BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 10:49 AM

What a cheap comment, especially from you Jim.

If I were the worlds greatest liar, I would not need to stray from the truth to show that there is an over-representation.

But you have no truthful way to deny it.

You still do, just because it offends your prejudice and preconceptions to accept the fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 08:59 AM

"I detest lies and liars Lox."
Don't be so hard on yourself Keith!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:55 AM

I detest lies and liars Lox.
My position is just that there is an over-representation, and there is copious evidence for that.

You have been unable to produce any evidence against the over-representation.
All you can do is make up lies about me and slander me.
That is all you have.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:26 AM

No Lox, that is an explanation for the over-representation.
No explanation has been offered other than the one I reported.
(It is not from me.)

Now what were the words I put in her mouth, and the bs I made up?
It was just a lie, right?
A lie to discredit.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:14 AM

No Keith - That is merely an assertyion you have made to support an earlier position; that while most pakistanis are able to overcome their cultural predisposition to rape, some are just too weak - hence these crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 07:08 AM

No Lox.
I am angry because you told blatant lies about me to make me look racist.
That would make anyone angry.

My "position" is that there is an over-representation of BPs in on-street grooming by gangs.
That position has hardly been torn to shreds.
You denials have.
That does not make me angry.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 06:16 AM

Well keith, I suggest you start reading the evidence you post.

None of it supports yur hypothesis and most of it explicitly contradicts it ...

... that is of course unless you wilfully misrepresent it.


You're only angry because you aren't used to having your position so convincingly torn to pieces.

In this case it is especially embarrassing as the methodical stripping away of your 'reasonable' facade has revealed an obsession for slandering pakistanis.

Getting grumpy won't change that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 06:10 AM

Keith, if it were up to me, which it isn't, I would have you both come to a pub--we call 'em bars in canada--and drink a few beers, because you two are just fighting now and not communicating. You are not a racist; Lox is not an unreasonable man. It's just that in the heat of argument, you two guys can push each other's buttons. That's the way I see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 06:04 AM

999, Jim and Lox lie about me to stand up the slander that I am some racist.
What would you have me do Bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999--sorry for the 6,790th time this year.
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 05:48 AM

Gentlemen, both of you, if there is common ground, PLEASE find it. I'm going bald.

Kendall (Morse) said at one point while discussing a situation that he'd had the same axe for most of his life. It had had two new heads and four new handles.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 05:38 AM

"puts words in her mouth, and invents imaginary bullshit that she never said"

WHAT IMAGINARY BULLSHIT?
WHAT WORDS IN HER MOUTH?
QUOTE THEM!
SHE WAS A CHILD VICTIM OF RAPE.
GROUNDLESS ACCUSATIONS LIKE THIS ARE DESPICABLE.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 05:24 AM

It is "absurd" to say that on-street grooming, reulting in the violent gang raping of many hundreds of children, does not exist.

It is not "absurd" to demand you justify your loathsome lie Lox.

Lox's loathsome lie.
"When someone like keith comes along however, and puts words in her mouth, and invents imaginary bullshit that she never said, in order to bolster his racist hypothesis, "

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 05:08 AM

"Dando did not say that there was no such thing, they studied it."

... *sigh* ... yes they did ... they said it misrepresents the data to say there is a new crime type.

Do I have to paste it again?

Its very literal and specific ... ie ... no room for keiths creative and tenuous reinterpretation.

As for you absurd outrage ... don't feel embarrassed.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 01:40 AM

If I had any fu#kin' hair left I'd pull it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 11 - 01:31 AM

Lox, you said this about Emma, one of the victims of BP groom and rape gangs.
"When someone like keith comes along however, and puts words in her mouth, and invents imaginary bullshit that she never said, in order to bolster his racist hypothesis, "

To say that I exploited this victim is such a wicked lie that I must ask you to withdraw it at once.
It is only a couple of days ago.
Go back, check that you got it wrong and then take it back because it is a disgusting lie and a smear against me.

If you refuse, then at least have the decency to put up my "offending" quotes.

Grooming was only made a crime in recent years.
All forms of grooming children for sex are now criminal.
On-street grooming is one Lox.
It is an extraordinarily successful form of grooming children for sex.
The recent news of the "biggest in the world" online paedophile ring abused 260 children worldwide.
We have many hundreds in just a few English counties.

What is the point of you saying it is not a separate crime when it is still going on and destroying hundreds of young lives?
Dando did not say that there was no such thing, they studied it.
They found in their limited study that it was so serious that a further two studies were set up to study it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 06:41 PM

"Now whether she is correct or not in her opinion isn't what I'm interested in, what I'm questioning is whether or not she could express such an opinion in an environment such as this for example (ie: in a predominantly left-wing context), without being abused for being a racist."

The important thing is to be sure what evidence she has provided.

Her opinions on the subject of the collective culture of Pakistanis is all very interesting, but it is not evidence, it is just her opinion.

This is because 1. Her experience of British Pakistanis is limited to organized criminals and 2. because she isn't a psychologist and is therefore simply unequipped to make such diagnoses.

The actual evidence of her allegations is her statement of what she experienced.

If she were to develop a fear or loathing of Pakistanis onthe basis of her experiences, I would not call her racist as I would understand that shhe would find it hard to dissociate her particular abusers race from the traumas she endured.

When someone like keith comes along however, and puts words in her mouth, and invents imaginary bullshit that she never said, in order to bolster his racist hypothesis, which he has been fighting for despite a total lack of any actual evidence, then that is where we see actual cold ideological racism rearing its ugly head.

He does not have an excuse, he merely has an unsupportable racist hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 05:42 PM

"The dando report rejects the idea that street grooming is a crime."
No Lox, the Dando report was ABOUT "On-street grooming by groups."

So it investigated it, and it concluded that there is no new crime type of on street grooming.


Lets have a look at this Parallel to help keith with his lack of comprehension.

Fiona Adams was investigated for the murder of two children.

According to Keith, as the investigation was into the murder of her two children, therefore they were murdered.

The fact that the investigation found that there was no murder would be of no concern to Keith.

He would say - "No Lox, the incestigation was into the murder of the two children, and there wil now be an other independent enquiry, therefore there was a murder"

Keith does not understand what an investigation is or what its purpose is.

The Street Grooming investigators concluyded that there was no evidence of a new crime type.

But Keith says "Duh ... but if there was an investigation then therefore it is true rtegardless of the results"

And in the process Keith marks himself out as being unfathomably thick.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 04:04 PM

"The reason is because these events occurred within a limited specific area."

Yes. 13 towns and cities in a 14 year period.
Not insignificant Lox.

"The dando report rejects the idea that street grooming is a crime."
No Lox, the Dando report was ABOUT "On-street grooming by groups."

"The new Ceop report will be studying similar data to the dando report on a national level."
Yes Lox. It is also studying "On-street grooming by groups."
They must think it exists too!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 03:32 PM

"any more thoughts on the over-representation, or explanations for it?"

The Dando report gave a clear reason.

This has been posted more than once.

The reason is because these events occurred within a limited specific area.

The new Ceop report will be studying similar data to the dando report on a national level.

The dando report rejects the idea that street grooming is a crime.

This is because it is nonsensical to see it as a crime in its own right.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 03:25 PM

Well it appears that Lively differs from one Keith in one very important respect.

Lively took the time to read my post and understand it.

Consequently any reply he/she makes to it, whether to agree or disagree, will be relevant.

Keith meanwhile continues to make shit up.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 09:21 AM

The grooming in public places would not look suspicious, especially if teenage boys were used as bait.
The pimping and raping was done behind closed doors.

We have heard the techniques used to discourage the girls from talking, and how difficult it was to get them to stand up in court.

The really worrying part is that the police were said to be unwilling to investigate, for fear of accusations of racism.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 08:49 AM

"any more thoughts on the over-representation, or explanations for it?"

It's a difficult question, not one I'm qualified to 'explain'. Clearly British Pakistani criminal gangs are not over-represented in human trafficking per se, nor are they over-represented in the grooming of minors for sexual exploitation, but what they do seem to have successfully cornered the market in, is the highly public method of "on-street" grooming.

What interests me more than "why?" is "how?"

As I put it earlier, while white paedophile networks work covertly here, it is unlikely to be through choice rather than necessity. By contrast however, Western paedophiles are able to operate more publicly in places like Thailand where they are less likely to be confronted by the authorities. Similarly paedophile Catholic Priests were free to abuse minors for many decades in Catholic countries like Ireland, where they were also unlikely to be challenged by (secular) authorities.

What are the factors which enable particular individuals and groups to pursue their organised campaigns of abuse in full view (or at best lightly veiled), and in such a fashion that despite the fact that it is 'common knowledge' to the communities in which it occurs, the authorities fail to take appropriate action to end it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 08:35 AM

Of course it is Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 08:21 AM

You really are a piece of work - and it's all on record for future reference
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 08:16 AM

Jim,
"You assummed nothing of the sort; both of us were off the thread - me for over a year."

You for 2 months Jim.


"you depicted immigrants as disease carriers who should be left to fend for themselves - what kind of person does that?"

Don't know Jim.
Not me certainly.

Now, enough about me, any more thoughts on the over-representation, or explanations for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 08:10 AM

Could the moderators please edit the thread title to "Everything you're not interested in about some bloke called Keith" please.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 08:00 AM

"I assumed, rightly, that you would look at a reopened thread you had contributed to."
You assummed nothing of the sort; both of us were off the thread - me for over a year.
You addressed your comment to others, using another thread to do so - a cowrdly, if typical trait of yours. The only reason I knewabout it was a guest/friend who has been following this farcial saga contacted me to say what an unpleasant piece of work you were.
Now stop trying to wriggle of the hook - you depicted immigrants as disease carriers who should be left to fend for themselves - what kind of person does that?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 07:52 AM

Jim,
"Lox had been gone a month, me for over a year."

You had been gone 2 months before previous last post.
Large error Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 07:12 AM

I assumed, rightly, that you would look at a reopened thread you had contributed to.
Lox also.

PS, thread drift happens Jim.
It was not by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 06:59 AM

PS It was not an AIDS debate - it was a discussion on the persecution of homosexuals by threatening them with the death penalty.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 06:57 AM

"Jim, I joined the AIDS debate, but I did not start it."
Whoever started it, you used it to attack immigrants, describing them as disease carriers; - that was the use you put it to and that was the point I made.
The rest of your posting is evasive guff - try addressing some of the other points I made.
And by the way, neither Lox nor I were involved in the thread you used for your sneaky bit of back-stabbing. Lox had been gone a month, me for over a year.
Stop wriggling - it makes you appear as dishonest as you are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 05:40 AM

Jim, I joined the AIDS debate, but I did not start it.
As in this thread, my input was just finding and supplying expert evidence on the subject.
You will find no bigoted posts there or anywhere else.
Not being a bigot, I do not make them.

Nothing to say about the over-representation, or an explanation for it then.
Just more stuff about me.
You are obsessed.
It is not healthy Jim. You should talk to someone.
Not on line. Actual talking.

You have such knowledge of our music.
No one wants to see you like this.
Talk to someone Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 11 - 05:11 AM

Keith;
Put these two threads together and what have we got?
Muslim prejudice:
A long concerted effort to imply and actually state that paedophelic rape is attributable to British Pakistani culture (even going to the extent of doctoring your own evidence to make the point).
Death penalty for homosexuality:
An immediate leap from the topic in hand to aids, Africans and disease-carrying immigrants - topped off with the hint that they - the immigrants who contact aids - should be refused medical assistance - and what - left to die unassisted, sent back to where they came from where they are unlikely to be able to get treatment?
It would be interesting to see what your four named sponsors think of your approach to this - but it seems a little unfair to involve them, as you have chosen to do by naming them as your supporters.
This is the kind of garbage I have been listening to all my life: from the Keep Britain White Campaign, from the National Front, from scum like Enoch Powell and his "Rivers of Blood", and latterly from the BNP, who have actually toned their line down a little recently in order to appear 'respectable' and win seats in elections.
It appears to me as classic racism
I haven't yet looked into threads on immigration, or possible connections between Muslim terrorism and British Asian communities (I have no doubt you have had something to say), but now you've opened this particular can of worms, I certainly will do so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 06:11 PM

"I have never made any Jim."
See this thread.
THERE IS NO RACIST ABUSE IN THIS THREAD JIM.

"send the Irish back home"
Been through this - it's on record.

IT IS AN OLD LIE, AND IT IS STILL A LIE.
PUT UP THE OFFENDING QUOTES, BUT BE SURE TO PUT UP THE POST THEY REPLY TO.
WE WILL SEE IF I AM A BIGOT, OR YOU A LIAR.
BRING IT ON JIM.
"Lox was one of the main protagonists on that thread (Death penalty for homosexuality), and you made many posts to it."
On the thread in question, Lox's last contribution was 27th Feb; mine was 13th Jan 2010 - as I said, behind our backs.


YOU SAID "on a thread we weren't involved in."
NOT TRUE WAS IT JIM!

"I have never equated or even made a connection between homosexuality and race."
From the very first one, your first dozen postings to the above thread contain fifteen (15) references to Africans and immigrants as being aids carriers, including your questioning whether the latter should receive treatment in the host country.

THAT WAS THE SUBJECT UNDER DISCUSSION JIM, AND I HAVE NEVER MADE A BIGOTED REMARK ON MUDCAT OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

Any thing on the over-representation, or explanations for it Jim?
Or do you just want to talk abour me?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 03:38 PM

"I have never made any Jim."
See this thread.
"send the Irish back home"
Been through this - it's on record.
"Lox was one of the main protagonists on that thread (Death penalty for homosexuality), and you made many posts to it."
On the thread in question, Lox's last contribution was 27th Feb; mine was 13th Jan 2010 - as I said, behind our backs.
"I have never equated or even made a connection between homosexuality and race."
From the very first one, your first dozen postings to the above thread contain fifteen (15) references to Africans and immigrants as being aids carriers, including your questioning whether the latter should receive treatment in the host country.
"Wrong..... Wrong....."
You really should try to learn the difference between proof and denial
"You try to make me the subject of discussion."
No Keith, you try to make it about you, in spite of the (self admitted) fact that you know nothing about the subject you took over and made into a racist diatribe.
Any more for the Skylark?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 02:47 PM

Jim, you have been shown to be wrong about everything you have argued.
Wrong about the massive over-representation.
Wrong about the explanation for it.

As usual when your arguments fail, you resort to a personal offensive against me.
You try to make me the subject of discussion.

There have already been some takers Jim.
People who have said I am not racist include Joe, Michael, 999, and Lively who rightly objects to such abuse being flung around at all.

Got anything else Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 01:11 PM

Still no takers?
Nope, I thought not.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 09:29 AM

I missed a significant lie.

I have never equated or even made a connection between homosexuality and race.
I do not believe that there is one.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 09:25 AM

"racial abuse,"

I have never made any Jim.
You lie again.

"send the Irish back home"

I would never say such a thing.
You know it is a lie because I have had to confront you about it several times now.

"snide attacks on Lox and I on a thread we weren't involved in."

Untrue.
Lox was one of the main protagonists on that thread (Death penalty for homosexuality), and you made many posts to it.

Despicable post Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 08:44 AM

"Jim, I doubt that Michael is the only person to have lost respect for you over your despicable conduct here."
This is all a game for you - racial abuse, send the Irish back home, homomosexuality = race - all about winning or losing, no matter whose lives if fucks up.
I'm actually not posting anywhere today, I was curious to see which particular twist your mind had taken today - it was bound to be you opened this cess-pit of a thread up to see if you could get any takers for your not being a racist - nothing so far!
I'm sure Mike is as delighted to see that you're in there representing his opinion as I was to find your behind-the-backs snide attacks on Lox and I on a thread we weren't involved in.
Slimeball just about covers it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 07:41 AM

It depends whether or not you consider the forcible abduction and international trafficking of women and children, to be an identical phenomenon to these crimes involving the public grooming of girls from within the UK. As I put it earlier it would seem that there are areas of overlap between the crimes being discussed here with those key characteristics which both typify international trafficking *and* paedophile grooming for the sexual exploitation of minors.

An important distinction between these crimes under discussion and other similar forms of abuse however, is that these crimes have not been taking place covertly, but in highly public spaces. The success of the methodology of on-street grooming being employed by these gangs, arguably says something about our culture's apathy towards these kinds of crimes and the lack of protection offered by police in those areas where it's happening to young teenage girls at risk of being groomed into prostitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 11 - 07:14 AM

Jim has been busy posting elsewhere today.
It does not look as though we will see an alternative explanation offered, or evidence of other groups committing these crimes.

Jim, I doubt that Michael is the only person to have lost respect for you over your despicable conduct here.
You should count that loss as even greater than nail varnish.

I have been motivated only by the desire to establish the truth about a sensitive issue.
I am not a racist, or a bigot, and neither I nor the child victims are liars.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 02:38 PM

Though as an aside to the veracity or otherwise of her account, its worth noting that Emma campaigns as a spokesperson for Crop (Coalition for the removal of pimping).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 02:34 PM

"There is nithing in her statement (not sworn under oath I might add) to suggest that..."

So you don't really believe her, do you Lox!"

Actually, I think Lox was referring to my somewhat misleading use of legal terminology. Instead of "witness testimony" I should have referred to a "first-hand account" (or some-such).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 01:48 PM

"There is nithing in her statement (not sworn under oath I might add) to suggest that Pakistanis are closet Paedos."

No, but her statement would no doubt be controversial here nonetheless. She is saying that she thinks the culture of (2nd and 3rd generation) Pakistani's is misogynistic. And that this culturally informed misogyny helps to "draw them into" crimes against women. Now whether she is correct or not in her opinion isn't what I'm interested in, what I'm questioning is whether or not she could express such an opinion in an environment such as this for example (ie: in a predominantly left-wing context), without being abused for being a racist. What I'm saying is that it's a difficult subject to discuss without encroaching into potentially taboo areas. And when people (and most especially the victims of abuse) are nervous of breaking taboo's, they will stay silent.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 01:02 PM

Jim, I went ballistic because you claimed to have found a post of mine on the internet, when it was my own.
I detest lies and liars.

On this subject I claim no expertise.
I think it responsible to take my arguments from experienced experts.
Also it makes your ignorant, blinkered dogma look as worthless as it is, and reduces you to personal smearing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 12:55 PM

Paedophilia is not the charge Jim.
It is suggested they go for children because they are easy meat.

And Straw linked that behaviour to their own girls being off limits.
Just read it.

Jim, you say, "what we know is that the British Pakistani involvement is miniscule on the national scale"

I say they are massively over represented and am willing to cite all my evidence again.
You have no evidence at all that "the British Pakistani involvement is miniscule on the national scale" because it is not true.
Prove me wrong why don't you!

In the vast area of The Midlands, Greater Manchester, Yorkshire and Lancashire, many hundreds of children like poor Emma have been groomed and raped by gangs mainly of BPs.

Or do you have evidence of large numbers of non BPs doing it?
Do You?
No.
We would have seen it by now.
You have nothing but blind, prejudiced refusal to listen the the victims.
Emma was not under oath after all.
She could be part of my vast conspiracy of lies!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 12:55 PM

Some time ago I suggested that you had no original thoughts on the subject we were discussing (Ireland) and that an analysis that you offered as 'all your own work' had been cut-n-pasted and adapted to make it appear that it was all yours - you went somewhat ballistic and accused me of lying.
It is difficult not to notice that virtually all of your input to this thread has been cut-n-pasted from the net and whenever it has been challenged you have scurried behind your cut-n-paste sources with anguished cries of "don't blame me; I'm only the messengers".
You have already admitted that "I have no knowledge or experience of my own to offer" so I ask again, are you not capable of thinking for yourself or is the sum total of your knowledge and opinions made up of what you are able to cut-n-paste from the net?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 12:13 PM

"READ AGAIN JIM. NO SUGGESTION OR MIGHT! IT IS HIS EXPLANATION"
Nobody, Jack Straw nor anybody else apart from you, is suggesting that the culture of those concerned has anything to do with the acquiring of underage girls. He is saying that they are unable to get what they want in their own community so they are going elsewhere. He is not claiming, as you appear to be, that the urge to have underage sex stems from their being British Pakistanis. On the contrary, in the bit you edited out he made the point that these young Pakistani men were ACTING NO DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHER YOUNG MEN IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS FROM ANY OTHER CULTURAL OR RACIAL GROUP - YOU REMOVED THAT BIT BECAUSE IT DID NOT SUPPORT YOUR CASE THAT PAEDOPHILIA WAS A PAKISTANI THING.
You now appear to have dropped the line that "no one can produce any evidence of anyone else doing it" - can we assume that this is gone for good?
"all we know is that the British Pakistani involvement is miniscule on the national scale - EVIDENCE"
I, nor anybody, needs to produce evidence for a charge that has not been laid against the British Pakistani population except by you and your ilk and the BNP.
If you are claiming that paedophilia is rife within the BP population, it is your responsibility to prove it is - is that what you are now suggesting? It certainly seems to be what you have suggested throughout your postings, without actually having the courage to put it into those words.
So far all we have are a small number of hearsay examples from small undefined areas in Northern and Midland Britain - even your sole supporter has admitted that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 11 - 11:16 AM

Lox, you ask, "You think that is a plausible suggestion."

It is the only one we have. You have no explanation for the over-representation, do you Lox?
DO YOU LOX?

That explanation was produced, separately and independently, by Cryer (in 2003!), Straw, Shafiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown.
How can you blame me for coming to accept it.
How do you just know that it is wrong, especially as you have no alternative theory