BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 08:11 AM

Wriggle wriggle.

Keith,

Straws opinion is flatly contradicted by the victims.

You state that you believe the victims.

So do you concede that Straws opinion is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 08:02 AM

Lox, a cultural explanation has been put forward.
I believe it, but only because of the stature of the proposers and absence of any alternative.
Beyond that I am not qualified to defend or oppose it, and do not care anyway.
What are your qualifications for dismissing it?

Straw expressed his opinion on why they do it.
Victims may have opinions too.

Straw states as fact that this is a particular problem of BPs.
The victims state the fact that their abusers were all BPs.

In matters of fact, I believe the victims.
Why don't YOU?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 07:58 AM

"I have defended Israel against Lox and Jim on Mudcat."

No, you have justified an action of the current Israeli administration.

Not quite the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 07:55 AM

"Excoriate" !
Execrate.
sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 07:54 AM

"I am not interested in explanations."

Not true - you think that there is a cultural explanation.

But that is beside the point.

Jack Straw is your first witness, and his "testimony" is contradicted by the victims testimony.

So which testimony should we trust? His or that of the victims?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 07:34 AM

Jack Straw stated, from his own experience of victims families as MP for Blackburn, that this is a particular problem for BPs.
He explained it in terms of testosterone fueled, unslaked lust.
I am not interested in explanations.
The victims say that the young men who are bait, and the gangs that employ them, are all BPs.

I believe the victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 07:28 AM

GIT, it appears you are not to be deleted so I will reply to you.
Did you start posting especially to attack me, or have you got another identity?

Koran burning.
I have never made an anti muslim post, and I excoriated the pastor for his antics in that thread.

Holocaust. I am not a denier.
I have defended Israel against Lox and Jim on Mudcat.

Do you have any actual contribution to make to this discussion?
Can you help Jim find the many thousands of non BP cases needed to make BPs minority offenders?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 07:22 AM

Keith,

You say you have evidence.

Lets examine your evidence together.

Your first item of evidence is the opinion of Jack Straw, who speaks about young men, fizzing and popping with testosterone, unable to get sex within their community, who are forced to get sex elsewhere, that being the root of these crimes.

But the victims testimony says that this is wrong and that the young men are merely used as bait.

Who do you agree with? Jack Straw or the victims?

Simple question.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Interested, Tunbridge Wells !
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 07:12 AM

And the eyebrows, what about the eyebrows? Did they get singed?

Looking through this thread, there is little or no evidence, merely opinions unsupported by fact. That does not mean that the issue need not be further and thoroughly investigated. But I think that, pending such investigations, it is inflammatory in the extreme to peddle unsubstantiated opinings, and in such a blatantly racist fashion.

As a matter of interest, Keith, when you have done with the "Muslim/ British Pakistani issue", where to next?

Do you still believe that the Jews are Satan's bankers? Is there a case for denying that six million really died in the Holocaust? I would be interested to know your position on that. After all, David Irving clearly proved that the stats were lies. Oh, wait a minute, he didn't though, did he?

So, what do you think, Keith? Did six million really die?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 06:53 AM

BPs are a minority, so should be minority offenders.
In the many hundreds of cases that have been referred to, BPs are the overwhelming MAJORITY of perpetrators.
That PROVES them to be massively over-represented in those cases.

Can you produce significantly more cases where BPs are NOT involved?
No.
You can not produce any at all.
And neither can I, because there are none.

Do not try to claim that some imaginary rules remove any requirement of evidence from you.
I say there are few if any other cases.
You claim there are more than many hundreds, but you choose not to produce them.
Who would believe that Jim?
It is ridiculous.
You are ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 06:12 AM

"Miniscule is a ridiculous description."
Next to a population of one and a half million it is miniscle - we have no idea how big the iceberg is, even if they/you could prove that "this is only the tip" which nobody has yet.
You even attempted to include two innocent men (who were not only proved such, but were given large sums in compensation for wrongful arrest) to inflate your miniscule figures.
"You have nothing to refute my case or support yours."
I don't have to refute your case - you have not made a case - only a list of unrelated, unquantified and unqualified incidents - you would be laughed out of any court in the land, presuming you ever got gained access to one.
Where is your evidence of "over-representation" let alone "massive over-representation".
You (and you alone) are the accuser - we have nothing to prove - the burden of proof lies entirely with you.
PROVE YOUR CASE
"Time for you to revolve away again I think. "
Don't you just wish - dream on!! I may have a life outside of the computor (as you apparently haven't) but am happy to spend a bit of effortless fun allowing you to prove yourself a racist toe-rag.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:45 AM

Lox, you are still going on about the explanation for the over-rep.
I do not care what the explanation is.
Explanation smacks of excuse.
This crime against children is inexcusable.

Jim,
"Your miniscule list of a handful of Pakistani criminals"

Many hundreds of victims which the experts agree is the tip of an iceberg.
Miniscule is a ridiculous description.
You have nothing to refute my case or support yours.
You are ridiculous.
Time for you to revolve away again I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:36 AM

"Jim, are you welcoming me back from inside, outside, or from your revolving door?"
Mind your own ******* business how often I visit this thread - it does not belong to you, even though you have monopolised it for your racist message.
Your miniscule list of a handful of Pakistani criminals is not proof of your "massive over-representation."
Iyt is not our job to present proof - you are the accuser - present your proof; and your 'ridicule' is no more than empty invective to cover the fact that you have none
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:34 AM

Keith,



Lets compare your "evidence" with some of THE evidence ... starting with Jack Straws opinion

his idea was based on the notion of "Young" Pakistani men fizzing and popping with testosterone who needed to find sexual gratification outside a closed culture where sex was unavailable.

Right?

But the victims testimony is that the young men were used as bait by highly organized crime cells.

So the victims think that frustrated testosterone fuelled young men aren't the reason for the crimes, but are used as bait by the real criminals.

In other words the victims testimony contradicts Jack Straw and you.

I think that renders Straws unqualified mass psychological diagnosis not only mere unqualified opinion, but also as categorically wrong.

Unless you ignore the victims.

To quote you Keith - WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THE VICTIMS? ..... hmmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Interested, Tunbridge Wells!
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:27 AM

Yeah, whatever.

But what about the book-burning? Did you singe your eyebrows? Are you now more, or less, anti-Muslim than before your trip? Is there a correlation to be drawn? Can one use it as evidence?

A nation awaits !

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:08 AM

(Also the conviction stats. 95% BPs)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 05:05 AM

Jim, are you welcoming me back from inside, outside, or from your revolving door?
My departure proves who has kept this alive. A string of posts from the three of you containing refutations and questions and demands for responses!

BPs are a minority group.
They should be a minority of any group of offenders.
They are a majority in this crime, making a massive over-representation.
Evidence.
Victims' families went to Straw and Cryer.
They all said BPs were the perps.
For these polticians to make public such a sensitive issue tells us that significant numbers were involved.
Hillary Wilmer. Hundreds of cases. She states that the perps were ALL BPs.
Bindel. Interviewed large numbers of victims. All perps BPs.
Sikh ans Hindu groups also raise the same issues.
Saffiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown from within the BP community ALL stated that this is a real issue for BPs.

Evidence against?
Er..... NONE.

You have not produced any in 3 months, because there is none.
You have tried to discredit me personally instead of countering my points, because they can not be countered.
You have to keep leaving, because you have nothing to say.

You are ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 04:23 AM

In fact there is no over-representation whatever of Pakistani involvement in these crimes and, other than your own, there is no claim of there being one outside of one trial involving 17 criminals. You have used the term "massive over-representation" 28 times without presenting one shred of evidence, apart from "a politician said it so it must be true" - no politician has ever made such a claim, and if they had they would need to present proof in order to back up such a serious accusation; no such proof has ever been presented by anybody - and politicians being what they are, any evidence would need to be microscopically examined.
You have taken some meaningless random figures which any one of us could have done from any racial group in Britain to prove they were over-represented, and you have ignored and continue to ignore everything that others have said, as is your wont.
The accusation of over-representation is yours and yours alone, and the additition 'massive' is your own racist twist on your own invention. The burden of proof lies with you alone, that is how natural justice works - none of us can possibly disprove an accusation that has not been proven in the first place.
We've shown you ours, now you show us yours.
Welcome back Keith; your departure was a light gone from our lives, your return, a new dawning!!
And by the way - your repoening this dead thread puts paid to the lie that Lox and I have kept this thread open for three months - your postings must be well into the 600s now - far, far in excess of any other single poster by a mile - even Nick Griffiths hasn't shown that level of dedication to his cause.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Interested, Tunbridge Wells!
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 05:41 PM

Welcome back Keith. You were missed. Have you been away burning a Koran by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 05:05 PM

My case is that there is an over-representation.
Your case is that there is not.
I have a mountain of evidence, because the over-representation is real.
You have none, for the same reason.

Is that why you only want to discuss the explanation and not the fact?
I do not care what the explanation is.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 04:18 PM

sorry for clumsy editing - on phone

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 04:15 PM

i look forward to the ceop report. One of the things that i find difficult in all this is what is the relationship between the gangs and their clients. Emma of crop says the clients of such gangs are married muslim men. Unless these men are also mafioso, then this suggests a greater complicity betwixt overtly criminal and more 'law abiding' members of the same comunities.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 03:49 PM

Lox and Don And Jim.
"Still Waiting for you to clarify whether or not you still think British Pakistanis are predisposed to sex trafficking and rape of underage girls."

Cryer, Straw, Ahmed, Saffiq, and Allibhai-Brown all ascribed this problem to aspects of BP culture.
They think the culture predisposes their menfolk to engage in this crime, albeit only a tiny minority succumb.
They all have knowledge and experience, no-one has suggested any other explanation, so I have come to accept what they say.

Will you please explain how you can be so certain that they are wrong?
One random bloke from Kent and two people who live in another country!
And why do you care about an explanation for something you do not believe in anyway!!

Still waiting, three months later, for you to produce any evidence that a majority of these offenders are other than BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 11 Apr 11 - 03:47 PM

"To commit these sorts of crimes against children the perpetrators must perceive them as absolutely worthless."

Yes - 100% correct.


Organized criminals have no respect for human life or dignity, which confirms what the victims testified, which was that the perpetrators were highly organized gangsters.


According to the Dando report, 1. These criminals chose the most convenient girls, and 2. those girls were disproportionately non white.

They made that point very clearly and succinctly.

In the process they clarify the issues you highlight.

Will you be ignoring those explanations?

Probably.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Apr 11 - 12:56 PM

The point surely is, that if they had any respect for these children they would not be subjecting them to this horrific abuse whether the children were muslim or non muslim.

To commit these sorts of crimes against children the perpetrators must perceive them as absolutely worthless.

Jim.....you know my views on the sexual abuse by Catholic priests of mainly young adults and teenagers.
It is purely and simply homosexual abuse in most cases, calling this abuse paedophilia is quite wrong.
The celibacy rule encourages large numbers of homosexuals into the priesthood where their sexual orientation can be disguised.....and as I have stated before there is plenty of evidence to support the contention that many male homosexuals are predisposed to sex with yound adults and teenagers......Not paedophilia.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 11 Apr 11 - 11:24 AM

"This would tend to suggest that Straw et al are correct and that these Muslim men regard young non Muslim girls as "easy meat""

Not what the Dando reserachers found.

They found that victims were chosen on the basis of convenience and ease of capture.

Not being a kidnapper I cannot say for sure, but I imagine that capturing a teenage girl from an orthodox muslim family is a bit harder.

That would be consistent with the Dando institutes explanation.

And as they are the only ones who have actually done any research or looked at the actual data, it stands as the most authouritative explanation until the ceop report comes out.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Apr 11 - 07:14 AM

"A straight forward example of prejudice by Muslims to non Muslims as well a disgusting sexual crime."
That can be said of any religion.
We've just about come out at the other end of twenty years of bloody internecine warfare between One group of 'christians' against another who happen to kick with the other foot, affecting both Ireland and mainland Britain.
Sexual predation embraces all religions - as is proved by the long runnning abuse of children by Christian ministers, lasting for generations.
This is a human problem, not a Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish, or Buddhist - or any specific religious or cultural or national one, simply people doing bad things to other people.
Or would you clam that serial child abuse was a 'catholic' thing?
Perhaps now that Keith is away, you may give reason a chance and re-examine your thought processes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Apr 11 - 06:54 AM

The really telling point in all of this, is that not one of the young victims has been Muslim, yet the perpetrators are almost exclusively Muslim,

This would tend to suggest that Straw et al are correct and that these Muslim men regard young non Muslim girls as "easy meat"

A straight forward example of prejudice by Muslims to non Muslims as well a disgusting sexual crime.

Perhaps now that Keith is away, you may give reason a chance and re-examine your thought processes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 08:45 PM

""They were made by people who know more about this crime than all of us put together.""

Says who?   YOU?

""He thinks I should be like him, and go blundering into a serious and sensitive subject with preconceived opinions and a closed mind.""

No Keith, he thinks you DID JUST EXACTLY THAT, and he is RIGHT!

You saw a group of people buying into what you already thought of British Pakistanis, and it was an opportunity you couldn't resist.

You blindly accepted both their qualifications to pronounce on the matter, and the interpretation they placed on these events.

You were too lazy to go into the full detail of everything they actually said, choosing instead to put the worst possible construction on it, and formulating your own theory (way beyond theirs) which you have defended tooth and nail, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

The total population of Pakistanis in the affected area is just 40 percent of the number nationwide, so any figure must be divided by 2.5 if you are relating it to British Pakistanis as a culture.

Also (for the umpteenth time), street grooming has always happened, with young girls (often runaways) being seduced into the sex trade. It is not a new phenomenon, and has existed since long before the first Pakistani got off the boat in England..

I suggest that you expand your reading beyond the Daily Mail, and peruse some of the books on the subject at your local library. It will, I promise, be an education.

Don T.

Of course I know you'll do no such thing because it might force you to admit you are wrong, and you aren't capable of admitting that, even to yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 08:21 PM

""Why do you three know nothing twats think you know better than them?
Why should anyone listen to you?""

Did Keith actually write this?

Surely not! Keith is the polite and sensitive chap who NEVER indulges in ad hominem attacks. He's the poor undeserving victim of scurrilous bullying by those nasty evil thugs Jim, Lox and Don.

Wait a minute, it was posted under Keith's Mudcat name, not some guest troll.

Now we are finding out what this man is really like!

Disagree with him and the veneer slips, showing the nasty nature that lies below.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 08:05 PM

""Would you care to suggest an alternative abreviation for me?""

Nothing anybody suggests for you would be taken on board Keith.

Evidence abounds on this (and other) threads of your intellectual laziness.

You have admitted that you cannot be bothered to read posts even half as long as some of yours.

You make no effort to speak for yourself, preferring to cut and paste the opinions of others, to whom you then shift blame when your arguments are successfully contested.

You cannot be bothered to accord to those you wish to denigrate the courtesy of typing two extra words, preferring the anonymising and dehumanising use of Initials.

You post more and say less than almost any other contributor to this forum.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 08:36 AM

"Jim and Lox have kept this thread alive for nearly 3 months by blindly denying the truth of the over-rep, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence, and with absolutely nothing to substantiate their claims.
The dogma-driven duo, plus Don!"


OK

1. Find a quote of my Dogma ... you can't ... because it doesn't exist.

2. "nothing to substantiate their claims" ... this is projection mate.


Lets compare your "evidence" with some of THE evidence ... starting with Straws opinion

his idea was based on the notion of Young Pakistani men fizzing and popping with testosterone who needed to find sexual gratification outside a closed culture where sex was unavailable.

Right?

But the victims testimony is that the young men were used as bait by highly organized crime cells.

So the victims think that frustrated testosterone fuelled young men aren't the reason for the crimes, but are used as bait by the real criminals.

In other words the victims testimony contradicts Jack Straw and you.

I think that renders Straws unqualified mass psychological diagnosis not only as mere opinion, but also as categorically wrong.

Unless you ignore the victims.

To quote you Keith - WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THE VICTIMS? ..... hmmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 07:52 AM

"My opinion is that they are right, and you are wrong."

So you are attributing them with the opinion that Pakistanis are predisposed to trafficking and rape.

And you are saying you agree with that view.

In other words it is your view.


But we're ahead of ourselves - we now know that that is what you think, but we need to see evidence that they think the same - please provide it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 07:50 AM

Question,

"Still Waiting for you to clarify whether or not you still think British Pakistanis are predisposed to sex trafficking and rape of underage girls."

Answer,

"I told you that I am convinced by the hypothesis."

"My opinion is that they are right, and you are wrong."


Ok keith - now can you provide the actual quotes where Jack Straw et al state that they believe British Pakistanis to be predisposed to trafficking and rape of underage girls.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 05:38 AM

The last time Jim whizzed past in his revolving door, he castigated me for having no opinions of my own.
He thinks I should be like him, and go blundering into a serious and sensitive subject with preconceived opinions and a closed mind.

I recommend what he ridicules.
Listen to what is being said by those who know more about it than all of us put together.

Jim and Lox have kept this thread alive for nearly 3 months by blindly denying the truth of the over-rep, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence, and with absolutely nothing to substantiate their claims.
The dogma-driven duo, plus Don!

I am off line for a few days.
If they continue with the old discredited tactic of claiming that evidence has been posted, call their bluff.
It is a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 03:12 AM

Jack Straw, like me , acknowledged that in other crimes BPs are under-represented.
Then he said""But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men... who target vulnerable young white girls.

"We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way." "

If he had never made a statement at all the evidence for the over-rep. is still overwhelming!

You say I have "no evidence"
You forget the evidence of hundreds of victims' statements, statements from MPs, police officers, Barnados officials, victim support workers, Sikh and Hindu groups, BPs such as Allibhai-Brown, Lord Ahmed, and Mohammed Shafiq, journalists, conviction stats., .......

You have no evidence at all that other groups are the majority offenders in this crime.

That is why you have to keep posting and running.
You have made a dizzying number of entrances and exits, as if you are stuck in a revolving door!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 02:30 AM

"Still waiting for any of you to post evidence against the over-representation."
No you're not Keith - you've had suggestions throughout this thread and you've ignord them - you've had mine and you have not attempted to address one single point, I doubt that you've even read it. You are alone in your ignorance and your bigotry.
In return you've offered nothing, not even an attempt to analyse your own cut-'n-pastes; just a parrot repeating of 'I am only obeying orders'
You entered this thread knowing nothing, you go away from it knowing nothing - and you offer nothing exept sick-making triumphalism when you think you might have scored a point.
"They should be a minority of offenders."
They are a minority of offenders - the bit you edited out of the Straw statement said as much and your total failure to deliver one single piece of information essental to judge how and if they are 'over-represented' backs up that statement totally.
If this long, vicious thread has proved anything, it has shown what a sad, empty, unpleasant and dishonest individual you are.
You have no evidence, you have no knowledge, you don't even have opinions of your own - "They were made by people who know more about this crime than all of us put together.".
A hollow man.
Lox may wish to waste his time on you - I don't.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 11 - 01:53 AM

Lox,
"Keith is convinced that the above hypothesis is true ... but it doesn't reflect his opinion ..."

My opinion is that they are right, and you are wrong.
Why do you care if no hypothesis is needed anyway?

"Because Keith believes that the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Is that a fair synopsis of your view Keith? "

No, it has no bearing whatsoever!
I believe there is an over-representation because of the overwhelming evidence for it, and the total lack of evidence that others are the majority offenders.
That is rational

NOW PLEASE TELL US WHY YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 07:43 PM

"Still waiting for any of you to post evidence against the over-representation. "


Because Keith believes that the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Is that a fair synopsis of your view Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 07:17 PM

Me:

"Still Waiting for you to clarify whether or not you still think British Pakistanis are predisposed to sex trafficking and rape of underage girls."


Keith:

"I told you that I am convinced by the hypothesis."



Keith is convinced that the above hypothesis is true ... but it doesn't reflect his opinion ...


Is that a fair synopsis of your position Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 07:05 PM

Jim,
Neither the culture claim nor the tip of the iceberg claim were made by me.
They were made by people who know more about this crime than all of us put together.
"What is this over-representation"
BPs are a minority group.
They should be a minority of offenders.
If not they are over-represented.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 06:49 PM

I told you that I am convinced by the hypothesis.
It is proposed by two MPs with a large BP vote, and by three actual BPs, well known as defenders of their community from bigotry and prejudice.
Why do you three know nothing twats think you know better than them?
Why should anyone listen to you?

Still waiting for any of you to post evidence against the over-representation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 06:33 PM

Hi Keith,

Still Waiting for you to clarify whether or not you still think British Pakistanis are predisposed to sex trafficking and rape of underage girls.

Any time soon would be very useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 08:47 AM

"Your whole case is that I am a bad person."
No – our whole case is that you have no evidence to back up your 'culture' or 'mainly a British Pakistani crime', or 'tip of the iceberg' claims, and are unable to think outside of your racist box.
(One more time), can't do this using sound-bites so anybody still remotely interested, (especially Keith) is just going to have to lie back and think of England!
We have no idea what the 'imbalance' is, or even if it exists at all – we have random reports from specific but unnamed and unquantified areas – no figures, nor any details other than the minute handfuls of reported cases from a population of one and a half million.
If I was burgled tomorrow, that would make me a victim of burglary, not an expert on the crime – that takes research, so any constant appeal to "listen to the victims", is pointless; they can only tell us what has happened to them, no more, no less, and Keith know it and it is little more than amateur theatricals on his part to try and undo some of the damage you did to your case with your obscenely gleeful reception of Lively's information – and you bloody well know this as well
Unlike Keith, I have not been prepared to speculate on the topic because we simply don't have the details necessary to reach a coherent conclusion and I certainly am not prepared to lay it at the door of ethnicity or culture.
But I do have some experience of working with another minority group – the Travellers.
When we started to work with Irish Travellers in London they were a still a fairly isolated community, essentially rural dwellers visiting the city with a strong culture of their own and strong family ties. The main recorded crime among them was driving without tax and insurance, with some opportunist petty theft thrown in (scrap metal etc). Within five years this had changed completely; they had become urban dwellers and (particularly the youngsters) had taken on board many of the worst habits and values of the host community, major theft, drugs and violence.
We have no reason to believe that this has not been the case with the British Pakistani population.
We know two things for certain about them;
a. That they are four times more likely to be harassed, persecuted and assaulted, thanks to the endemic nature of racism in Britain – look it up.
And;
b. That they are almost certainly the most impoverished of all the social groups in Britain (with one possible exception) – look it up.
The outcome of both of these facts are (a) that they have been forced to move into ghetto-like communities, largely for self-protection.
And:
(b) The places they have settled in are low-priced and run-down, with sub-standard housing and poor general amenities, in areas of high unemployment and low spending power and political influence– Thatcher's legacy to the North of England.
The politicians who created these holes and continue to allow them to exist without improvement, including ex Home Secretaries like Jack Straw, have made few attempts to change conditions for the better in these places and have only shown an interest at election times or when certain events attract wider attention and become an embarrassment.
These are depressed areas of low self-esteem; breeding grounds for street vice, petty crime and degradation – I know because I grew up in one of them (somewhat different in those days, as sex hadn't become the readily accessible and marketable commodity it now is).
To suggest, as Keith has done persistently, that the grooming and pimping of young women is the province of Pakistani communities, "a new offence", "a massive over representation" underage or otherwise, is a nonsense; he is well aware of this and yet has constantly ignored it when it has been pointed out here.
We know that parents have always told their children "don't speak with strangers" from time immemorial, or refused to let them walk to school, but insist on driving them there. Watching out for 'the scoutmaster' has been a running joke throughout my life; as was being careful of the oddball characters (Charlie Yarbo – when I was a kid) who wanted to do strange things to you.
The latest 'star' of the Conservative party, (a teacher whose name escapes me) has crawled into the limelight with her outright condemnation of the lower class education system; part of that condemnation has been that the schools are hot-beds (pun intended) of underage sex, in and out of school, consentual or otherwise.
This is not just a UK based problem, in Ireland we are still coming to terms with a long term (possibly over a century) and widespread outbreak of clerical abuse, where priests have taken advantage of their exalted position to groom and abuse children under their care. The Magdalene Laundries, where the 'bad girls' were sent to, have yet to be enquired into, but it is a regular claim that some of the girls were groomed by those over them and put at the disposal of some of the wealthier patrons in return for donations to the institutions.
Internet grooming of underage children of both sexes in Britain has reached epic proportions; a few weeks ago there was a massive swoop by police in Britain and Europe with the largest number of arrests ever.
The introduction and increased use of date-rape drugs like rohypnol are all part of the grooming process, and as far as we know they have no connection whatever to Pakistani culture.
Sex of all shapes and sizes has become an extremely marketable commodity; it sells newspapers and magazines, it has its own television channels and websites, it sells DVDs...... it is big business writ bigger.
To attempt to separate the different types of grooming and pimping is a nonsense; it's the same play on different stages with different scenery – one quite often being an upmarket/downmarket version of the other.
Place any "testosterone driven" young men into these situations, no matter what their cultural or ethnic origins, and you are bound to draw out predators and criminals who will prey on underage girls – Straw knew it and said it, and Keith knows it and removed it from his quote.
Why is there an over-representation of Pakistanis in cases of underage grooming and abuse?
We don't know that there is outside a tiny handful of areas mentioned in a tiny handful of hearsay statements by a tiny handful of field workers and politicians – all over which can be explained variously; e.g. a coincidentally larger number of Pakistanis moving into these area who are morally inclined to such behaviour, an existing indigenous thriving sex industry taken over by the newcomers,   inadequate or, more likely, non-existant research being replaced by superficial observation on the part of those reporting the situation…. a whole bunch of reasons,.
What is this over-representation – one in ten, one in a hundred, one in a thousand, one in ten thousand…….?
What are the sizes of these areas, whole cities, towns, districts, streets……?
What are the prevailing conditions?
Do the areas have a history of underage sex abuse or is it a new phenomenon?
Until these and many other questions can be answered by knowledgeable authorities on the subject with properly researched data to back up their conclusions, the persistent asking for an explanation is like asking "how long is a piece of string" – it is a cynical exercise in point-scoring by somebody with a not very well hidden agenda.
One thing we do know for sure – none of this has anything whatever to do with ethnicity, culture or race, otherwise it would have manifested itself in every Muslim community in Britain and not the isolated areas that have so far been reported on.
There – that's my limit of experience, understanding and opinion; let's hear yours Keith – or not, as the case will almost certainly be - unless you can find a convenient cut-'n-paste.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 07:00 AM

Why don't you provide your opinion anyway Keith?

Just clarify whether or not you still think Briitish Pakistanis are predisposed to trafficking and rape.

Its very easy. Either you do or you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 02:53 AM

Don, BP is an entirely neutral abreviation, like MP or GP.
Two keystrokes instead of seventeen, it has saved me literally thousands of key strokes.
Would you care to suggest an alternative abreviation for me?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Apr 11 - 01:42 AM

Why discuss an explanation if you deny anything to explain?
I never proposed one anyway.
Wiser people than us did, and I have said that they have convinced me.

My case is just that there is an over-representation.
There is overwhelming evidence for that.
If there was not an over-representation, there would have to be a much larger number of non BPs offending, because BPs are a minority group.
There is absolutely no evidence for that.

Do you have any Lox?
Don?
Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 11:51 PM

Does that mean you retract your hypothesis?

Well if you wouldn't mind clarifying, here's a direct question.

In your view, are British Pakistanis culturally predisposed to trafficking and raping underage girls?

And if there is no straight answer, then can you clarify what, in your opinion, they are culturally predisposed to doing?

It would be very helpful to know exactly where you now stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 08:46 PM

""I have never addressed anything at the whole BP population.
You have to lie because you have NOT ONE SINGLE HONEST CHALLENGE to the contention that there is an over-representation.""

You are a LIAR!

You have answered a series of questions with the statement that you believe that the British Pakistani Culture slightly predisposes male British Pakistanis toward this activity, in a way not seen in other cultures. Would you like them copy/pasted to show how you distort the truth?

You have also insisted throughout upon using the dehumanising term BPs when referring to British citizens of Pakistani ethnic origin.

YOU ARE ON A MISSION, and it has little to do with the welfare of those poor kids, and much to do with your attitude to Pakistani men.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Apr 11 - 04:42 PM

'fraid you'll have to go turning over a few stones Keith....thats where you'll find the varmits.