 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Muslim prejudice
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Jun 11 - 11:23 AM Again very unjust Jon. My case was just the over-rep. I put up published pieces that supported that, but unfortunately they also suggested reasons for it, and that is all you people want to talk about. I have nothing to say about those suggestions. I have not any knowledge to support or refute the suggestions. They are not mine, and I do not care if anyone believes them or not. My case is just the over-rep. I can't be what I am not Jon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 30 Jun 11 - 12:59 PM Again very unjust Jon. Implicating the all Britsh Pakistanis without evidence is just, Keith? (I know, you only quote others...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Jun 11 - 02:22 PM My opinion was/is the over-rep. The other thing never was mine. Sorry. Would you all be happier if I had claimed it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Jun 11 - 02:41 PM "Of course I believe that there is a sound scientific basis to what the experts have said re "over rep" There is plenty of objective evidence for the over-rep. You can only have subjective evidence for the explanation, and I have never been subject to any of it. Sorry. Using an abbreviation does not constitute racism to rational people. Using BP saves me 15 key strokes. At half a second each and given I must have used it over a thousand times, is about two and a half hours of solid unnecessary typing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Jun 11 - 04:02 PM "Would you all be happier if I had claimed it? " "I have never claimed a cultural link." "I believe in one, BUT ONLY BECAUSE OF WHAT THE "EXPERTS" SAY." Now this is what Keith didn't say: "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb." Of course he wasn't referring to Pakistanis or their culture, and it wasn'r him saying it anyway - so stop talking about him all the time. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Jun 11 - 04:14 PM Yes Jim, I believe it because I believe them. I also believe Stephen Hawkins on black holes, though I would be less sure if other astrophysicists did not agree with him. I could not refute or support either theories. Why is it so important to you Jim? It is like an obsession. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 30 Jun 11 - 04:56 PM A bit more from the Guradian link I gave earlier: The data was so poor that reliable details of ethnicity were available only in 940 of the 2,379 cases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Jun 11 - 06:19 PM Wampum, I think your argument is that I must be a racist so I can be dismissed. That is a lot easier than actually challenging what I say, right? Some name Wampum. Samir Mathur of Ohio State University in Columbus and his colleagues showed that if a black hole is modelled according to string theory - in which the universe is made of tiny, vibrating strings rather than point-like particles - then the black hole becomes a giant tangle of strings. And the Hawking radiation emitted by this "fuzzball" does contain information about the insides of a black hole (New Scientist print edition, 13 March). Curt Cutler, a physicist at the Albert Einstein Institute in Golm, Germany, who is chairing the conference's scientific committee. "I haven't seen a preprint [of the paper]. To be quite honest, I went on Hawking's reputation." Cambridge colleague Gary Gibbons, an expert on the physics of black holes who was at the seminar, Hawking's black holes, unlike classic black holes, do not have a well-defined event horizon that hides everything within them from the outside world. In essence, his new black holes now never quite become the kind that gobble up everything. Instead, they keep emitting radiation for a long time, and eventually open up to reveal the information within. "It's possible that what he presented in the seminar is a solution," says Gibbons. "But I think you have to say the jury is still out." theoretical physicist Kip Thorne of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena made with John Preskill, also of Caltech. They argued that "information swallowed by a black hole is forever hidden, and can never be revealed". "Since Stephen has changed his view and now believes that black holes do not destroy information, I expect him [and Kip] to concede the bet," Preskill told New Scientist. The duo are expected to present Preskill with an encyclopaedia of his choice "from which information can be recovered at will". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 Jun 11 - 07:54 PM "" But Peter Davies, the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), which carried out the research, warned against jumping to conclusions on the ethnicity of offenders because the data gathered by his investigators was incomplete, not nationwide and of poor quality. "I would send a note of caution about trying to extrapolate anything from this. Looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours," he said. [...] The data was so poor that reliable details of ethnicity were available only in 940 of the 2,379 cases."" EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR MONTHS!! and from an authority better equipped to draw conclusions than any quoted by Keith A. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 Jun 11 - 08:07 PM ""The expert advice is that the evidence is incomplete, not that it is wrong. This evidence may not be totally conclusive, but it does not stand alone. You were convinced Jon. This new evidence can hardly unconvince you!"" You accuse others of leaving out relevant portions of your rants. Well your post above DOES NOT STAND ALONE! Why did YOU mention that information was incomplete, while deliberately leaving out the two comments below? 1. ""not nationwide and of poor quality."" 2. ""The data was so poor that reliable details of ethnicity were available only in 940 of the 2,379 cases."" I'll answer that for you if I may. Those comments were inconvenient in the extreme because they destroyed your carefully constructed and fanatically defended denigration of the whole British Pakistani community. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 Jun 11 - 08:16 PM ""I would call that a considerable over-representation."" Would you like to point out the word Pakistani in the passage you are quoting Mike? You can't, because it isn't there, and the theory which you are supporting is Keith's contentious claim that the Asians referred to ARE BRITISH PAKISTANIS. In other words you are supporting an unproven theory from one who has shown ample evidence of his biased agenda, and steadfastly continues to do so, in spite of warnings against that specific conclusion by authorities much better equipped than those he clings to and blames whenever he is challenged. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 30 Jun 11 - 09:16 PM ""Jon, I too have only claimed an over-rep in a specified area, i.e. towns and cities of Midlands (less W Mids), Derbyshire, Lancashire, Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. That is my case."" So, let's see. You have only ever claimed an over rep in a specified area, in which a limited number of gangs led by Pakistani criminals, turned out to have predominantly Pakistani members, so you extrapolated from this information the following:- ""Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:28 PM This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know. There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."" This gem of illogical reasoning you posted one day before I made my first contribution to this thread, and at least three days before I addressed you directly, yet you claim that I invented the theory of a culturally implanted tendency for all British Pakistani males to commit these crimes. You make that claim based on my use of the phrase "culturally implanted tendency" which is an accurate and truthful representation of your above post. You further pour scorn upon my suggestion that like tends to gravitate to like, meaning that Pakistani gangs would have mainly Pakistani members. Yet you claim to have no opinion on the matter. YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY FOR THE LIE, and members may judge YOUR integrity, or lack of integrity, by your refusal. As for this thread being about YOU, just count the posts. You MADE it about you! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 01:42 AM Don, I discussed the Asian/BP issue yesterday in posts timed 5.36 and 6.04 AM. I had assumed wrongly that you had worked out the culture thing. Sorry. Here is the reasoning. Feel free to correct it. Those five people all attributed the behaviour to aspects of the culture. So prominent are they that their opinions were universally reported by all the media, including all the quality broadsheets and national broadcasters. No detractors have been similarly reported and no other theory has been reported at all. Was I in any way wrong to assume that all within that culture would be exposed to those aspects of the culture? If it caused the behaviour in some, as claimed, I would expect the distribution of effects to be a continuum from actual offending down to zero inclination. Agree? We know that the spectrum is skewed towards non offending as only a minute minority offend. That is my assumption but social psychology is not my field. I am open to correction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 02:07 AM Wampum, please send the £50 to support the work of St.Andrew's Church, St.Andrew's Street, Hertford. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Jul 11 - 03:28 AM "Why is it so important to you Jim?!" It's important because of the dishonest and evasive way you have vacillated to make your case on cultural corruption; from claiming that you didn't say it: "I have never claimed a cultural link." to admitting that you did: "Yes Jim, I believe it because I believe them." and then, to top it off with the magnificent: "I could not refute or support either theories" In the space of half-a-dozen postings you DIDN'T say it, you DID say it and believe it because somebody told you, to, you COULDN'T POSSIBLY GIVE AN OPINION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER - not bad for somebody who has set out to prove a whole community to be culturally inclined towards paedophelia! It's important because racism, like any other disease, should not be ignored. This is your stated theory, nobody elses, and you have posted it as such. It was hard not to notice that the report did not appear on prime-time television news last night; I watched with interest to see how it would be handled - nothing; in the BBC news index - nothing. It can't be that it wasn't considered important enough to have been covered, surely? I find it distressing that a subject as important as this is considered unapproachable. There can't be too many here stupid enough to believe that the British establishment is so supportive, or so frightened of the immigrant communities as to keep silent about such a crucial issue. It seems obvious to me that it is attitudes like Keith's that are far more responsible for keeping the lid on the situation than the PC that usually takes the blame. Virtually all the statements on this issue by responsible individuals and organisations (including CEOPs) have come with a health warning against using the behaviour of criminals to malign whole communities, but there are those among us who appear to know better than their own 'experts', and apparently won't be happy until Powell's "rivers of blood" are flowing through Britain. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 03:36 AM Jim, there is a difference between "claiming" "supporting" and just believing. I generally believe the weather forecast every day, but I make no claims about it nor do I support the met office. Why do I believe these people? Those five people all separately attributed the behaviour to aspects of the culture. So prominent are they that their opinions were universally reported by all the media, including all the quality broadsheets and national broadcasters. No detractors have been similarly reported and no other theory has been reported at all. I believe them, but I make no claims about their ideas and am not supporting them. If someone comes up with a more convincing theory I will believe that. OK? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,old guy Date: 01 Jul 11 - 04:00 AM This has been a very interesting debate. Jim - calm down. Here are some questions "racism, like any other disease". How is racism a disease? "There can't be too many here stupid enough to believe that the British establishment is so supportive, or so frightened of the immigrant communities as to keep silent about such a crucial issue." Why is it stupid to believe such a thing? "It seems obvious to me that it is attitudes like Keith's that are far more responsible for keeping the lid on the situation than the PC that usually takes the blame." I don't follow your logic. "there are those among us who appear to know better than their own 'experts', and apparently won't be happy until Powell's "rivers of blood" are flowing through Britain." I think you're saying that if Powell was right, the people to blame will be the ones who expressed their concerns that it might happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 01 Jul 11 - 04:32 AM No detractors have been similarly reported and no other theory has been reported at all. Keith, you are just choosing to ignore it. Here is one version But Peter Davies, the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), which carried out the research, warned against jumping to conclusions on the ethnicity of offenders because the data gathered by his investigators was incomplete, not nationwide and of poor quality. "I would send a note of caution about trying to extrapolate anything from this. Looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours," he said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 04:41 AM By "detractors" I meant people refuting that those aspects of culture alluded to exist, and refuting that they might give rise to certain behaviours in a few individuals. That is what the 5 all said. Who is refuting that and on what grounds please? How can you be certain that all 5 are wrong? Jim is not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 01 Jul 11 - 04:51 AM How can you be certain that all 5 are wrong? All Keiths might be incapable of understanding elementary statistics. Can I be certain that is wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Jul 11 - 05:04 AM "Jim, there is a difference between "claiming" "supporting" and just believing." Not when you put it forward as your opinion in a debate - you have made it quite clear that you support the ideas you have put forward - you have said so and argued for them - then hidden behind others rather than defend hem Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 05:19 AM No I have not Jim. I refute that I have and tell you again now that I only believe for the reasons I have just stated, and I make no claims about it nor do I support it in any way. Can we drop it now please? Enough about me, have you had any more thoughts about why the over-rep and if it is real? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Jul 11 - 06:33 AM "nor do I support it in any way" Are you mad? "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" "How is racism a disease?" A metaphor OG. More later Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 06:39 AM ..I do now believe... but only because... No claims No support. Just belief, as in the weather forecast and black holes. Perhaps Jon could explain it to you in terms of different coloured cups. I tell you again now that I only believe for the reasons I have just stated, and I make no claims about it nor do I support it in any way. Why are you so obsessed. I should know, right? Can we move on from me to the issues please Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Richard Bridge Date: 01 Jul 11 - 06:46 AM I note some apparent inconsistency in the use of the term "refute". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 06:47 AM MORE LATER!!!??? Oh no! Please let it be about the issues and not me Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 Jul 11 - 06:54 AM ""Was I in any way wrong to assume that all within that culture would be exposed to those aspects of the culture?"" If there were the slightest vestige of sense in that assumption, one would predict with confidence that there would be some such activity wherever that culture was found. There is no such activity in the south of England, where one third of all British Pakistanis reside. Your assumption is flawed, and needs re-consideration. ""If it caused the behaviour in some, as claimed, I would expect the distribution of effects to be a continuum from actual offending down to zero inclination. Agree?"" And I would expect that continuum to appear wherever that culture was found AGREE? BUT IT DOESN'T!! AGREE? ""We know that the spectrum is skewed towards non offending as only a minute minority offend. That is my assumption but social psychology is not my field. I am open to correction."" We also know that the spectrum is skewed towards all offenders belonging to a limited gang structure in a very small and tightly grouped part of the country, and to zero offences elsewhere. AGREE? You are not apparently open to rational argument, let alone correction. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 Jul 11 - 07:13 AM ""Enough about me, have you had any more thoughts about why the over-rep and if it is real?"" Christ, it's worse than trying to nail jelly to a tree. Read and thoroughly digest the whole of the following comment from a man every bit as knowledgeable as your "sources":- But Peter Davies, the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), which carried out the research, warned against jumping to conclusions on the ethnicity of offenders because the data gathered by his investigators was incomplete, not nationwide and of poor quality. "I would send a note of caution about trying to extrapolate anything from this." He seems to be agreeing with my position that before drawing the cultural conclusions which you have advanced, you need to consider the position nationwide. This you have refused even to discuss. Add that to my posts on the dubious nature of statistics when a sufficiently large and representative sample is absent. Then re-consider, and come to the conclusion that facts don't matter and you are always right. That is what you have been doing since January 24th 2011. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 07:16 AM Don, if culture affects behaviour as claimed, the effect will surely vary between individuals. That is the continuum of response. It seems to follow naturally from the claim. Accept or dismiss it Don, it is irrelevant to me and this debate. Have you modified your own theory for the over-rep Don? Remember I accepted it but for a single word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 07:19 AM Don. "before drawing the cultural conclusions which you have advanced, you need to consider the position nationwide" I have not "advanced" any "cultural conclusions" Don. On what evidence could I "consider the position nationwide"? Is there any at all? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Jul 11 - 08:34 AM "No claims - No support. Utter gibberish. "Please let it be about the issues and not me Jim." The issue is, and always has been the image you have projected of the British Pakistani people. And once again you squeal victimisation - perhaps you know how the Pakistanis feel at the hands of people like yourself. And once again yu dimiss the warnings of your own experts Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 08:51 AM "The issue is, and always has been the image you have projected of the British Pakistani people." What???? I thought the issue the over-rep and reasons for it, not about what I have "projected" or not "projected" ! I am trying to have a rational debate. I am not projecting anything! You are becoming increasingly obsessed and deranged. I worry that by responding I am feeding your obsession. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 09:33 AM In a normal debate, I would give my opinion, and others would agree or challenge or offer different opinions. This one is bizarre! I say what my opinion is, and they come back and say, "no it isn't" ! No discussion. They tell me what I think, and then abuse me for thinking it even though I don't. Somewhat surreal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 01 Jul 11 - 09:44 AM Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 07:19 AM "I have not "advanced" any "cultural conclusions" Don." Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:28 PM "This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know. There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 10:01 AM ....according to....someone else. Let us accept (for discussion) I have made hundreds of unequivocal posts stating that I am making no claims or supporting any theory. Dredging up individual, months old posts that are a bit ambiguous does not change what my stated opinion actually is. Why can you not just ask my opinion, instead of telling me what you all want it to be? And why do you all want it to be different from what it actually is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 10:12 AM That post is OVER SIX MONTHS OLD! We discussed it at the time. I said this on THE VERY NEXT DAY, 25th January. I offer it as a plausible theory, and it is not my own. It has been put forward by two Labour politicians, one very senior, both of whom have worked for years with the Pakistani communities they represent, and are supported and respected by those communities. It works like this. I put up my theory and you should try to find fault and/or an alternative. Just calling me names is not the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 10:14 AM Er, 5 months. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 01 Jul 11 - 10:18 AM It works like this. I put up my theory and you should try to find fault and/or an alternative. So you do have a theory? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 11:08 AM I was telling Lox how discussion works. I had already, in that post, stated, unequivocally, that the theory was "NOT MINE" Why are you trying so hard to change the clear meaning and intent of my posts? I have stated unequivocally all the way through since January that the theory is not mine, and I am still stating it. Why is that so hard for you people to grasp? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 01 Jul 11 - 11:12 AM I have stated unequivocally all the way through since January that the theory is not mine, and I am still stating it. In which case it can not work "I put up my theory..." can it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 11:55 AM Jon, THE VERY FIRST LINE OF MY POST, "I offer it as a plausible theory, and it is not my own." Anything about that you don't get Jon? Think of the theory as a red cup that belongs to someone other than me. It is not mine, OK? I then go on to explain to Lox how debating should be done. A general rule. My theory, the one I am putting up for discussion not one that actually was proposed by me, as compared to whatever theory Lox was putting up. Imagine that I borrowed that other person's red cup, showed it to Lox and said, " I have got a red cup. Do you like it?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 12:20 PM "Has anyone seen my book anywhere?" "Is this it?" "Yes." "It is about world domination and antisemitism you fascist, racist bastard!" "But I did not write it. Hitler wrote it." "You said it was "my book" " "No. I don't write books. I only borrowed it from the library for some research." "You lying, fascist, racists bastard! You admitted it was "my book." " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 01 Jul 11 - 12:22 PM Imagine that I borrowed that other person's red cup, showed it to Lox and said, " I have got a red cup. Do you like it?" Got you: Keith: Do you like my (meaning the cup I borrowed from an expert on red cups) red cup? Lox: No. I don't like your cup as it's faulty. Look, the handle's falling off and it's leaking. Keith: It isn't MY (meaning personal ownership) cup and in any case the person I borrowed it from knows more about cups that you do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 12:50 PM "Lox: No. I don't like your cup as it's faulty. Look, the handle's falling off and it's leaking." Me: "It still has some good points, and anyway, it is not mine." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 01 Jul 11 - 01:21 PM Me: "It still has some good points, and anyway, it is not mine." OK then... Keith: "This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know. There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept [meaning accept for discussion] that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for." Jon: But the data is to sketchy for anyone to reach a conclusion like that. Peter Davies, the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), which carried out the research, has warned against jumping to conclusions on the ethnicity of offenders because the data gathered by his investigators was incomplete, not nationwide and of poor quality and stated: I would send a note of caution about trying to extrapolate anything from this. Looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours," Don't you [meaning you] think his advice should be heeded? Keith:?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 02:26 PM Jon, that post was made way back in January. Most of us, certainly me, were not aware of this issue before. We only had the opinions of Straw, Shafiq and Cryer back then. It had been going on for years, with thousands of child victims, but it had been kept quiet. I think that was wrong. You and I believe that, for whatever reason, there is an over-rep of BPs in certain areas. If it is true, I think it best be in the open. Are you saying that it should be allowed to continue in secret? I am very suspicious of the motives of people who say, "this should not be discussed." Real children are suffering multiple gang rape. I don't care what motivates the abusers. The child rapists. I just want it stopped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 01 Jul 11 - 02:51 PM Are you saying that it should be allowed to continue in secret? I think it should be investigated properly and that hasty conclusions (in this case particularly ones that attempt to reach cultural conclusions on a national level) should be avoided. The Guardian link notes: The report said: "We cannot draw national conclusions about ethnicity because the data is too inconsistent. I believe that CEOP should be allowed to proceed with this further investigation (which you man note does consider the possibilities of cultural effects) without further speculation as to the causes on our part. I am very suspicious of the motives of people who say, "this should not be discussed." I think motives can be questioned both ways. I feel there can be a danger of wanting to avoid anything that may not conform to "PC standards" but I also fear that others may wish to perpetuate discussion for reasons of racism. From my POV, I would not say it must never be discussed but I do feel we need to find the true picture on a national level rather than guessing. Diving in with conclusions which some could conceivably "translate" into "Stay clear of Paki's if you value your daughters". Is certainly not the way forward. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 Jul 11 - 03:27 PM ""I have not "advanced" any "cultural conclusions" Don. On what evidence could I "consider the position nationwide"? Is there any at all?"" More futile wriggling and still no apology! ""Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 24 Jan 11 - 05:28 PM This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know. There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."" That statement was not uttered by any of your "sources", but was completely your own interpretation of what they said, leaving out some very important points which were inconvenient in that they did not fit the mould into which you wished to squeeze the argument. Those are YOUR EXPRESSED CULTURAL CONCLUSIONS! If I am wrong, supply a link to the verbatim report in which that statement occurs. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 01 Jul 11 - 03:37 PM ""In a normal debate, I would give my opinion, and others would agree or challenge or offer different opinions."" You have and we have, then you denied that your opinions are yours, blaming sundry "sources" for them, and you rubbished all our opinions. Which of your "sources" are you going to blame for saying that the alternatives we put up are "nonsense", "wild generalisations" (a bit rich from one who "believes" that all male British Pakistanis are potential child abusers and sex traffickers) etc.? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Jul 11 - 03:58 PM Jon. "Diving in with conclusions which some could conceivably "translate" into "Stay clear of Paki's if you value your daughters". Is certainly not the way forward. " Are you suggesting that is my POV? I have always stated that only a tiny minority are involved, the vast majority of good decent people feel disgraced by them. Shafiq said just that in his piece in The Times this week. |