 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Muslim prejudice
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 04:24 PM No. I am done.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 08 Jul 11 - 04:20 PM As I said, here we go again... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 04:15 PM CEOP withheld an area breakdown. I think we know the over-rep is an issue of the Midlands and North. I think we know why ethnicity was probably not recorded in so many cases. CEOP found a large over-rep NATIONWIDE in cases where ethnicity was recorded. The numbers were so great that even if every unrecorded ethnicity were a different demographic, there would STILL be an over-rep. And then there is all the other evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 08 Jul 11 - 04:05 PM CEOP whose national figures showed the same problem. Here we go again.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 03:57 PM Don, more data would be good. What we have. Police officers who say there is a specific problem in certain areas. Sikhs who say they have a specific problem. Hindus who say they have a specific problem. Investigative journalists who have found a specific problem. MPs whose constituents report a specific problem. A specific problem in Blackburn that vanished after a targeted intervention. Shafiq who had personal experience of this specific problem. Ahmed who had personal experience of this specific problem. Allibhai-Brown who had personal experience of this specific problem. Wilmer, who's 400 cases were all of this specific problem. Dando Institute whose investigations found overwhelmingly this same problem. CEOP whose national figures showed the same problem. You can say it is not proof, but it is very convincing evidence. Everyone here is convinced but you and Jim. No evidence is ever going to convince you two, so I am done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Jul 11 - 03:18 PM ""Jon, CEOP did not offer any explanation, nor deny one. Don, just you and Jim still denying the over-rep. then. Steve said, "You can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else." You two can obviously. Joe please, pull the plug."" As you didn't read or respond to the comment, here it is again. If you can't be bothered, get somebody to read it to you. You can certainly question the validity of statistics as unsatisfactorily based as those upon which you build your argument. I repeat:- The conclusions you draw are suspect because the sample is 1. Too small 2. Too unrepresentative, in that your conclusion is based on a small and localised area, and a series of interlinked criminal gangs which happened in this particular group of cases to be predominantly British Pakistanis. 3. Too skewed, in that they excluded entirely the vast majority of the ethnic group you are attempting to tie into your preferred conclusion. 4. Much more plausible if applied to my alternative, which you have rejected without consideration. One other thing is true. Your sources have at no time concurred with your "over representation" theory, in fact very much the contrary, yet you persist in presenting it as established fact, rather than as the unsupported opinion of one Keith A of Hertford, based on dodgy maths at best, which in fact is just what it is. I hope that this is sufficiently on topic for you, though with little hope of getting the same in response (not a personal attack, just an observation based on the whole of your posting history in this thread). Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Jul 11 - 03:12 PM PS. Please note that it is now Keith, shorn of any credibility, who is begging for the closure of the thread. Right or wrong, he wants the last word. No change there! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Jul 11 - 03:06 PM ""You & the others I have named, however, have clearly, to my observation, parroted accusations of 'racism' at any remark which might appear to name any specific demographic in any but favourable terms, whatever the facts of the matter."" That, with respect, is a gross distortion of what I have been saying throughout this thread Mike, as I suspect you already know. There has been no such blanket accusation stated or implied in any post of mine, and I think you owe me a retraction and an apology if you cannot point to any single post of mine which does contain or imply such. Throughout this thread I have been arguing against exactly such biased behaviour by Keith in attempting, from far from sufficient evidence, to portray a specific racial grouping as potential cultural degenerates who are a danger to children. My only mention of any racial grouping other than the group in Keith's gunsights, was made to show that the others with exactly the same cultural restrictions showed no such tendency. Neither of course did his target group, except for the few in the localised criminal gangs involved in this crime. We learned that Pakistani gangs tend to consist mainly of Pakistanis. WOW, what a revelation!! But Keith has managed to post the vast majority of the total number of posts in this thread with just one recurrent theme. Blame British Pakistanis as a whole for the crime of on street grooming, and sex trafficking of underage victims. This has been going on since the time when there were more Brits in Pakistan, than Pakistanis in Britain, but until very recently it has been lumped in with domestic grooming and other sex crimes. Keith may not have noticed, but this is NOT, as he would wish us to believe, a new crime. It has been happening for decades past, and the earlist groups involved were people like the Krays and Richardsons. I can't be certain, but I don't think they were of Pakistani origin. So you see Mike, no "parroted accusations". I don't do bird impressions. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 01:48 PM Jon, CEOP did not offer any explanation, nor deny one. Don, just you and Jim still denying the over-rep. then. Steve said, "You can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else." You two can obviously. Joe please, pull the plug. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Jul 11 - 01:26 PM ""You can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else. My case is only the over-rep, and only you Jim, Lox and maybe Don are still denying it."" You can certainly question the validity of statistics as unsatisfactorily based as those upon which you build your argument. I repeat:- The conclusions you draw are suspect because the sample is 1. Too small 2. Too unrepresentative, in that your conclusion is based on a small and localised area, and a series of interlinked criminal gangs which happened in this particular group of cases to be predominantly British Pakistanis. 3. Too skewed, in that they excluded entirely the vast majority of the ethnic group you are attempting to tie into your preferred conclusion. 4. Much more plausible if applied to my alternative, which you have rejected without consideration. One other thing is true. Your sources have at no time concurred with your "over representation" theory, in fact very much the contrary, yet you persist in presenting it as established fact, rather than as the unsupported opinion of one Keith A of Hertford, based on dodgy maths at best, which in fact is just what it is. I hope that this is sufficiently on topic for you, though with little hope of getting the same in response (not a personal attack, just an observation based on the whole of your posting history in this thread). Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 08 Jul 11 - 12:28 PM I would not agree that he knows more about Pakistanis than Pakistanis do. Irrelevant. He was best placed to know what could and could not be made from the data. Anyway, his main point was that it is best not to talk about it. No his point was not to make national cultural conclusions from the report. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: MGM·Lion Date: 08 Jul 11 - 11:40 AM Don: Re your post addressed to me at 11.00 AM, what 'preconceptions' do you purport to find in any of my posts on this thread, which have been purely speculative [apart fom the repeated assertion that IMO Keith has not been receiving a fair hearing ~ hardly a "preconception"}? You & the others I have named, however, have clearly, to my observation, parroted accusations of 'racism' at any remark which might appear to name any specific demographic in any but favourable terms, whatever the facts of the matter. If this is not resorting to argument based on doctrinaire preconceptions, then it seems to me the words can have no referent. Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 11:21 AM (He did not speculate on the cause of the over-rep at all Jon.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 11:19 AM I would not agree that he knows more about Pakistanis than Pakistanis do. Anyway, his main point was that it is best not to talk about it. I think that dangerously wrong, but in this case I will go along with it. I really am done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 08 Jul 11 - 11:13 AM I do still "believe" and "accept" Jon, but only because I believe the 5 experts whose case was reported in all the media to the exclusion of any other. It was never anything to do with me, and nor could it have been. I will drop it if someone of comparable credentials ever challenges it. The chief executive of Ceop is far better placed than any of your "experts" and he very clearly advises against any such conclusions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Jul 11 - 11:00 AM ""I am moved to say again that I continue to see in your & Don's & Lox's constant unbacked iterations the customary knee-jerk refusal of the doctrinairely-committed to face any fact incompatible with their preconceptions."" Mike, are you sure you aren't looking in a mirror? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 10:58 AM I do still "believe" and "accept" Jon, but only because I believe the 5 experts whose case was reported in all the media to the exclusion of any other. It was never anything to do with me, and nor could it have been. I will drop it if someone of comparable credentials ever challenges it. My only case is the over-rep. All those capable of rational thought accept it, so I am done. Pull the switch please Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 08 Jul 11 - 10:31 AM My case is the over-rep, and I am not arguing about its cause. Fair enough, if that is your only case, I will assume you have dropped: "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"" "but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for." and take it as agreeed that you now accept that attempting to reach any form of "national cultural conclusion" with the available information was wrong. That being the case, I am done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 10:12 AM Jon, my only case is the over-rep and you accept it. I stated that I only believed because the 5 are utterly believable, but I do not and could not defend that theory any more than I could the theory of black holes, time dilation or the weather forecast. My case is the over-rep, and I am not arguing about its cause. I am done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 08 Jul 11 - 10:03 AM Keith, you are lumping me in with some general agreement in this thread with you. While I am prepared to accept there is an over-rep, I disagree with you strongly over what has been the main issue within this thread. Your words I have issue with include: "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"" "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: 08 Jul 11 - 09:53 AM Your words Jon. "Keith, I am prepared to accept that this over representation exists in the specified places. This "over-rep" in itself does not "prove" the theory though. " I have no opinion on any theory. My only case is the over-rep. I am done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 08 Jul 11 - 09:41 AM Jon (pointing out that this has never been an issue with him) Seems to be nothing I can do about this... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 09:32 AM From his last post, I think Lox accepts it too (in the specified areas). detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=3174428 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 09:02 AM You can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else. My case is only the over-rep, and only you Jim, Lox and maybe Don are still denying it. As Akeneaton, MtheGM, Dave Gnome, Jon (pointing out that this has never been an issue with him), Steve Shaw (notwithstanding that he disagrees with other things he, wrongly, believes I support) and Lively Lass have all accepted it, I am done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jul 11 - 08:52 AM "My case is only the over-rep," Your case is an unproved and at present unprovable point of totally your own invention of "massive" over-representation of a crime which you have attempted to identify exclusively with Pakistanis. My/our case is that you have attempted to use this invention of yours to present a whole community as culturally degenerate. Not only have you misrepresented and distorted evidence from your own witnesses, you are now doing the same with members of this forum in claiming their support, which you patently do not have. Are there no limits to the depths to which you will sink to get your racist message across? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 06:47 AM I have no issue with that Steve. Thanks. keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jul 11 - 06:44 AM I can't deny bare, factual, context-innocent statistics and neither can anyone else. I wouldn't want to, but neither would I gleefully put them forward to "prove" (or, possibly worse, insinuate) something that requires a whole load more context. My post that you are so fond of quoting clearly states my position and indicates why I so vehemently disagree with yours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 06:18 AM Steve, here is the post I refer to in context. (Me) Do you still deny it? Do you think it significant? Do you think it racist? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 17 Mar 11 - 02:20 PM When have I ever denied it? Or said it was insignificant? If that's how you read my comments then you need English lessons. What's wrong is the gloss you're putting on it, your focus to the exclusion of all other sex crime in this country. You seem to be on a mission to besmirch one particular small group of people. That could be racist for all I know. It's down to you to defend that stance and you have signally failed to do so, which is why you are being confronted with scepticism by so many people. It doesn't help when you blatantly misrepresent what people post, as here, either. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 17 Mar 11 - 03:14 PM Thanks Steve. If you accept that I have no other issue, but I refute that I " focus to the exclusion of all other sex crime in this country." It is just that we happened to be discussing this crime, i.e. on-street grooming of children by groups. I did acknowledge whenever it came up that BPs were under represented in all other crime incuding other sex crimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 06:12 AM Steve, ""Accepted it" my arse. You can't just post that about me without taking all my comments into consideration. " Do you accept the over-rep.? You did state that, notwithstanding your other comments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 05:52 AM OK Jon, but I never came up with an explanation for it. I did report one that appeared in all the media, and was prepared to accept it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: GUEST,Jon Date: 08 Jul 11 - 05:37 AM As Akeneaton, MtheGM, Dave Gnome, Jon, Steve Shaw and Lively have all accepted it, I am done. You fail to point out this have never been my issue with you. Mine is that, despite expert advice to the contrary, you are prepared to use very poor data (which incidentally only managed to positively identify 30 British Pakistanis out of 2379 offenders) to reach or promote or support conclusions of the form "British Pakistanis commit this crime because they..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Jul 11 - 05:23 AM "Accepted it" my arse. You can't just post that about me without taking all my comments into consideration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 04:57 AM The explanation DOES come from the 5 and does not and could not come from me. You would have to know something about it. I don't. Stop calling me racist in public and I won't have to keep defending myself. My case is only the over-rep, and only you Jim, Lox and maybe Don are still denying it. As Akeneaton, MtheGM, Dave Gnome, Jon, Steve Shaw and Lively have all accepted it, I am done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jul 11 - 04:48 AM "The cultural explanation came from the 5." Nope - still skulking behind other people. "Why can we not just debate the issues? " As Lox rightly stated; "it is not the person but the idea that needs confronting". The issue here is "Muslim prejudice" (read the heading) - in this case, yours and it is this that is being debated - not you. "do not think that Mudcat approves of or "allows" this sort of animosity." It seems to approve of and allow racist accusations to be made Joe. I've been asking for this thread to be closed for months now and am totally bemused why it wasn't - I certainly woudn't open a new one and would only participate in another if it was used for the same purpose this one was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 03:22 AM This is how it should be. 28th Jan. Me. "And yes, find anything by me that is racist and I walk." Lox, next post "I wouldn't want you to walk as for me, as I have already stated, it is not the person but the idea that needs confronting" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jul 11 - 03:21 AM You know, this whole thread serves to do one thing: to expose the prejudices of the participants, on all sides of the issue. If I close the thread, they'll simply move their squabble to another thread. Many people have asked me to close this thread, and I probably will - soon. I've decided to just leave them here and hope they kill each other off. But please do not think that Mudcat approves of or "allows" this sort of animosity. The participants are doing it of their own accord. This thread disgusts me, moreso because I like most of the participants. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 03:04 AM The cultural explanation came from the 5. Even you are not certain they are wrong. If culture is to blame, then I would expect it to be manifested in a range of responses in those in that culture. The range would be from no effect to actual offending. Agree? I am not a social psychologist and am ready to be corrected. Empirically we know the distribution is skewed towards no effect as hardly any offend. I have explained all this before. The cultural idea and its implications do not come from me. I do support the over-rep. Whatever your opinion of me, why must you keep constantly pushing it? Why can we not just debate the issues? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jul 11 - 02:38 AM For the record, this is part of the discussion on the subject of a "culturally implanted tendency toward paedophile rape" (Don's question) and how you responded to it, along with a question by Lox This is what you accepted as your view and what you put your name to. You, and not your 'Famous Five' wrote this - your opinion, your responsibility - have the courage to accept it as your view and justify it as such without hiding behind others. If you wish to point out where I have distorted or invented anything I have selected here, please feel free to do so. Of course, a fuller version of this discussion can be found around the dates provided. Don's question 12 Feb 11 - 07:52 PM : "When asked the question ""their culture inspires a slight predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls. Can you confirm that that is your opinion of British Pakistanis?"", you replied ""It is my opinion that it is a reasonable suggestion. The over representation is a fact that requires an explanation. Something is predisposing them, and it is more likely to be something sexual in the culture than your alternative list. (wild generalisations?)"". However small the number of those who succumb to the temptation, and however slight that tendency may be, it does not alter the fact that you believe that all male Pakstani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency toward paedophile rape." 13 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM Keith "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." Lox, 13 Feb 11 - 05:11 PM "A theory that wilfully and exclusively discriminates on Racial/cultural grounds is a racist one." Keith's reply: "But, supposing it was true. It was true about Thugee culture. I was not comparing Thugee culture to BP culture. I was only showing you that sometimes culture is to blame. It is not racist to say that. But you seem to be saying that it is." I suggest that if you are now going to disown this, you carefully read through everything you have written before you make yourself look any more dishonest than you already have. Throughout this thread you have taken examples of the behaviour of a small number of criminals and painted a horrific picture of the British Pakistani community; I brought together 5 "massive" or "massive, massive" examples of how you seem to see the Pakistani people in Britain: (21 Mar 11 - 12:33 - 21 Mar 11 - 12:34 - 21 Mar 11 - 12:36 - 21 Mar 11 - 12:38 - 21 Mar 11 - 12:41.) You have suggested that the reason they behave the way they do is because "all male Pakistani Muslims" have a "cultural implant" and you compound this by saying "only a tiny minority succumb." Whatever way you paint this, you have presented us with a culturally degenerate people who are potentially a danger to underage girls outside of their culture. The logic of your argument is that they would all be paedophile rapists if they did not resist their culural urges. This is how you have depicted a community made up of an the poorest people in Britain who are four times more likely to be racially abused and attacked than any other racial group, and who, by and large, are recognised as being well behaved, somewhat insular, law-abiding, industrious and high achieving when allowed to be. I really do think I have had enough of your lies, distortions and your cringing behind the words of others, so unless you have anything more to say by way of honest explanation..... music calls Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Jul 11 - 01:18 AM I already have, but let's clear this up. The 5 had all said there was a specific problem with BPs in this offence, and that it derived from attitudes to females, courtship and marriage practise. It had been reported in all the media. Don challenged me to say if I believed in a cultural explanation. Not wanting to duck the question, I answered honestly that I did believe but only because I believed the 5. I consciously left out any reference to paedophilia because no-one had suggested that was an issue. I was not making a case for the explanation. My case was and is just the over-rep, but I was asked directly by Don for my belief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jul 11 - 07:23 PM Explain your statement or accept the consequences of it Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jul 11 - 05:49 PM I HAVE NEVER LINKED PAEDOPHILIA TO CULTURE. NEVER! IF YOU SAY I HAVE, YOU LIE. REPLY JIM. In the Feb post I do not refer to paedophilia. It is about the offending under discussion. I say I believe it is linked to culture and I say it is not my idea. It could not be. You would have to know about it to have the idea. I also believe tomorrow's weather forecast. I also believe faster than light travel is impossible. I also believe in black holes. None of those ideas are mine and I do not, and could not, defend any of them without referring to the experts responsible for them. That is not "hiding" but stating an obvious truth, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jul 11 - 05:15 PM "If I have made a racist post, quote it" Have just quoted it - you explain what you meant. "Returning to the issues" Again manipulating the thread into your comfort zone - the issue is Muslim prejudice - you have made it into a platform to attack British Pakistanis. Over-rep might one day be proved to be the case - you with your handful of examples of anedotal evidence, personal opinions etc came nowhere near proving it exists and in order to even begin to show it to be a cultural trait you will have to explain why it does not appear to be a problem outside the areas yo have chosen to highlight. The CEOPs report, by admission, is inconclusive and unreliable until further evidence can be gathered from a nation-wide survey, and even within that report it warns that no racial or cultural conclusions can be drawn. The same warning was included in your own examples' statements - yet you continue to make it a racial issue - why? Once these statistics are gathered in, then and only then can the job of finding out why these events are taking place - only you have pre-empted that by telling us that it's due to a cultural implant. "Let's discuss the issues instead of me for a change." Again I repeat and again you continue to ignore - not about you just your racist suggestions and your dishonest debating practices. Everbody who has opposed your ideas has put down possible reasons for the abuse; you have not even had the good grace to even refer to them, let alone oppose them. Now try coming out in the open instead of hiding behind you out-of-context and deliberately distorted quotes. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jul 11 - 04:24 PM Returning to the issues, how do you reconcile the CEOP data with your denial of an over-rep? Let's discuss the issues instead of me for a change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jul 11 - 04:05 PM "The one post which describes the British Pakistani culture as being implanted with a tendency to paedophelia." I have never said this. Since you joined the thread, word for word you have posted much more than I have. If I have made a racist post, quote it (in full without additions.) You never have managed to find one yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jul 11 - 02:26 PM "I follow rather than lead," Then I suggest you re-read you postings. You have dominated this thread by at least four-to-one to present us with an ethic minority with a debased culture which makes them a danger to young English girls. "one from February to exploit some ambiguity" The one post which describes the British Pakistani culture as being implanted with a tendency to paedophelia. You have lied by saying you never said such a thing; you have admitted it, you have claimed neutrality on and ignorance of the subject - you have even extrodinarily claimed that you can say you believe it and somehow mean you don't believe it, then gone on to equate yourself with a weather forecaster only carrying the message. You say you have never put up a racist post; your claim to a "cultural implant" was only one of several racist posts, others being a gross exaggeration of "massive" and "massive, massive" over-representation. THEY ARE YOUR WORDS AND YOUR RACIST POSTS. Don't you dare accuse me of deciet and dishonesty after your string of lise, distortions, exaggeration, misrepresentations, your doctoring of threads to remove specific vital qualifications, you have consistently hhidden behind experts.... and the beat goes on. You are still lying about your "cultural implant" statement (please note the quotation marks). However many "non-racist" statements you claim to have made, they do not cancel out any of the ones you have made. THese are not persoal attacks; they are direct references and challenges to your statements and to your behaviour in general. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:54 AM I mostly just reply to posts that challenge mine. I follow rather than lead, but as you say that has resulted in a huge number of posts. Of those, you keep on about one from February to exploit some ambiguity, ignoring the hundreds of other posts all non-racist and/or anti-racist. Even then you have to edit out "but only because" and fabricate "culturally implanted tendency towards paedophilia." which I never said. You can not put up a single racist post because I have made none. All you have is deceit and dishonesty. Personal attack without foundation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Jul 11 - 03:29 AM "It is a lie to say I led it," No it isn't - you may not have started the drift, but the sheer weight of your postings and your practice of responding to virtually everybody's post has meant you have dominated this thread with your attempt to prove that "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" towards paedophelia. Mike - if the accusation is "ill founded" perhaps you can explain his phrase which he has denied, admitted, and finally said that he is neutral on the subject. It is racist to apply such a statement to any one racial/ cultural group; please show us it isn't - and maybe even say if you agree with it or not. And I still find it extremely one sided that you continue to attack those of us who who find Keith's stance offensive, and treat his own behaviour - racist, evasive, manipulative, openly dishonest, pompously domineering, cowardly in refusing to take responsibility for his own statements by cowering behind 'experts'... as acceptable. His latest ploy of using somebody's funeral as an attempt to deny his racism is really something else - don't you think? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jul 11 - 01:24 AM And, my first post on this subject was just an intervention in support of the victims, correcting some fasle insinuations that had been posted about them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jul 11 - 01:14 AM I continued posting on the original subject for two days after the child abuse subject came up. (Jan 21-Jan23) It is a lie to say I led it, and you knew you were lying because I have shown you it before. This discussion is ABOUT the involvement of BPs in this crime. How can I discuss that and defend the over-rep without referring to them. I guess you did not Google. You might wonder how my supposed racism never got in the way of my friendship with a man like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: MGM·Lion Date: 07 Jul 11 - 01:05 AM That was the origin of the thread indeed, Jim; the statement by Lady Warsi at the Tory conference being the trigger of Brian's OP. But the main associated news item, the statement by police about cover-ups of statistics specifically related to Pakistani communities for fear of accusations of racism in certain regions, with its follow-up comments by Straw, Alibhai-Brown, et al, became the main focus of the debate, and hence, as Keith IMO correctly points out, of this thread. I think you are being disingenuous in your implied contradiction of Keith's point that this is what the thread is mainly concerned with, and hence what he will be mostly adverting to; and, once again, in your [and one or two others'] constantly parroted ad nauseam ill-founded accusations of 'racist racist racist', when he has, so far as I can see, made no claims of, and has indeed repeatedly disassociated himself from, any wider applications of such facts or statistics. I am moved to say again that I continue to see in your & Don's & Lox's constant unbacked iterations the customary knee-jerk refusal of the doctrinairely-committed to face any fact incompatible with their preconceptions. ~M~ |