BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 05:30 PM

I call you bastard for denying the cries of raped children.
Just allegations.
Not under oath.
No degree in psychology.
Lying sluts.

Bastard

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 05:28 PM

"I do not care if you believe the explanation or not.
Much more knowledgeable people than us propose it, and you have no alternative."

Oh look you've forgotten again ...

Poor Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 05:26 PM

Poor iggle keef - the recipient of all that horrible abuse ...

... reduced to calling me a bastard because he has never even seen the evidence he is relying on.


"and based on the evidence I have never seen, I am able to conclude ... etc ... "


Pitiful.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 05:12 PM

Lox,
"Oh right - I forgot - the content of a hypothesis and its robustness when scritinized are not important factors."

My case is the over-rep.
I do not care if you believe the explanation or not.
Much more knowledgeable people than us propose it, and you have no alternative.
I do believe it.
You can't.

"What matters is that if one of our feudal lords pronounceth that the blackamooors have funny ways"

No feudal lord. A BP whose life has been devoted to the poorest of his community, and Left Wing politics.
But what does he know next to you? Right Lox?

And the pitiful testimony of raped children.
Bastard Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 04:53 PM

"lox, I have said that I accepted that hypothesis, because of who proposed it and because no other has been proposed"

Oh right - I forgot - the content of a hypothesis and its robustness when scritinized are not important factors.

What matters is that if one of our feudal lords pronounceth that the blackamooors have funny ways, we should doff our hats and ready our pitchforks.

That and a report that there may be allegations, of whose contents we cannot be sure, or indeed of who actually made them, or how many, is sufficient evidence upon which to deduce that Pakistanis are closet nonces.

All very reasonable and not even a little bit racist.

Tally ho chaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 03:47 PM

I have no evidence of a cultural connection Jim.
I keep telling you, I got it from that list of people who know much more about it than we do.

Lox, I have said that I accepted that hypothesis, because of who proposed it and because no other has been proposed (has it Jim?)

"My hypothesis is that the absence of girls available for sexual relationships in the BP culture may be linked to their young men being over represented in this type of crime."

I got that from Straw and Cryer, and since then from Allibhai-Brown, Mohamed Shafiq and lord Ahmed.

Lox,
"Wilmers 400 have still only been REPORTED to have made ALLEGATIONS."

Yes Lox.
I believe Willmer is being honest.
I believe that her children were being honest.
Why do you doubt them?
Raped children telling their story to a support group.
You are a bastard to treat them as liars.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 01:50 PM

"And please remember, I DID NOT MAKE THAT HYPOTHESIS.
I DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CULTURE.
It was made by people who do."

Of course not keith.

You have just been (impartially of course) defending it to the hilt for nearly two and a half months.


but what is this ...


"From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 27 Jan 11 - 05:57 AM

My hypothesis is that the absence of girls available for sexual relationships in the BP culture may be linked to their young men being over represented in this type of crime."

________________________________________________

which is another way of saying this


"From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 05:39 AM

Men are predisposed because there is no outlet for sexual relationships within the community, and no intimate relationship permitted outside.

But only a tiny minority, the weak and wicked, succumb."


Except that you call it your hypothesis.


Your position is consistent throughout.


Wilmers 400 have still only been REPORTED to have made ALLEGATIONS.

Still not evidence to support the racist hypothesis to which you have pledged your loyalty.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 12:18 PM

Once again you are taking it on another of your circular Magical Mystery Tours - heading nowhere - we've dealt with all this and you're once again wasting my time - where is your evidence of a cultural connection.
Otherwise, don't call us, we'll call you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 11:39 AM

It was not The Daily Telegraph that called her stupid.
It was right wing twat Douglas Murray in a Telegraph blog.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100030524/is-yasmin-alibhai-brown-the-stupidest-woman-in-britain/

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 11:34 AM

The theory explains the over-representation in terms of culture.
You do not believe the over-representation today, or have I missed another conversion?

However much you bluster, no rival theory has been posted.
I had that argument with Lox before you came.
I scoured every post.
There is no rival theory

I am glad you admire Allibhai-Brown. She states that this issue is real and blames it on the culture.

If you believe me that I have no knowledge of the culture, why do you object to me learning from people who do?
Like Allibhai-Brown, Mohammed Shafiq and Lord Ahmed.
And how can you be so certain that they are wrong?
What is your special knowledge?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 11:07 AM

"Rival theories for something you don't believe in Jim!"
Where have I ever said I don't believe that there is nothing to explain? PLEASE ANSWER THIS
My point from the beginning has been that we have no information as to the extent of the problem - if there is one; (all paedophelia, whether carried out by whites, blacks, navy blues - is to be deplored as a disease of society).
My objection is to your making it a Paki-bashing issue.
"Quote some Jim, why don't you?"
No, I ******* won't do your work for you. READ WHAT OTHERS WRITE FOR A CHANGE - BLOW YOUR OWN NOSE AND WIPE YOUR OWN ARSE!! They are here to be read - go and read them - or are you suggesting that every single person who has opposed you is appeasing paedophiles for idealogical reasons?
"One right wing twat may have once called her stupid."
NO - THE DAILY TELEGRAPH - THE SPOKESMAN FOR THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT, CALLED HER THE STUPIDEST PERSON IN BRITAIN
No - I have never called her stupid, and if you had read what I wrote at the time you would be aware of that. I admire her anti-racist stance and pointed it out to you as you had not bothered to quote her in context of what she stood for.
"....... because I say only what they say and go no further."
What a crass way of approaching any subject; the only honest statement you have made here is that you have no knowledge or experience of the subject, and if this is how you approach 'research' - no wonder!
THINK OUT OF YOUR CUT-'N-PASTE BOX FOR A CHANGE.
And address some of the points that have been made
RESEARCH INFORMATION - DO YOU HAVE ANY OR ARE YOU WAITING FOR SOME TO BE DONE SO YOU CAN CUT-'N-PASTE IT AND NOT BOTHER THINKING IT THROUGH.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 10:29 AM

Jim,
"Of course thre are rival theories "

Rival theories for something you don't believe in Jim!
No rival theory has been posted on this thread.
Quote some Jim, why don't you?

Allibhai_Brown is a highly respected writer.
One right wing twat may have once called her stupid.
Do you?

Not made a racist connection Jim?
Then neither have I, because I say only what they say and go no further.
I do not know enough about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 09:00 AM

"I have accepted it because knowledgeable people "
These knowledgeable people have not made a racist connection and have warned against doing so - several of them have devoted their lives to fighting racism (one having been described by the Daily Telegraph as "the stupidest woman in Britain" for having done so - why have you consistently ignored their advice?
If you are "only obeying orders" why not obey all of them?
"Also their is no rival theory."
Of course thre are rival theories - some of them have been proffered here - only you haven't read them, or have ignored them because they don't fit your particular agenda (or perhhaps they contained more than half a dozen sentences and big words!.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 08:37 AM

"In the area she is working in only - no more;"

She covers the whole of the region I designated.
And also Binden.

The hypothesis about culture really is not mine.
How could I produce it in my position.

I have accepted it because knowledgeable people proposed it including BPs whose life has been devoted to defending their community from bigotry and prejudice.
You can not accuse me of racism for believing them.
Also their is no rival theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 08:14 AM

Mu=ike
When Keith's statement, slight or otherwise, is applied to paedophelia the cultural degenercy is implicit in the statement - what else could it be?
"Whatever the population, she shows that it is mainly a crime of BPs."
In the area she is working in only - no more; putting it in a 'cultural context smears every Pakistani with the same brush.
My point is still not addressed - what documentary evidence exists for you to make ANY REFERENCE WHATEVER to cultural traits?
"The explanation is not mine. I just reported it."
And stop hiding behind your cut-'n-pastes, justify your stance, not hers - it sounds too much like "we were only obeying orders".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:41 AM

"Wilmer, 400 cases, all BP."
From a population of one and a half million British Pakistanis - predominant????

Whatever the population, she shows that it is mainly a crime of BPs.
They are a minority group, they should be proportionately under represented.
They are massively over represented.
Binden found the same.

And that is the whole of my case on this thread.
Where are the children claiming to have been groomed, pimped and raped by other gangs?

The explanation is not mine. I just reported it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:30 AM

Here I am back - woddid I tell you!

Still haven't found the 'cultural degeneracy' bit, Jim; which seems more vital to me. Cannot say, anyhow, that the quotes supplied by you & Lox quite cover the precise accusations of universal denunciation of which you accuse Keith.

But, woddid I tell you ~ I am getting confused again. Head beginning to swim. Eheu!

-m-

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:17 AM

"point out that Jim had tended to omit the 'slight'"
No I didn't Mike - I cut and pasted Keith's quote directly each time - Keith has added it since he first made it - Don't start playing his game for him.
"Wilmer, 400 cases, all BP."
From a population of one and a half million British Pakistanis - predominant????
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 07:11 AM

Will just thank you for trying, Lox; & point out that Jim had tended to omit the 'slight' on which Keith had insisted; & that your citations completely omit the 'cultural degeneracy' component which seems to me of the essence of Jim's pertinacious accusations; & then withdraw again ~ at least for the moment; have learned better than to declare a permanent absence, or abstinence, from a thread!

-m-

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 06:57 AM

And please remember, I DID NOT MAKE THAT HYPOTHESIS.
I DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CULTURE.
It was made by people who do.
Sample too small Lox?
Wilmer, 400 cases, all BP.

(No time today)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 06:56 AM

"So, once more, please ~ a DIRECT CUT'N'PASTE QUOTE, please Jim, in which Keith has made this precise claim."
I have given you the quote where you linked these crimes with Pakistani culture over and over again - I have no intention whatever of repeating the exercise only for it to be ignored again and no doubt adding to your confusion - or starting yet another "I really meant" bout of denials.
Yours (slight) appears to be an adapttion of your original comment.
Personally I have no knowledge of what predisposition to anything from paedophelia to eating Rice Krispies is to be found in Pakistani culture - where did you get your 'predisposition' from?
NOW ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE ALL PUT TO YOU OVER AND OVER AGAIN - WHERE IS YOUR DATA - WHERE IS YOUR DOCUMENTED PROOF FOR ANY OF THIS AND HOW ARE YOU POSSIBLY GOING TO UNDERSTAND IT IF YOUR MIND CAN'T RETAIN MORE THAN SIX SENTENCES AT A TIME?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 06:55 AM

Jim, USA has less health care provision than UK, that is why I asked who would pay (in USA).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 06:23 AM

Here you are Michael.

________________

"From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 11:27 PM

You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,"

Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment."

________________

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 02 Feb 11 - 05:19 AM

" "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?"

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?)

If it did give rise to just a slight predisposition, then only a tiny minority would succumb.
And that is exactly what is found.
_________________

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Feb 11 - 05:39 AM

Men are predisposed because there is no outlet for sexual relationships within the community, and no intimate relationship permitted outside.

But only a tiny minority, the weak and wicked, succumb.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 06:04 AM

... and what's more, Jim, you made it again in your last post which was cross-posted with my last.

A direct cut'n'paste quote to confirm it, please, or stop saying it, for heavens sake...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 06:01 AM

Jim: This thread has become so diffuse and repetitive that I am really so lost as to be unable to make any contribution that I should regard as useful - at least in its present situation.

But I return, yet again, just to point out to you that I have asked you at least 5 times, I should estimate - I do not propose to go right back & count, for a direct cut & paste from Keith where, as you persistently claim, he has made the following specific asseveration [or 'definitive claim', as you put it here on a post above]:

-definitive claims (British Pakstanis are culturally degenerate and inclined to paedophilia)-

& every time you reply with some evasive locution about it's being 'implied', or 'obviously what he thinks', or some such···

So, once more, please ~ a DIRECT CUT'N'PASTE QUOTE, please Jim, in which Keith has made this precise claim.

Coz I say he hasn't, & you have never yet shown where he has. You just go on & on making the accusation.

Best

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 05:52 AM

"A good question."
Everybody knows the answer - they will be paid for out of state funds, because it is what the welfare state is about and inhuman to do otherwise - always assuming that externally transmitted aids is the problem you suggest it is in the first place. Despite your claim that you had no opinion of a connection beween homosexuality and race, wirthin your first dozen postings are direct reference to the race of homosexuals and their being 'aids carriers' - well over a dozen times.
"outside school, or shopping malls or ordinary public spaces where kids go"
Within the communities in question - if it was Harrngay, say, it would be Greeks doing the pimping; elsewhere, West Indians, Irish, indigienous English - whatever.
These people are simply predatory criminals in high immigration ghettos - not MAINLY anything other than the predominant content of those areas, whatever that happens to be. Trying to claim they are predominantly of any particular race is RACIST.
Once again you ignore what I and others have said about the vindictive stupidity of basing conclusions on non-scientific, hearsay evidence ANSWER IT.
Lox makes the same point more articulately than I did: "The only evidence that supports your view, is the psychological profiling by non psychologists of an entire group of people - something that even a trained psychologist would not dare do." - ANSWER IT.
Jack Straw, judges, police, field workers - all say there is no connection between race and paedophilia and have continually warned of the dangers of making such a link - STOP DOING IT.
Every point you continue to make has been challenged and replied to over and over and over and over........ again by peopler who have answered your questions, have become exasperated with your repetitious evasions and have pissed off in depair.
YOU ALONE CONTINUE TO UPHOLD THE IDEA THAT PAKISTANIS ARE PERVERTS BY VIRTUE OF THEIR CULTURE. PROVE IT WITH STATISTICS AND PROPERLY GATHERED DATA, OTHERWISE YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A RANTING, TUB-THUMPING RACIST.
And please get over your aversion to literature and go and read a ******* book!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 05:15 AM

keith,

your explanation for the apparent over-representation is that young Pakistani men are culturally predisposed to abuse of women due to the sexual restrictions placed on them.

The experts explanation is that the apparent over-representation is due to the sample being so limited.

The experts and those who have rovided actual testimony have said that the criminals aren't young men, but well organized criminals who use young men as bait.


Your point is that street grooming is a peculiarly pakistani crime type.

The experts state that it is not a new crime type.


Each point you have made has, in the actual evidence, been clearly and specifically refuted.


The only evidence that supports your view, is the psychological profiling by non psychologists of an entire group of people - something that even a trained psychologist would not dare do.

Just because you extrapolate and invent supporting arguments from the evidence, that does not mean hat the evidence actually supports your argument.


In this case, it doesn't and in fact the most reliable evidence specifically contradicts your view.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 04:58 AM

'who is going to pay for their medical treatment?"

We had discussed how Britain welcomes immigrants and asylum seekers whatever diseases, including AIDS, that they have.
We then give them the best treatment available free for life.
USA did not let AIDS sufferers in.

Obama announced that he would let in AIDS sufferers, and I asked if USA would treat them free for life, otherwise life would be short.
A good question.
No one knew the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 04:50 AM

Have you not read the child vicims' accounts Jim?
It is not true that STREET GROOMING TAKES PLACE IN ANY RED-LIGHT, VICE INFESTED AREA,

These were children targeted and groomed outside school, or shopping malls or ordinary public spaces where kids go.

The children told who did it to them.
You should listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 04:03 AM

This is a disgusting lie.
"Africans (disease-ridden and not worthy of treatment, as you described them)."
I defy you or anybody to read your to read your first dozen posts on the'Death penalty for homosexuals' thread and NOT come up with this picture - you first present Africans, then immigrants as aids carriers, then you ask 'who is going to pay for their medical treatment' - it's there for anybody to see - go and look.

Link to Homosexuality thread.
thread.cfm?threadid=125426&messages=2125
You should not be allowed to make groundless accusations like that.

I will reply to the rest when I can.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 03:54 AM

"........ loaded with irrelevance and lies."
And your usual tactic is to not read what people have said and to ignore the points they have made.
"Africans (disease-ridden and not worthy of treatment, as you described them)."
I defy you or anybody to read your to read your first dozen posts on the'Death penalty for homosexuals' thread and NOT come up with this picture - you first present Africans, then immigrants as aids carriers, then you ask 'who is going to pay for their medical treatment' - it's there for anybody to see - go and look.
Whatever I suggest here may be right or wrong - you are the one parading your infallibility while admitting your ignorance, but these matters certainly are not IRRELEVANT - if my suggestions are wrong - prove them so with facts and statistics - and stop denying what is down in black and white.
"False. All the victims say it was BPs."
STREET GROOMING TAKES PLACE IN ANY RED-LIGHT, VICE INFESTED AREA, NO MATTER WHO LIVES THERE AND WHATEVER NATIONALITY. THESE ARE RANDOM EXAMPLES TAKEN WHERE THERE ARE HIGH POPULATIONS OF PAKISTANIS - OF COURSE THERE WILL BE A HIGH PROPORTION OF PAKISTANI PIMPS AN CRIMINALS INVOLVED. GO TO ANY RUN-DOWN, POVERTY STRICKEN AREA AND YOU WILL BE PRESENTED WITH A CROSS-SECTION OF THAT AREA - WEST INDIAN, IRISH, EUROPEAN, INDIGINOUS BRIT.... WHATEVER - THE VICTIM/CRIMINAL SAMPLE WILL REFLECT THE CULTURAL MAKE-UP OF THAT AREA. THIS HAS BEEN THE CASE THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
And as Jack Straw, trial judges, police and social workers have all said, there are no racial conclusions to be drawn from this and it is highly dangerous and irresponsible for anybody to do so (perhaps you didn't read the bits you edited out?)
Apart from anything else, so far you have based your 'conclusions' almost entirely on press cuttings. The claims you have consistently made here need to be based on organised surveys, properly carried out by responsible and skilled experts (certainly not brain-deads who regard immigrants as disease-carriers who should be left to die) before they can be even taken seriously, let alone have cultural conclusions drawn. Such surveys have not been carried out and what little we do know is based entirely on hearsay reports gathered randomly and unscientifically, and quite often reaching us via newspapers with their own agendas (have you ever read the any of these local papers with anti-immigration agendas - The Daily Mail written by chimpanzees with typwriters)
'Long post......'
Once again you whine about the length of my (and others) posts.
These are complex questions involving race, culture, beliefs ethnology... They (should) involve the gathering of complex detailed information, and sifting and analysing that information carefully and thoughtfully.
How the **** are you going to understand that work using sound-bites?
Nobody here, apart from yourself, has put any definitive claims (British Pakstanis are culturally degenerate and inclined to paedophilia).
How dare you put forward such a dangerous and damaging suggestion if you are incapable ad obviously unwilling of reading anything consisting of more than half-a-dozen sentences?
Jim Carroll
PS And by the way - asking Lively such a profound and loaded question is yet again an attempt to gather ammunition for your racist case - is he or anybody in a position to make such a profound judgement?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 01:37 AM

Lively.
You have researched this extensively.
Are you in a position to answer the key question, is the crime of on-street grooming by groups mainly a crime of BPs, at least in the towns and cities of the Midlands, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire and Greater Manchester?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 01:25 AM

Your usual tactic of desperation.
Long post loaded with irrelevance and lies.
"Africans (disease-ridden and not worthy of treatment, as you described them)."
Wicked lie! I never have and never would say such a vile thing.
Smear!

"Up to now you've shadowboxed with haymakers that take in the British Pakistani population a a whole (by implication, if not directly),"
Lie. I stated repeatedly so that there could be no mistake that only a "tiny minority" were involved.

"; we know Pakistanis are involved but we still have no way of judging to what extent."

False. All the victims say it was BPs.
None say it was not.

Other sex crimes?
Irrelevant. I always acknowledged they were under-represented in all other non terror crime including sex crime.

Finally you pretended not to understand that the explanation referred to the over-representation.
You don't accept it so why care?

Lies, pretence, smears, irrelevancies.
That is all you have.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 11 - 01:09 AM

Lox, I only made 2 challenges to your post.

What is this "different" explanation from "those who have studied it"???

No answer because you made it up.

I asked you what points had not been supported, and you just said lots.

I have only ever made one point.
The over-representation. That has been confirmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 05:47 PM

C'mon Keith - you're shifting ground,
Up to now you've shadowboxed with haymakers that take in the British Pakistani population a a whole (by implication, if not directly), now you appear to narrowing your field a little
There are explanations other than race or culture for any supposed over-representation in specific areas - and incidentally, why there appears to be no visible problem in the south of England. The picture you have painted hints at the population as a whole or at least the North and Midlands - it is people like you and the BNP who leap on the Paki-pervert bandwagon.
"A massive over-representation..."
Over-representation of what - one and a half million?
"We know from many other sources that this is overwhelmingly a crime of BPs."
We know no such thing; we know Pakistanis are involved but we still have no way of judging to what extent.
We know the procuring and rape of young people, far from being "overwhelmingly......" is as old as sex itself; it is part of our history, literature, our British culture, our entertainment even - didn't you ever follow The Bill or The Vice, or Waking the Dead, or Silent Witness......?.
A month or so ago there was a swoop on paedophile rings throughout Britain, with massive success; want to take money on how many of them were Pakistani - muslim - Africans (disease-ridden and not worthy of treatment, as you described them).
Now figures - I'll lay you one and a half million - what are you holding as being "overwhelmingly a crime of BPs."
And one more time - Straw rejected any connection with race, trial judges and police did likewise, your own 'witnesses' warned about making any racial connection..... it seems that this thread is not the only place you are on your own (save for the dormant dormouse in the teapot).
"Is there anything to explain? "
There have always been things to explain.
Why are paedophiles paedophiles - why are racists racists - why people attempt to win these arguments by hiding behind vaguaries and by adjusting facts to win arguments, why some people appear to take perverted satisfaction when another batch of raped children is discovered (a sort of paedophelia-by-proxy as far as I'm concerned) - personally I don't understand any of it.
Lively - know how you feel, but it saves paying out for emetics when reading the Thoughts of Chairman Keith does the same job.

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 05:38 PM

never once showed any concern or sympathy for the victims.

Actually, quite the contrary. I've seen quite a few posts expressing sympathy for the victins of Keith's vile racist abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 05:24 PM

Well keith, You've been posting here now for over two months.

Perhaps I am being over generous, but it seemed to me that you were making a series of points.

Well none of those points have been echoed in any of the testimony provided here.

(the alzheimers again eh? ... never mind)


As for the Dando reports explanation, I have posted it numerous times and you have attempted to redifine (as with all the other so called evidence you have provided) so that it fits your racist hypothesis.

I'm very sorry that your memory is so cruelly afflicted, but the good thing about the mudcat is that if you need to find out, you need only go back and find it.

whats that? you also suffer from myopia? oh dear. Never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 05:07 PM

Lively, you have not had to deal with the unrelenting, vile personal abuse that has been heaped on me.
A whiff of it drove you away at one point.
They have denied that there is even an issue and never once showed any concern or sympathy for the victims.
I am enjoying their embarrassment.
Allow me that please.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 04:43 PM

Jim,

"I have not commented on the claimed over-representation of young Pakistani men in these crimes; I have stated from the beginning that I believe we have nowhere near enough information to arrive at any firm conclusions. I do have opinions on the reason, but they are as ill-informed as any that have been made so far, hence my reluctance to put them forward."
"Nobody had denied anything here; we question how much we know about the events and their causes; certainly not enough to blame a whole culture"

I seem to have failed to note these comments. I suspect I've been too sidetracked by the ongoing polarisation of opinions being umm 'presented' here - which have appeared to me - to overlook the seriousness and indeed extent of the issue in the pursuit of a more personal war of attrition, to which I have succumbed to my own weariness.

While I naturally assume that the right, and far-right in particular, will quite obviously make play of such controversy as has been aroused by the cases being discussed here, what matters more to me, is that the left do not seek to diminish the seriousness of these cases (something which I believe has indeed happened in some posts here) either in order to be seen to "win" or because, they have a possible lurking disregard for 'white working class easy chavs' (who are all just ignorant racists anyway).

In particular I noted what I perceived to be a summary dismissal of "tip of the iceberg" type assertions made by those who have - despite disinterest from the authorities - been steadfastly working with, and as advocates for, victims of these crimes, as though such "mere anecdotes" are utterly meaningless and worthless.

My apologies if I have mischaracterised any of the participants in this discussion when stating that I felt myself to be alienated and occupying unfamiliar political turf more usually occupied by others of a different stripe. As I fear I may have done so.

Jim, you mat find I will contact you by other means (you know me by other means) as I think I'd like to take up your offer to discuss some of my concerns elsewhere.

Meanwhile.. Keith, I haven't really enjoyed watching you dropping your pants. It's been a bit icky..

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 03:57 PM

Welcome back Jim.
That was one of your briefest goodbye forevers so far!

Even in those Midland and Northern towns and cities, BPs are a minority group.
They should be a minority in any offending group.
They are the main offenders in this crime.
A massive over-representation.

Straw said it is a particular issue for BPs, but who cares? We know from many other sources that this is overwhelmingly a crime of BPs.
Straw blamed it on their girls being off limits, but who cares? We have cultural explanations from others including BPs themselves.

But why do you care about the explanation anyway Jim?
Is there anything to explain?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 03:44 PM

"That is a massive over-representation for a minority group."
There are an estimated 1.5 million Pakistanis living in Britain - how many people are being discussed here as being paedophiles?
Massive my arseum - please add up your figures before you make such racialy loaded statements!
This thread has not moved one single inch since it was hi-jacked and turned into a racist attack by Keith.
There is not one single shred of evidence to connect the crime of paedophilia with race or culture and Jack Straw's statement that there is no connection remains as true as it was when he made it (and Keith removed it).
The crimes described, far from being 'mainly Pakistani' are overwhelmingly those of the indigenous white population - Jack Straw said that as well - (again, just as surely as Keith removed it). A close second apparently are the European gangs appearing on the scene from the former communist countries.
Oh, and while I remember:
"Instead you now have your huge ludicrous arse on public display."
Just a reminder that you are still on your own here - with the occasional "up our side" from our homophobic dormouse friend, when he can stir himself out of his teapot for a few seconds.
Carry on chaps!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 03:05 PM

Stringsinger, I find nothing to disagree with in your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 02:20 PM

Very good Lox, but you avoided the serious bit.

What is this "different" explanation from "those who have studied it"???

And what "points" are not supported Lox??

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 02:08 PM

Ok you do-badders. Off you go! You know who you are. :)

Those who want to demonize will find a way to do it.

It's so easy to place blame on a group, a nation, a religion, a...._____fill in the blank.

There are crazy people who join groups, gangs, corporations, armies to support their
insanity.

Wars are fought over generalizations. A is good. B is bad. Let's go to war.

Last time I looked, Pakistani was not a racial classification.

Paedophelia and white slavery jumps all national and religious fences.

A duffel bag of facts can be used to support all kinds of intolerance.

Criminal behavior is just that. Not racial, national, religious, or ____fill in the blank.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 01:33 PM

I'm not sure whether to be more concerned by Keiths fascination with my rear end or the alzheimers that is corrupting his top end.

Are the two related n some way?

Fortunately the internet allows a degree of seperation that should keep me immune from his attentions.

Is this what it is like to be groomed I wonder?

It must be a cultural thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 01:24 PM

They are not all politicians Lox.
What is this "different" explanation from "those who have studied it"???
You have just made that up Lox.
Your arse is enlarging with every post!

And what "points" are not supported Lox??
Please, can you keep this up for another two months?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 12:58 PM

The politicians you mention have given one explanation.

Those who have studied it and have the full facts reject that explanation and offere a different one.

The politicians you rely on merely give their opinion.

The researchers give the results of an impartial study.

The only witness testimony we have seen makes no mention of any of your points.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 12:53 PM

I have always said "mainly a crime of BPs"
And I was right.
That is a massive over-representation for a minority group.
That requires an explanation.
One has been provided by people much more knowledgeable than you or me, which I have come to believe, in the absence of any other.

You say it is racist, but some of the proponents are famously anti racist BPs!
What is your non racist explanation Lox??

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 12:20 PM

2 and a quarter months of your life trying to prove a racist hypothesis.

And you claim to be impartial.

Oh and thanks Ake for your dep and inspiring insight.

Keep waving the little flag ... "kee-eef kee-eef kee-eef ... dribble dribble"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Apr 11 - 12:18 PM

"But, the gangs are all BPs."

No - the Pakistani gangs that have been investigated have been predominantly Pakistani.

Despite being Pakistani Gangs, there have been non Pakistani members.


If there were a Pakistani cultural reason for these crimes, then we would be seeing features that were unique to Pakistani culture.

We aren't.

We are seeing features that are typical of international trafficking gangs.

Or so the experts say.