BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 07:29 AM

Mike - we really have visited Keith's racist and generally bigotted shrine before - they are not irrelevant to his present stance.
His torrent of racist examples, only some of which I have taken from his posts, are indications of his racist views as far as I am concerned.
His failure to read what others have written has been pointed out to him again and again, by others as well as me.
I would no more exclude what has gone before from this discussion than I would Ake's vicious homophobia - they are part of what they are - bigots.
No doubt Keith will take some comfort from your support - perhaps I should have said 'apart from those few who have already declared support for some of his views.'
I do hope you have armed yourself with a very long spoon.
Best regards to you too.
"I have said that they are biologically the same as all of us."
Biologically so are Colonel Gadaffi, Denis Mugabe Margaret Thatcher and Augusto Pinochet - that is not under discussion here - it is individual weaknesses and personal experiences that make criminals and human rights monsters, not cultural traiits or racial origins.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 06:43 AM

···"Your reason for re-opening this thread - to plead that you are not a dishonest, manipulative racist, appears to have fallen on deaf ears"...

"If I am an arse where is the avalanche of support for your case, your racism and your dishonest behaviour - the very reason you re-opened this thread - where is your backing?"···
===
I am sorry, Jim; I am still here to tell you that I think that you & Steve & Don have got it wrong, &, insofar as the small but significant section of the matter concerning the over-representation of one demographic regarding one particular segment within a pattern of overall conduct is concerned, Keith has got it right.

Your attempts to widen the matter to cover the whole of this conduct spectrum are counterproductive, in emphasising the over-representation within this particular part which is all that is at issue to Keith & me. Your constant repetitions of Keith's "previous" on other threads likewise raises the question as to why you need to resort to such manifest irrelevancies if your overall case is as strong as you appear to think.

I hope you will believe that I am not attempting merely to controversialise. BWM paid us both the compliment above of saying how gratifying he found it that we could differ in an urbane and courteous manner, and I much regret that here might have been some passages since then when we let this sort of discourse slip into hostility or disrespecful unmannerliness. But I do not think I can let go your above assertions that Keith's case is being undermined by a deafening silence in response and an overwhelming lack of support.

I'm still here.

Best regards as ever

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 06:28 AM

Jim,
"If I am an arse where is the avalanche of support for your case, your racism and your dishonest behaviour - the very reason you re-opened this thread - where is your backing?"

Joe does not think either of us are racists.
He was good enough to describe us as both good people.
He described your persistent attemps to discredit me as cheap.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 06:13 AM

It is not just two sentences Jim.
I have left out great tranches of irrelevant gush, including those two sentences.

But I am delighted that you are exposing them, because they support my case anyway!

" Straw points out that Pakistani men are no different from any other racial/cultural group - you have consistently argued that predatory behaviour is an inbuilt cultural trait."

I have said that they are biologically the same as all of us.
They have the same drives, but no outlet for this one within their own community, leading to this crime.
We have this stated by BPs like Ahmed, Allibhai-Brown and Shufiq, never mind Straw, and Cryer.

How do you know they are all wrong?
You just know.
Right?

IT CAN'T BE TRUE.
IT JUST CAN'T.
RACIST! BIGOT! LIAR!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 06:01 AM

"I try to keep my posts short."
Piss off Keith - that was not the reason for removing evidence from your cut-n-paste, which took about two sentences. You removed it because it undermined your argument that Pakistanis were culturally sexual predators NOBODY, NOT EVEN YOUR FEW SUPPORTERS, BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHY YOU DIT IT.
"There is nothing here that contradicts anything I have argued."
Yes there is - Straw points out that Pakistani men are no different from any other racial/cultural group - you have consistently argued that predatory behaviour is an inbuilt cultural trait.
"Pakistani heritage girls are off limits"
Are you suggesting that they should be put 'on limits' to protect 'our white women'? You have just said it again - Pakistani culture = predatory sexual behaviour
"You are making a COMPLETE arse of yourself over this."
If I am an arse where is the avalanche of support for your case, your racism and your dishonest behaviour - the very reason you re-opened this thread - where is your backing?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 05:35 AM

Jim,
""Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders."
So you removed the awkward bit which undermined your objective."

I have been saying that they are under represented in all non terror crime including other sex crime, since January.
It was not in contention so no need to include it.
I try to keep my posts short.

"These young men act like any other young men. They're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits. So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care, who they think are easy meat."

There is nothing here that contradicts anything I have argued.
What do you see that supports you?
"Pakistani heritage girls are off limits"
Why? Culture.
Result? This crime.
My case in a nutshell.

You are making a COMPLETE arse of yourself over this.
Thanks Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 04:44 AM

"I did not need to quote that, because I quoted actual BPs saying the same thing."
You have worked bloody hard on this thread to prove a direct connection between Pakistani culture and paedophilia.
In order to do so, you found a quote from a British Home Secretary which appeared at first to back up your argument, except, of course, it said exactly the opposite
"Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders."
So you removed the awkward bit which undermined your objective.
Straw, (Mr Home Secretary) then went on to went on to suggest a reason why there is no direct connection between paedophelia and British Pakistani culture.
"These young men act like any other young men. They're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits. So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care, who they think are easy meat."
So once again you removed the contradictory bit, and in doing so, undermined both your 'evidence' and your credibility.
You then went on to refer to your doctored quote at least 43 times, now that the contradictory bits were no longer a problem to you.
As an excuse for doing what you did you have:
Persistantly denied that you did it: claimed that others do the same thing so it's ok for you to have done it: claimed that you removed the two passages because they took up too much space and you do not post superfluous information: said (as you do here) that there was no reason to leave it in because it has been said elsewhere......
We seem to have reached the stage where you have distanced yourself from former British Home Secretary, Jack Straw's evidence, which is now as welcome to you as a turd on a croquet lawn.
You even opened a new thread to make similar claims (only this time it was all Muslims, who you appeared to be trying to suggest were potential assassins).
Your evidence is deeply flawed, the general thrust of your argument is flawed, and you have presented a picture of yourself as being a somewhat inept racist whose technique (here and on other threads) is to cut-n-paste pieces of evidence, having first adapted them to suit your own prejudices, and repeat them ad nauseum, like Long John Silver's parrot.
Your reason for re-opening this thread - to plead that you are not a dishonest, manipulative racist, appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
Dispite your claims to the contrary, you have shown yourself a somewhat sad and distasteful individual with unpleasant and dangerous views - thank you for having made that so clear.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 02:50 AM

Lox, let me help you to comprehend the meaning of your Guardian quote.
"ok so they are concerned that the information they gathered was being "generalised to an entire crime type" "

It means that there is a recognised crime type here.
They have only studied a small number (17) of cases so the data should not be generalised to the whole of this (recognised) crime type.
That leaves open the possibility that these cases are indeed typical of this crime type.

More study of this (recognised) crime type is required to confirm that.
OK Lox?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 02:11 AM

You are right Lox.
Just allegations.
Hundreds of children alleged they had been groomed and raped by BPs, but people like you would not listen because it would not be PC.
Thank God that Wilmer did.
(How she deserves the award she received for her work.)

Unknown numbers more went to their MPs when the police would not help.

The study looked at actual convictions for this crime type (that does not exist.)
It would be wrong to generalise, but they looked at 17 (non existent) trials and found that those convicted of this (non existent) crime were nearly all BPs.

A larger follow up study has been ordered into this (non existent) crime.

All of which proves to Lox's satisfaction that there is no issue and no crime, just racism.
Should those children be punished for telling Lox, are is having their young lives devastated enough for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Mar 11 - 12:28 AM

Didn't read the last post: ☞☜·in·〠 lalalalalalala

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 07:38 PM

Keith says "they said that "data from" their survey had been generalised, not that its subject did not exist as a type of crime."

Ok well lets read it again then Keith shall we ...

... the data was "generalised to an entire crime type" ...

ok so they are concerned that the information they gathered was being "generalised to an entire crime type" ...

... hmmm ...

You know keith, when I read that I get an idea that they are concerned about the data being "generalised to an entire crime type" ...

... i.e there is no new "crime type".


As for Helen Wilmer,

She is REPORTING a series of ALLEGATIONS ... thats it.

That is not evidence of crimes, just evidence that ALLEGATIONS have been made.

So for you to derive from this that we KNOW that hundreds of crimes have been commited by Pakistanis is also MISREPRESENTATION of the data.

So there is no new crime type, just ALLEGATIONS - and not allegations by Helen Wilmer, only allegations REPORTED by Helen Wilmer.


You state that because Street Grooming was investigated, therefore it exists.

If I allege that you are a thief, and the police investigate it, the fact that you are being investigated for theft does not make you a thief.

And if, as in this case, the investigators specifically state that the data does not support the allegation, then I think it is safe to say that the allegation can be dismissed.

Just like your racist hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 05:39 PM

Oooh dearie·weary me. CrapLox doesn't think me witty. How shall I live with the shame & disgrace! Down the garden to eat worms again! And when he himself is such a witty old wiseacre too, to be sure. Don't you just adore that constant rib- tickling tease of his, of "I am leaving this thread! Boo! I'm back! Gotcha!" Look, he has just done it again; on this very thread; for the, uh, 7th time, is it? Sorry; lost count. Hilarious! To say nothing of that sidesplitting series of ésprits about the colostomy bags and the wheelchairs and the bondage... Absolutely priceless, Oh, dear sweet darling Poxy-Loxy-Woxy; please stop pretending to leave the thread. It's so ♥·less & crool... What shall we ever ever ever do without you, duckling!!!

〠〠〠❧❦❧〠〠〠

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 04:36 PM

Hillary Wilmer, because of her years of work with victims, knows more about this issue than anyone else.
When she is contradicted by one random bloke from Kent and two from Ireland, no one is going to take any notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 04:32 PM

Lox, they said that "data from" their survey had been generalised, not that its subject did not exist as a type of crime.

Jim, in the bit you claim I left out dishonestly, Straw said the BPs abused children because their culture makes their own girls off limits.

I did not need to quote that, because I quoted actual BPs saying the same thing.

You are making an arse of yourself again.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 04:32 PM

"and twice referring to my Irish Nationality"
He hasn't asked you to go back to where you came from yet - but he will - he will!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 03:29 PM

You've had my answer Keith - unlike you I will not condemn a whole culture or race on the basis of hearsay evidence AND NEITHER DID YOUR STAR WITNESS, JACK STRAW, THE PART WHERE HE SAYS SO YOU CAREFULLY REMOVED FROM YOUR CUT-N-PASTE.
Straw carefully points out that there is no cultural signficance to the events under discussion - you are contradicting this and have deliberately removed his saying so - you are a manipulative racist with no support for your racist claims.
I have already included a selection of your racist accusations against British Pakistanis taken from only some of your postings; hope to get down to the rest later this week - impressive reading, what!
Nobody loves you Keith - live with it!
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 02:51 PM

"Authors of the first independent academic analysis looking at "on-street grooming", where young girls, spotted outside, including at the school gates, have become targets, said they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type"."

Thats what the authors said.

They were concerned that the research they carried out was being generalized to an entire crime type.

They were concerned because people like keith are sying it is a new crime type WHEN IT ISN'T ONE.

But the results and conclusions of the researchers are irrelevant according to Keith.

The only proof he needs is the fact that ALLEGATIONS have been reported and that an investigation has been carried out.

It does not interest him that the investigators conclusions flatly CONTRADICT his view.

2 months selling a racist hypothesis ... and twice referring to my Irish Nationality as if to suggest that it somehow delegitimizes my arguments ... thankyou for clarifying your agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 02:14 PM

Jim,
"Where do your figures come from? Do you have any idea how many children were involved?"
Wilmer talked of four hundred families who had sought help from her support group.
Many don't, and those in care have no families anyway.
She is aware that she only sees "the tip of the iceberg."
It is also hardly likely that the politicians saw just the same people as Wilmer.

I ask again, Do you deny that a large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.

Do you regard that as a significant issue, and why is it racist to mention it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 02:06 PM

Lox,
"This despite the Dando institute report whose authors state that to describe street grooming as a seperate crime type is a misrepresentation of the facts."

Wrong AGAIN Lox.
It does not state that.
The report was actually into "on-street grooming".
THAT WAS ITS SUBJECT, and there is to be a follow up study ON THE SAME SUBJECT.
They could hardly conclude that there is no such thing!

"the distinction keith makes between these child abusers and other child abusers is false"

They use a different strategy to ensnare the children.
That IS the distinction!
That and the vast scale of it.
Even the recent global anti paedophile operation invoved a fraction of this number of child victims.

"helen wilmer said, that some parents said, that some kids said, that they were abused by Pakistani Gangs ... and she thiinks it COULD be the tip of the iceberg."
Wrong AGAIN Lox.
She said that, of the hundreds of families who turned to her, ALL the abusers were BPs.
She says it is the tip of an iceberg.
You say it is not, but you are just some random bloke from Ireland, so I choose to believe her.

"And that ladies and gents is the proof for his "hypothesis" that British Pakistanis are culturally predisposed to kidnapping and raping children."
WRONG YET AGAIN Lox!
That is just some of the evidence for over representation.
There is no proof of the hypothesis.
But the Muslims and BPs who have made that hypothesis are more likely to be right than some random bloke from Ireland.

Don, you choose not to accept the evidence.
Nothing would convince you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 02:01 PM

"That was not to spare you further embarrassment, was it?"
You re-opened this deplorable thread with a plea for people to come to your defence as not being a racist - don't see many takers - do you?
A large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.
Where do your figures come from? Do you have any idea how many children were involved?
"Do you think it significant?"
I think the rape of any child extremely significant, whether the rapist is Muslim, Catholic Jew, black white, striped or polka-dotted.
"Do you think it racist?"
I think it racist to make a cultural issue that the rapist happens to be a Pakistani, I think it racist to suggest that paedophilia is a cultural or race issue, I think it racist to suggest 'large numbers' - 'many hundreds', on figures you do not have, especially as your star witness (in the bit you snopaked out) took pains to point out that this was a case of young men coming from a culture with high moral standards, doing what other young men of their age have done before them. He also pointed out that overwhelmingly paedophilia was not an Asian/Muslim crime - but you snopaked that bit out too.
Another piece of your 'evidence' pointed out the dangers of these reports being used for racist purposes, as you have attempted to use them.
Do I believe you to be a racist - yup; you've talked me (and nearly everybody else) into that one a hundred percent.
It is you and you alone who has despicable made the rape of children a vehicle to air your own prejudices.
As for my non-appearance on this thread; surprisingly, I found the Inishowen singing Festival a breath of fresh air compared to this cess-pit.
.... put up specific evidence for each allegation
See above.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 09:09 AM

""Here there is an infinitely more probable explanation, that you seem unable to consider.""

That's what I love about you Keith, your arrogant ability to assign new meanings to words.

Look up "infinite" in the dictionary, then, armed with the knowledge of what it actually means, rethink that inane comment.

What you call a more probable explanation, most people would regard as an implausible mishmash of poorly informed, and ill considered nonsense.

You extrapolate from a series of events which have taken place amongst a minority in a localised area of a much larger country, to draw completely indefensible conclusions about the whole race/religion/culture from which that minority stems.

None of those you cite in support of your theory have drawn the same conclusions, and large groups of the same ethnic origins in other parts of the country show no sign of this "predilection" but, come hell or high water you won't yield one inch.

How you have the gall to accuse others of having fixed ideas I do not know.

At least my take on the matter doesn't involve labelling a whole culture as potential sex criminals, and I'll stick with that thanks.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 08:14 AM

Blimey - 20th of March - thats 2 months since Keith began his crusade to prove that Pakistanis in Britain are closet paedophiles who struggle not to abuse children.

He states that Pakistanis are overrepresented in the crime of "street grooming".

This despite the Dando institute report whose authors state that to describe street grooming as a seperate crime type is a misrepresentation of the facts.

This also despite the wording of the statute (posted by keith) which clarifies that grooming of any sort is merely the means by which child abusers trap their victims.

In other words, the distinction keith makes between these child abusers and other child abusers is false and his hypothesis has no premise.

Keith knows all this but ignores it as it is inconvenient, and states that we "know" it is true because of fourth hand evidence ... helen wilmer said, that some parents said, that some kids said, that they were abused by Pakistani Gangs ... and she thiinks it COULD be the tip of the iceberg.

And that ladies and gents is the proof for his "hypothesis" that British Pakistanis are culturally predisposed to kidnapping and raping children.

Meanwhile MtheGM dribbles overexcitedly into his bib as his bitterness over being born with no talent or wit seeps forth in a constant trickle of insignificant bile.

I'll check in in another month to have a little chuckle at the farcical crap being posted.

Til then do have fun xx

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Mar 11 - 03:52 AM

Don, many things are possible, but exceedingly unlikely.

Here there is an infinitely more probable explanation, that you seem unable to consider.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Mar 11 - 03:11 PM

In the States, here, there are not a lot of suicide bombings by extremist Muslim groups if any at all.

Errrrr - what happened on 9/11? OK it is not a lot. But it sure was a big un!

Nothing to do with the spririt of the thread I guess but, yes, I am a pedantic nit-picker...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Mar 11 - 01:57 PM

Again, it's about what people do which is more important than what they profess to believe.

In the States, here, there are not a lot of suicide bombings by extremist Muslim groups if any at all. The bible is full of contradictory statements about how to live as is also the koran and the torah and the ghita and the ............... There are always those who choose violence to support their claims of belief and others who are more rational.

There are those in the Christian community who would shoot someone who didn't agree with them so why not in any other religious community as well?

Does Matthew Shepherd, Franklin Graham or Fred Phelps ring a bell?

You can always find some nut somewhere that wants to play at being a god with a gun and appropriate "answers" to the world's problems.

Remember the movie "The Gangs of New York"?

Prejudice by any other name would smell....................

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Mar 11 - 11:40 AM

""Don, how you would enjoy cross examining the poor, terrified children in court.""

That is the kind of deliberate misapprehension and scurrilous attack I have come to expect from you sir.

You simply do not know where to draw the line.

I was referring to the well recognised and equally well documented danger that in questioning children, the questioner can very easily, and totally inadvertently lead them to give the answers they believe she wants.

Roughly along the lines of:-
Child "He had a brown face, and a beard".
Questioner "Like the man in this photograph"?
Child "Yes"
Questioner "Thank you", notes down Probably Pakistani.

That is why those who deal with children have a high degree of advanced training for the job.

Does Wilmer have that training?.....Answer....YOU DO NOT KNOW!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Mar 11 - 11:26 AM

No worries Mike! I'm happy to admit and apologise when I get it wrong.

I'm also happy to see both sides of any story, which is apparently not permitted in discussion with Keith.

He has a point of view which may have some merit, but he chooses to insist that there is no other, and refuses to read any posts which disagree with him.

Then, when backed into a corner with direct yes or no questions requiring yes or no answers, he waffles then runs away with a perfect definition of his own behaviour (""But nothing would ever convince you that you have got it wrong this time.""), followed by a very weak cop out (""I am giving up on you."").

I have repeatedly asked him questions which begin "Is it not possible......", and he knows damn well that, however much he wants it not to be, it patently IS POSSIBLE!

I wonder how he'll react when he comes back and is reminded of his responses when others leave and then return.

As I said above, Pathetic!.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 03:20 PM

Thank you, Don.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 12:01 PM

Don, how you would enjoy cross examining the poor, terrified children in court.
Did you read Wilmer's account of how most girls simply can't face their violent abusers in court?
Have you read how hard it has proved to get any police action?

Kids learn from a young age to recognise the different ethnic groups in their towns.
You can believe the victims.
Grooming involves getting close to them.

Wilmer talked of four hundred families who had sought help from her support group.
Many don't, and those in care have no families anyway.
She is aware that she only sees "the tip of the iceberg."
It is also hardly likely that the politicians saw just the same people as Wilmer.

But nothing would ever convince you that you have got it wrong this time.
I am giving up on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 10:24 AM

Apologies unreserved Mike.

I did indeed misread and do you an injustice.

Not so Keith however.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 09:46 AM

Don ~~ I had made it abundantly clear that I was only referring to that kingsize fool Lox's posts, not yours or Steve's or Jim's, to all of whom I have endeavoured to respond rationally, and not to lalala with fingers in ears; as none of you had wasted my time earlier on with ill-conceived and inaccurate and idiotic abuse.

You are perfectly aware of this, and so your attack on me two posts back was unfair and ill-natured. I am ashamed of you ~~ tho I suppose it is too much to expect you to be ashamed of yourself.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 08:08 AM

""A large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.""

Wilmer spoke to 400 victims, all of whom claimed to have been abused by British Pakistani men.

Only 17 cases followed, involving 56 Pakistani men.

Does this not surprise you.

Questions you haven't bothered to consider in your eagerness to libel a whole culture.

1. How did those victims know that their abusers were Pakistanis? Swarthy skin?..Beards?...Asian accents?

Or did they ask to see their passports?

2. Is it not possible that many other races with the same generic appearance were involved?......Indian, Filippino?...even Spanish?

3. Is it not possible that Wilmer (not a trained interrogator of children) led the children into her preconceived path?

How about putting you money where your mouth is and actually fulfilling your expressed willingness to answer questions?

A direct answer for the first time would be good.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 07:53 AM

""Not that they bothered me that much; disposing of their absurdities by the simple expedient of not bothering to read them... ""

AH! That explains why you think you've won something.

The text equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la, I'm not listening".

Exactly the same technique as used by Keith, as he himself stated.

Pathetic!

As for Ake, he's already in La La Land, and has been for a very long time, and the reason he hasn't seen my sense of humour is that he's never said anything the least bit funny.......


.....or sensible.

Definitely one to ignore. His attitude to minorities is well documented.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Mar 11 - 02:59 AM

Jim, you have been pleading for someone to close this thread.
That was not to spare you further embarrassment, was it?

Straight answers from you now would close it to everyone's satisfaction.

A large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.

Do you still deny it?
Do you think it significant?
Do you think it racist?

And please, do not try to make it all about me again.
Or, if you must, put up specific evidence for each allegation

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 03:14 PM

Thanks Steve.
If you accept that I have no other issue, but I refute that I " focus to the exclusion of all other sex crime in this country."

It is just that we happened to be discussing this crime, i.e. on-street grooming of children by groups.

I did acknowledge whenever it came up that BPs were under represented in all other crime incuding other sex crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 02:20 PM

When have I ever denied it? Or said it was insignificant? If that's how you read my comments then you need English lessons. What's wrong is the gloss you're putting on it, your focus to the exclusion of all other sex crime in this country. You seem to be on a mission to besmirch one particular small group of people. That could be racist for all I know. It's down to you to defend that stance and you have signally failed to do so, which is why you are being confronted with scepticism by so many people. It doesn't help when you blatantly misrepresent what people post, as here, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 01:58 PM

My chapters would be tedious because, as you say, I have only been saying one thing.
A large number, many hundreds, of children were groomed and gang raped by BPs in certain northern cities over the last ten years.

I had to keep saying it because you and others either deny it or say it is not significant.

Do you still deny it?
Do you think it significant?
Do you think it racist?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:58 PM

Keith, several people in this thread could write a small book each containing our considered responses and we are not calling you racist at every juncture. A similar book from you would have about twenty-eight chapters in it, all identical and all incredibly tedious.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 12:36 PM

The one where I made points that you were unable to reply to, except to call me racist.
Any reply to those lasts points?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 09:21 AM

What debate? You mean this big long thread in which you arrived with a fixed idea and refuse to listen to anyone who demurs? That debate?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 09:14 AM

That's a no then.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 09:08 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....*snort* ...Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 04:34 AM

Sorry Lively.
You did respond and developed the point, but no one challenged it.

Jim and Steve both insisted they were still in, but did not actually contribute anything.

Are you still in this debate or not boys?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Mar 11 - 03:18 AM

It is two days now since I put forward this discussion point, and not one reply has been posted. Have you left the discussion Jim, Steve, Lox?

Those who claim that this is mainly a crime of BPs, are the hundreds of children who have been violently gang raped by them.

They told their stories to local politicians, support volunteers and police, and I reported their experience here.
That does not make me racist.

I do not agree that hundreds of children, in a large area of Northern England, raped by members of a minority group, is insignificant.
That is not racist either.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 07:04 AM

Steve,I did not lump you in with Jim and Don, as you can often see things objectively and are quite humorous in your posting style.

A sense of humour is a great thing....a thing which Jim and Don seem to be completely devoid of.

Its just a pity that you're wrong so much of the time.....you could even aspire to our team   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 06:00 AM

Keith is right up to a point, mind. Soppy ole CrapLox, with his interminable nonsensical sesquipedalianly assertive idiocies, seems to have withdrawn.

Phew ~~ perhaps there is a God after all?...

~M~

Not that they bothered me that much; disposing of their absurdities by the simple expedient of not bothering to read them...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 05:55 AM

Steve ~ You have been away since I called you on a bet & you disappeared without paying: so pay up or shut up.

How much was the bet? Er ~ I'm glad you asked me that...

Welcome back, whatever; we have missed your ever-entertaining, tho on occasion puzzlingly whimsical, contributions to the commonweal of discourse.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 04:10 AM

There has been no avalanche for either side Jim.

You have failed to identify any dishonesty from me, so it is dishonest to claim it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 04:06 AM

"Jim, the only figures of ridicule on this thread are yourself and Don"
Which is evidenced by the avalanche of support you and he have received for your argument - and for Keith's blatently dishonest behaviour.
"....when he announces he is leaving for good! "
You're being pathetic again Keith - snap out of it boy!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 02:35 AM

And you have hardly made a reasoned contribution now.
Just empty abuse.
No point.