BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 04:54 PM

Jim, I'm not commenting on the broader picture here, but surely you don't identify genetics and culture as being one and the same thing?

Genetic makeup is biological and what one is born with - like it or lump it. Culture however is social, and what one learns from exposure to one's immediate community - and as such may be deviated from depending on the individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 04:54 PM

If so, can you indicate which of the other quotes you have put up, you agree with, and which you don't.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 04:44 PM

"It is a blatant lie that I have ever once referred to genes or race in this thread."
"all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"
You mean you put this up as an argument because you didn't agree with it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 03:48 PM

It is a blatant lie that I have ever once referred to genes or race in this thread.
The cultural explanation was from famously anti-racist BPs.
You should take it up with them.
I am not committed to it.
My mind is open and I am not in the least concerned about the explanation anyway.
Why do you even care about an explanation for the over-representation if you deny the over-representation?
I will not mention it again, except I know you will.

You preconceptions are racially discriminating Jim.
Will you address that?

" Since when do we take our outlook and definitions from mass murderers?"
Er, you brought it up Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 03:33 PM

"The Nazis regarded the Jews as a race."
In the incredible off-chance that you are right, the Nazis also regarded all Jews as inferior and exterminated six million of them using the argument that they were genetically flawed, just as you have argued here. Since when do we take our outlook and definitions from mass murderers?
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Keith but the concept that:
                  "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" is not only racist, it's text book racism.
It is what we have been saying all along, had you only been listening.
You appear to be floudering - what you have claimed is deeply racist, and it runs through your argument like Blackpool runs through rock.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 02:50 PM

Nazism isn't a culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 01:26 PM

Your preconceptions are racially discriminating.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 01:24 PM

The Nazis regarded the Jews as a race.
They were motivated by a cultural belief in the importance of racial purity.
Did you not know that Jim?

My crime, as you see it, was to be persuaded by people like Ahmed, Shafiq and Allibhai-Brown that the over-representation is explained by BP marital practices.
They are not racist so you can not accuse me of racism for believing them.

You have previously denied being blinkered by ideology.
You have now admitted it, and with some vehemence.
Your mind is closed by preconceptions to the possibility of BPs being over-represented in any crime!

It matters not that irrefutable evidence is presented.
Your mind is closed.

However, your preconceptions did not stop you gleefully stating that some crimes were mostly committed by whites.
Your preconceptions are racially prejudiced.
That makes you, by definition, a racist.

I have never said anything that could be defined as racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 01:14 PM

Does that constitute invective Mike - welcome to the abusive circle.
Jim Carrol

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 12:59 PM

Jim ~~

✌

❤

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 12:34 PM

"Jim, it was a little dishonest of you to edit out the send half of my sentence, which qualified the first half"
No it certainly was not - you put this down as your belief.
If I put every quote from you alongside your source, my posts woulld be twice as long.
"Surely those 6 million were murdered because of their race."
The Jews are not a race - they were slaughtered for being Jews, the arguments put forward for doing so were that they were 'genetically inferior'
Had the Nazis had their way they would have gone on to slaughter French, Hungarian, Polish, Dutch, British...... Jews; in fact they gave it their best shot with some of these (with the co-operation of the Pope in the case of the Italins).
"Genetic implants' is not just racicism; it is the cornerstone on which all racism is based.
What ******* planet do you occupy?
"Don't be peevish!"
Response of the day.
Don't be smug.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 12:06 PM

BTW Jim, it was a little dishonest of you to edit out the send half of my sentence, which qualified the first half.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 12:00 PM

Jim:

Quote of the day ~~~

"Don't be peevish!

Daisy Ashford, The Young Visiters, or Mr Salteena's Plan 1919

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 11:41 AM

Surely those 6 million were murdered because of their race.
And it was not the race, but the culture of the perpetrators that drove them to do it.
Would you defend Natzi culture as you defend BP culture?

But once again you are trying to draw us in to explanations for the over-representation, while denying the over-representation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 11:27 AM

"Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, "
Absolutely - I have always rejected the idea that any culture/race inherits criminal tendencies - or any tendency whatever - six million human beings were slaughtered because of that belief.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 10:06 AM

The thoughtful, balanced post that I was replying to!

From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 13 Feb 11 - 06:54 AM

Now we've got the whole set of screamers joined in an adamantine block of pure mindless prejudice there doesn't seem much point in bothering, so I'll use my time more productively elsewhere.

Anyone asking them to consider alternatives is automatically on a loser.

There are NO alternatives for them. Muslims are all evil, oppressive, chauvinist, paedophile rapists, made so by their cultural upbringing. Do they, I wonder, ever listen to themselves?

My guess would be NO!!



Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 09:24 AM

Whole post, 13th Feb,

Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things.

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.

Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 09:15 AM

"This is surely the point that has been at issue thruout ~~ that fear of accusations of racism has been the inhibiting factor to the whole matter's having been exposed"

M - I don't know if this is in fact correct. The discussion of these crimes on this thread began some time before I entered it, and I think the 'conversation' has taken a number of shifts in focus both before and since then.

I believe it was Jack Straw's et al comments on Pakistani marriage customs and "fizzing and popping testosterone" which was - at least initially - more of a key issue of contention between other contributors. Though personally that branch of the discussion was never of interest to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 09:08 AM

And by the way - this is what you are defending
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"""Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 08:26 AM

"My support for Keith has been 'on balance' rather than 'blanket', Jim"
No Mike, it hasn't.
On the matter of his behaviour it has been total - a praising with faint damns, though you were quick enough to damn that of his opponents- and you still tiptoe round a specific piece of dishonesty I mentioned.
As far as I'm concerned, both you and he can both go hang - you are a matched pair.
I leave you and he to your 'massive over-representation' - enjoy.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 08:14 AM

My support for Keith has been 'on balance' rather than 'blanket', Jim. I am sure you are right that there are details of his arguments which will appeal to me less than others. But, on balance, as I say, I do not think he has been afforded a fair hearing, but has been ganged up on for reasons cogently expressed in Lively's recent valuable contribution ~~ "What was of concern to me was the apparent lack of interest in and failure to tackle these crimes by the authorities. And indeed whether or not, as has been suggested by a number of commentators, misguided PC sensibilities represented a hinderance to such efforts."

This is surely the point that has been at issue thruout ~~ that fear of accusations of racism has been the inhibiting factor to the whole matter's having been exposed & discussed as it should have been right from the off, as the police authorities I might also have cited in my last post have confirmed. Do you feel at all that your {& Don et al's} responses might have confirmed the validity of such apprehensions? And, if so, do you feel complacent about such an outcome?

Re our relationship: I have said before that I am used to disagreeing on public matters with all sorts of people, including my own family e.g., in the hopes that such disagreements should not adversely affect personal relationships. My feelings towards you remain, as ever, warm & respectful.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 07:10 AM

"I'm sure other such communities would favour efforts to engage them in similar gang activity in their towns."

(Oops, spot the missing word!)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 07:04 AM

I'd like to make it clear that the ethnicity of the perpetrators was not and is not, my key concern in these cases. Of course abuse covers the entire spectrum from lesbian mothers to highly respected figures of authority. What was of concern to me was the apparent lack of interest in and failure to tackle these crimes by the authorities. And indeed whether or not, as has been suggested by a number of commentators, misguided PC sensibilities represented a hinderance to such efforts.

It's all very well to say, we all hate abuse, but it goes on everywhere. Because no type abuse can be efficiently targeted and stopped if a) there is either failure to acknowledge pertinent information regarding the perpetrators and their victims b) efforts to prevent such crimes are not targeted at the perpetrators and their victims.

It was heartening to see that in at least one town, efforts to engage community awareness resulted in a successful elimination of the particular type of crime under discussion here. I'm sure other such communities would favour efforts to engage them in similar gang activity in their towns. These communities don't want creeps crawling around their streets any more than any other community does.

One thing I would add, is that cultural (socially) and religious factors would appear to figure here, in as much as by comparison I find it highly unlikely that within a white dominated area, gang crime could be effectively be stopped through working with the local CofE Vicar.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 07:03 AM

"I do deplore the hysterically aggressive attitude...."
This is a discussion on racism Mike - a subject that tends, in my experience, to attract such responses - and while all might have been guilty of this, it no way excuses Keith's openly dishonest and manipulative behaviour, which you have given your blanket support to.
I have had a number of political disagreements with you in the past, some strong ones, which have in no way affected the respect I hold for you and your work; this remains unchanged.
Up to now I have regarded you as fair minded and balanced in your approach - it is this I find myself having to rethink.
Do you really find no fault with Keith's behaviour, particulary his honesty?
As I said, I was dragged back into this thread by what I believe to be an inexcusable piece of dishonesty on Keith's part (an attempt to use a mistake on my part which I had admitted to and withdrawn) to bolster his already sunken case - you apparently count this as acceptable - which allows me to reach my judgement of your fairness' with no difficulty, and with a degree of sadness.
As far as the argument itself; I have said that without more background information, which is unavailable to any of us, it is impossible to reach any comclusion, and to attempt to do so can only described as agenda-serving.
Beyond that, I see no point whatever in what can only be a further repetition of old arguments.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 06:33 AM

"That was my sole point; so far as I understood the matter, it was also Keith's."
That was indeed my whole case Michael.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 06:21 AM

I don't think that is all I have been doing, Jim ~~ tho I reiterate that I do deplore the hysterically aggressive attitude which has been taken to the points Keith has been making; which, I repeat, I made myself above ~ in parallel with, rather than in support of, Keith...

Viz, that the grossly disproportionate number of convictions for a particular offence, in particular places, over a particular period, of men of Pakistani origin, was a matter of concern: not only to me {& to Keith}, but to several leading Muslim authorities, to a leading Muslim journalist, to a respectable politician like Jack Straw, and to a respected and authoritative social observer like Hilary W, who produced a large number of other worrying statistics leading to similar conclusions and concerns.

That was my sole point; so far as I understood the matter, it was also Keith's. The fact that other people in other demographics in other places may have committed offences with some similarities was irrelevant - or at best tangential - to the specific areas of concern we had rubricated.

No proper response was forthcoming to these points; merely abusive, disrespectful and hysterical kneejerk cries involving the R word. As I said, just read objectively back over your posts (or Don's or Lox's or Silas's), and find one moderately and civilly expressed contradiction or objection to any of the LIMITED RANGE of points we have made.

I don't think you will.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 05:03 AM

MIke - I am apalled at the unbelieveably one-sided and uncritical support you have given Keith, even his open refual to even consider the same crime when committed by white Christianss - no, not a different crime as he claims, but the same one - sex with under-age girls. This, to me, is open racism which you are giving your support to.
The rest of my analysis of Keith's behaviour here is a matter of record, which I would be happy to debate with you item by item had I not had my fill of this shit thread. I was only drawn back into it by a piece of particularly slime behaviour on Keith's part, which you apparently find no fault with.
A quick sprint through this thread shows very little input on your part on the subject in hand, rather you have largely confined yourself to calling for fair play for Keith - indicating that he speaks for your views - which makes a sort of sense, I suppose.
Whether I believe anybody has won the day - I believe the day was won long ago, and well more than half this thread has been mantra-like repetition on Keith's part and his constant retreating behind other people's statements.
In the end, nobody wins with Keith's 'last man standing' method of argument, people just drop out from frustrated exhaustion.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 04:34 AM

I have done so, Jim. I still feel you have misunderstood the points he has made within an extremely, and avowedly, limited compass; and can only have interpreted his meaning as you have by widening the applications of his assertions to a point he has persistently disavowed, which disavowals you have refused to take on board because they would not be in accord with your preconceptions. He has not said or implied what you interpret so far as I can see. I think we shall have to agree that our perceptions are different, which is a fair enough admission, is it not?; but you really cannot continue in your assertions, which are what brought me back to the thread, that you & Don & Lox have absolutely carried the day and Keith has garnered no support for his attitudes and beliefs, can you now? I categorically decline to regard myself as 'no-one'!

Regards ~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 03:53 AM

"Not that I am ingenuous enough to expect for a moment that you are ~~ but just go back to some of your posts & listen to yourselves.."
And just go back over Keith's posts and say he hasn't behaved the way I have described Mike.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 02:27 AM

Why can they not just accept that the over-representation is real?
Reverse racism, which is just as pernicious as the other sort.

Unfortunately for them, there is irrefutable evidence that it is real, and they have no answer to it.

That is why Lox has to run away and hide in a flurry of nonsensical posts.
That is why Don closes his eyes to make it all disappear.
That is why Jim can only make up long posts about what a bad person I am.

Not a subject for mirth, but it is impossible not to laugh at their antics.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Apr 11 - 01:18 AM

YES IT IS!

It was the actual subject of the Dando Institute Report.
It is the subject of two ongoing reports.
It is the kind of grooming that Straw, Cryer, et al were referring to.
It is what those 56 convictions were for.
It is what the rest of us have been discussing since January.

Lox,
"Keith says he meant the gangs all along.
Thats fine. "

You read all my old posts about groups and gangs.
What has changed for you?
What is fine?
Why have you gone again?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 07:35 PM

""Don, this is a specific type of grooming and pimping that we have been discussing for 3 months now.""

NO, IT ISN'T! It's exactly the same crime it has always been, which is why the survey warned specifically against the idea that it is a new crime type.

You can easily check it out for yourself, but of course you won't, because your claim to be willing to consider alternatives is just a load of hot air.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 04:09 PM

"So Lox, do you now accept that on-street grooming, by groups/gangs, for rape and pimping, is mainly a crime of BPs, at least in the towns and cities of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Greater Manchester?"

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 04:06 PM

I'm all finished.

Feel free to carry on but please don't take my name in vain.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 03:58 PM

(and the Midlands)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 03:47 PM

So Lox, do you now accept that on-street grooming, by groups/gangs, for rape and pimping, is mainly a crime of BPs, at least in the towns and cities of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire and Greater Manchester?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 03:40 PM

As far as I can tell there's nothing left to add.

Keith says he meant the gangs all along.

Thats fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 02:27 PM

"have run out of ideas, having convinced no-one with your revolting and dishonest arguments."

"as can be seen from the waves of supporters you've managed to win over for it here."
====

Me, Jim? With all due modesty, I do not think I am no-one. I have refrained from intervention for a bit because I have not been back on this thread for a while, astonished at how long it has contrived to run & run.

But, having gone over what has gone on since I left a fortnight ago, I am distressed to find that you three, Don & Lox & Jim, are still priggishly & self-righteously congratulating yourself on having entirely missed the perfectly valid points, within the very limited compass which is all that has been at issue despite your efforts to widen the topic to a point which few others have even considered relevant, which Keith has been making throughout; and that you still persist in abusing him in a most disgraceful fashion for having said things which you have put into his mouth, without engaging with what he actually has said ~~ all in addition to such disgusting lapses as Don's having attempted to denigrate Hilary W, a respectable researcher who knows more on this topic than the three of you put in a bag together & shaken up will ever know, because her conclusions did not accord with his dishonestly postulated preconceptions.

It is patent to me that your positions have not changed: the least whiff of anything that might [in this case entirely in your own perceptions and not in reality] be construed as the evil R-boo-word, effectively robs the three of you of the little-bit-of-sense-you-had, like brother Paul in the Football Crazy song, and makes you, three normally tolerably intelligent persons {despite in the case of one of you occasional lapses which need not at present be specified}, go on in this unmannerly and aggressive fashion, of which I think you should all be ashamed.

Not that I am ingenuous enough to expect for a moment that you are ~~ but just go back to some of your posts & listen to yourselves...!

Best

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 01:49 PM

" the same figment of your imagination that it was when you first invented it"

Hardly invented by me Jim.
Lox was discussing it for two days without me.
The discussion followed statements by Straw and Cryer, and the results of the Dando Institute survey.
So, not actually invented by me at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 01:41 PM

"Anything to say about the over-representation?"
Yup - still the same figment of your imagination that it was when you first invented it - as can be seen from the waves of supporters you've managed to win over for it here.
Anything to say about your abuse of abused children?
Obviously not!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 12:20 PM

You make yourself more ridiculous with every groundless insult Jim.
Anything to say about the over-representation?
Obviously not!

Lox, my case is just that BPs are over-represented.
All the cultural stuff was proposed by people with actual knowledge of it, unlike us.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 11:59 AM

"This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know. "

Interesting, but not according to you.

According to you, Islam had nothing to do with it.

According to you, these crimes were a Pakistani cultural issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 11:53 AM

Keith
"Not one of you claims against me stands up."
All are verifiable for anybody with the stomach to wade through this thread.
As far as I am concerned you are a racist degenerate, every bit as ready to use the abuse of underage girls for your racist propaganda as the paedophiles were to use their bodies for sexual satisfaction - your performance on that particular section of this revolting discussion must have reached a low, even by your deplorable standards.
You are now reduced to attempting to use something that has been long admitted as a mistake and withdrawn - just as I predicted you would. You still stand on your own and have run out of ideas, having convinced no-one with your revolting and dishonest arguments.
You want to disprove anything on my list - please feel free and see how far you get.
It's on record and easily available for future use.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 11:00 AM

Jim, we have heard it all before.
You have no case to offer, so you try to attack me personally.

Not one of you claims against me stands up.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 10:53 AM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 10:32 AM

"Lox, groups and gangs are the same thing."


No chance mate.


You resisted the idea that it was a problem of organized crime throughout, asserting instead that it was a cultural problem.


Now that the Gangs have stopped operating, your assertion has been shown to be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 10:28 AM

I really wasn't going to bother with this – I found your hypocritical, racist behaviour so sickening, but since you have invited me back, here is a summary of your performance on this thread to date.
Right from the beginning you has ignored and refused to answer points made by others, even to the extent of denying that they have ever been made. You have persistently insulted contributors to this thread by claiming that they have not provided the evidence he has demanded, while ignoring requests to provide information necessary to make any assessment.
You have driven people from this thread with this, with his constant repetition, and with his 'last man standing', technique, and when they leave he has claimed some sort of victory.
When your unsubstantiated claims have been challenged you have persistently scurried behind "don't blame me; I'm only the messenger".
You have deliberately misrepresented what others have said, and when you have been caught out you have blatantly denied having said what is down in black and white.
You have doctored your own evidence and provided four separate reasons for having done so before finally settling on a final one.
You have complained of contributors dual-posting when it is you who as always done this on this thread and others.
You have openly attempted to smear one contributor who has probably acted in a more principled way than any of us by providing information that apparently went against his own beliefs – You accused him of succumbing to my supposed efforts of trying to influence him to not posting. It goes without saying that you have refused to apologise to either of us for this smear.
You have accused Lox and I of "keeping this thread alive", despite that fact that on 31st March your own postings numbered 535 and must be well into the 600s by now.
You have complained persistently (and pathetically) when I have returned to this thread to respond to his continuous racism (it is not your thread and anybody can come and go as they please without your permission).
You have pathetically complained of my postings being 'too long'.
You have attempted to give the impression that Lox and I are the only ones who disagree with him when in fact you has no support himself apart from a couple of feeble nods in his direction.      
You have used the fate of abused children to peddle an anti-Pakistani message.
You have crowed and gloated over fresh examples of paedophile abuse, describing yourself as "laughing" when you received it. In order to absolve yourself from this you then went into a disgusting an apparently uncontrollable bout of amateur theatricals weeping crocodile tears over the very thing you were gloating about earlier – and then accusing others of "not caring".
You have refused to comment on officially carried out reports of the grooming of underage teenagers in Northern Ireland because they involve Christian/white paedophiles, from whom racist capital cannot be made.
And now you attempt to score points that have been pointed out as being mistaken and have been withdrawn.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 10:21 AM

Lox, groups and gangs are the same thing.

Jim, the assertive, aggressive way you answered show that you meant every word.
A rare outbreak of honesty, that you immediately regretted, and spent the next day frantically back pedalling from.
How I enjoyed it.
You really made an arse of yourself that day!

Of course, you would never rake up someone's old posts to try to undermine, discredit and embarrass them.
That would make you a whining hypocrite,. wouldn't it Jim?!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 10:05 AM

"Yes where have I claimed it wasn't? (please answer)"
How dare you try to score points on something I have pointed out as a mistake and withdrawn - are you really that shoryt on argument -you dishonest shit -as well as proven yourself a selective racist?
im Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 09:29 AM

"Lox it is not a new twist.
I have been using this statement/question for weeks/months."

Nope - its the first time you have saiid anything about it being a gang issue.

You have consistently stuck up for the idea that it is a general cultural issue.