis of the Mafia.

As most Mafiosi are Italian, therefore Italians are predisposed to organized crime.

There is no evidence that this is a Pakistani Problem, or that it is widespread.

There is only conjecture from Keith and those who share his view.

The only proper testimony flatly contradicts Keiths view.


By the way keith, you still haven't proved you aren't a nonce - what evidence do you have to prove you don't abuse kids?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 04:47 AM

Good morning gentlemen.

Is this tread going to make the magical 1000 posts today?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 05:09 AM

=== Mike: "as a whole"
Statements such as this leaves me, and obviously others, with the impression that Keith is referring to the Muslim culture as a whole, or as near as '****' it.
"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".
Jim Carroll ===

Jim ~~ not worried about those 'others': couldn't care less what impression SilliLox might have got into his lamebrain; but I engage with you coz I know you to be more perceptive than such.

Surely he is saying that it is certain aspects of the culture that *might* be responsible for the activities of this, he stresses, only a small but disproportionate minority; which is not to say that 'the whole' of the community is affected by it: i.e. He did NOT say, as you misinterpret, that "races as a whole behave thus because of their culture".

You are confusing the culture, as an entity, with the community, as an entity, and applying "whole" to the wrong one. Surely you see this distinction.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 05:22 AM

The study was limited, but within its remit found almost 100% correlation.
That did not prove it was more widespread, but Straw, Cryer, Allibhai Brown, Wilmer and others confirmed it was true for many other cities and had been for many years.

These people are not racist and certainly not intellectually challenged, but you see yourselves as somehow above them.

In reality you are, in comparison, posturing, pontificating pygmies.
You are ridiculous

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 06:15 AM

Mike - quickly; sorry, not the impression he gives me, and as I said, we have been here before with Keith.
By disparaging his own references as 'typical Guardian', he has now moved the thread from, as you rightly say, from 'the boring' to the bizzarre
Later
"Is this tread going to make the magical 1000 posts today?"
Not with my help it ain't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 06:27 AM

No, mine neither. That really is it I think

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 07:49 AM

It was just the headline I disparaged.
The piece itself was pure gold to me.
I linked to it first I think, so Lox, you were not "the only one"

Until the next time then....

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 11:20 AM

Wrong again Keith.

I pointed out the flaws in their arguments.

You wouldn't know that as you haven't read my posts.

And you have certainly made no attempt to explain the problems I highlighted.

All you have done is doff your hat to people you see as your superiors and ignore the evidence, which contradicts your view.


Keith - as you appear to be unable to provide evidence to prove that you are not a nonce, it follows, acording to your logic, that it is a reasonable suggestion that you are one, and - according to your logic - as it "could" be true, it therefore isn't slander.


Keith - can ou please provide evidence that you are not a paedophile.


Or maybe you'd like to admit that that line of reasoning is a transparent sham.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 12:00 PM

"Until the next time then.... "
Haven't said I was going yet, you should be so lucky!
"It was just the headline I disparaged. The piece itself was pure gold to me."
The headline you disparaged referred to this, which are the opening passages of the report, which you obviously hadn't read properly and is, as you say, "pure gold".
It is exactly what you have been doing here.
"Authors of study on 'on-street grooming' in the north and Midlands, where young girls have been targeted on the streets and at school gates, are concerned their findings about Pakistani gangs have been generalised.
Researchers into child sex trafficking within the UK have warned of the dangers of racial stereotyping amid claims of a widespread problem of British Pakistani men exploiting under-age white girls.
Authors of the first independent academic analysis looking at "on-street grooming", where young girls, spotted outside, including at the school gates, have become targets, said they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type".Authors of study on 'on-street grooming' in the north and Midlands, where young girls have been targeted on the streets and at school gates, are concerned their findings about Pakistani gangs have been generalised.
Researchers into child sex trafficking within the UK have warned of the dangers of racial stereotyping amid claims of a widespread problem of British Pakistani men exploiting under-age white girls."
"Until the next time then...."
Why - do you thing you might do better next time? I suppose you have to break your duck sometime!
Looking back, all your war of attrition tactics have achieved is to draw you further out of your sectarian/racist closet.
Yi ho Silver - as you once nearly remarked
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 03:37 PM

Lox,
"I pointed out the flaws in their arguments."

Those flaws only visible to the mega intellect of Lox.
They will be so grateful to you.
How foolish they must all be feeling now.

Who do you think you are?
You are ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 03:49 PM

Jim, the authors did not say their report should be burned.
They stood by it.
53 out of 56 convisted were BPs.
Rightly they pointed out that they had no evidence that it was representative of a general problem.
But they did find it wherever they looked.

And now there is evidence that it is a general problem.
Evidence that the result was not an aberration, but typical.
All those people had been dealing with the problem on a huge scale, in many cities for many years.

The ridiculous Lox thinks he found "flaws in their arguments."
They made no arguments.
They reported their direct experience.

Are either of you saying they are all racist liars?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Feb 11 - 06:28 PM

"The ridiculous Lox thinks he found "flaws in their arguments."
They made no arguments.
They reported their direct experience."


More bullshit.

They stated what they "thought" the reasons were.

And they have no direct experience of Criminal gangs, trafficking, or being trafficked.

They, like you, provide no evidence.

"But they did find it wherever they looked."


Well then where is it?


Evidence please Keith ...