BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Mar 11 - 02:24 AM

You have been away three and a half days.
I thought you had gone too.
Jim stays aways less than when he announces he is leaving for good!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 08:40 PM

Well, achytony, I'm still here and you didn't mention me. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. What I do know is that your post shows that you clearly live on the planet Zod. Perhaps there are no blacks or queers up there.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 05:47 PM

Jim, the only figures of ridicule on this thread are yourself and Don, who have not the wit between you to realise your position has been comprehensively demolished, quite calmly by Keith.

The few others who argued a lost cause, have sensibly moved on to pastures new.
I suggest you do the same.

Interesting link and wise words Lively.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 01:22 PM

911 was a political football for GW Bush.

Peter (Joseph McCarthy) King has limited his discussion of his self-styled "terrorism"
to Muslims. No American Nazis or White Supremacists, KKK members, or others of that ilk.

There are fanatics of all stripes in the human zoo. They come in all colors, religions, politics and cultures.

Prejudice is a form of fanaticism. The way to counteract "terrorism" is to redefine it
as "criminal activity" and deal with it through law enforcement.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 10:55 AM

On another thread, Jim boasts that I have crashed in flames on this.

He thinks he has achieved this by calling me names, and by dishonestly and falsely claiming that I have distorted something.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 08:01 AM

Very informative Lively.
Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 07:50 AM

You failed to identify any dishonesty, because there is none.
My arguments are also made by Muslims, BPs and world famous anti racists.
ALL my arguments Jim. If it is not racist for them to say, me copying it is not racist either.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 07:11 AM

"Because name calling is the whole of your argument Jim? "
And the fact that you put that up as an excuse rather than the racism contained in your own arguments coupled with the blatently dishonest manner in which you have advanced your case, is exactly why many of us consider you a racist.
As a humanitarian gesture, can somebody please close down this appalling thread and prevent this idiot from making himself more of a figure of ridicule than he already has.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 06:40 AM

Because name calling is the whole of your argument Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 06:34 AM

"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."

Neither do I.
I suspect that it is the minimalist or reductive manner in which you present your position which causes some to react so angrily. And I understand their reasoning, but find the manner unhelpful. Particularly in light of the issues raised by some concerning the taboo relating to crimes which have a particular racial element. Repressing discussions on such a topic with shouts of "racist bigot!" can only contribute further to the problem.

Meanwhile, I've been following some of the discussions on this topic on a variety of fora which include a far broader demographic than here. We don't have a variety of people from different ethnic backgrounds at Mudcat, but my impression from reading other fora which do, is that they can result in less of a "man the barricades" response to these issues. In particular I've found some of the blogs posted by Westerners with Asian backgrounds to be helpful in broadening my awareness of some of the complex issues surrounding this phenomenon. And of course "complex issues" is a key point there. Arguably one which Straw et al, have failed to address in those comments you've highlighted about aspects of Pakistani culture which they argue are causing this problem.

This blog from Eurasian Sensation - The thorny question of Muslim youth and rape has this to say about the role of "culture" in these crimes:

"The sort of young men of Muslim backgrounds who commit this sort of crime are certainly not acting out any religious or cultural imperative. Rather, they are cherry-picking whatever cultural influences serve their purposes in the worst way. The rebellious sociopathy of the gang lifestyle; the lure of easy sex and cheap titillation that abounds in Western countries. These things of course are totally at odds with the culture of Pakistan, Lebanon or any other traditional country. Yet by channelling that traditional perspective of female morality, and victimising only those they view as degraded and cheap, it becomes that much easier to justify."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 06:26 AM

"No one has been prepared to reconsider the "racist" slander against me"
Wonder why?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 05:23 AM

No one has been prepared to reconsider the "racist" slander against me by Don, Jim, Steve and 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: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 11:19 AM

It is impossible to say how many "potentially."
We can say only a tiny minority actually are.

That this is mainly a crime of BPs has been said by a number of people from their own experience.
Some of those quoted are BPs and Muslims.
That is the only reason I think it might be true.

I did not start this discussion Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 10:34 AM

Keith A of Hertford is on a determined and hard fought campaign to ram home his message that all young British Pakistani men are potentially Paedophiles and Rapists, made so by their culture.

That is the sum total of this thread, stripped of all irrelevances.

Not one of those he cites as authority went halfway to that conclusion.

If not Racist, then what?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 03:45 PM

I do not post pages of irrelevancies.
Straw said they did it because their culture makes their own girls off limits.
That supports my case, but you accuse me of editing it out to support my case.
You are making an arse of yourself again.

The judge rightly looked at the case in isolation.
If he had been influenced by the ethnicity of the accused, or previous cases in which they were not involved, the conviction would rightly have been overturned.

Likewise the police involved should not have put any significance on the ethnicity of the suspects.
I quoted several senior officers who observed the pattern we are discussing over many years.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 03:22 PM

"I did not edit anything out."
Ooooo - you little liar!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 03:19 PM

This has become too much like a bloodsport for my taste - it would not have involved me as it has if the subject had not been racism.
As far as I can see, you have taken a stance that the British Pakistani culture is a degenerate one.
You have carefully selected your 'evidence' to prove this; on examination, that 'evidence' is little more than a sample of OPINIONS of people working in the field in limited areas (unspecified), and blown it out of all proportion to make your case.
You took the 'evidence'/opinion of your star witness, extracted the awkward bits, and presented his EDITED 'case' (43 times) to prove your point; blatently ignoring the warning of one of your own examples that there ws a danger that the cases under scrutiny were in danger of being used for racist purposes.
You have not even acknowledged the statements of the judge and the police involved in the cases, who have stressed that the crimes have nothing whatever to do with race or culture.
When your editing stunt was revealed you thrashed around and attempted to implicate others (me) in similar behaviour.
You also (as I predicted you would) seized on a mistake on my part (acknowleged by me) to suggest that I was a racist, similar to yourself.
I could go on.....
I have arrived at, and stated my opinion (or even confirmed earlier ones) of what you are and what you stand for.
Unless you can produce clear (unedited) evidence that I am wrong, I'm going to leave it there.
Whether or not you wish to continue with this 'farceathon' is your decision entirely - I'm done!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 03:06 PM

Some bad taste humour - one for the girls perhaps..

http://www.cafepress.co.uk/uncovered_meat

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 02:54 PM

I did not edit anything out.
He spoke voluminously on this.
I only post relevant stuff.
I left out his explanation of why they did it.
I got that from Muslims and BPs.
Yes, he is B team on that, but A team as a witness that there is an issue.

It is the over representation I describe as "massive."
They are a minority, even in the cities where this has been described, yet the perps. are overwhelmingly BPs.
They are massively over represented in proportion to their numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 02:34 PM

You continue to wriggle Keith - each time managing to contradict what you have said yourself - get your own story straight.
You appear to be still making it up as you go along
Please tell us why you edited out the bits of Straw's statement thta you did, especially as, as you have shown by the number of times you quoted him, he was at one time your star witness - now, it seems, you've relegated him to the B-team?
Oh, and while you're at it "There is a massive over representation of BPs in this crime."
Can you tell us who ese has said the BP's part in this crime was "massive" - can't find it anywhere - apart from you - at least a dozen times.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 12:58 PM

Jim, Straw said they did it because girls from their own community were off limits to them.
They are off limits because the culture is restrictive of them. That is a cultural explanation of the behaviour.

I thought it carried more weight coming from actual BPs and Muslims so I did not need Straw.
I did use Straw's testimony as evidence that there is an issue to be explained.
His work as an MP gave him experience of it in his constituency.
That is why I referred to him so many times, and because you keep pretending not to believe it (except when you are tired and go off message).

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

Keith it isn't a cultural case; Straw said it wasn't, the judge said it wasn't, the police said it wasn't, you few, you happy few, you band of brothers are the only ones claiming it is.
If you didn't need Straw why use him as an example and mention him forty-odd times in the course of the thread, (I certainly agree that you need him at the present time like a typist needs a nasty dose of piles).
You knew what he actually said contradicted your case so you deliberately removed the awkward bits, if you hadn't he would have contradicted your case - and you wouldn't be in the klarts that you now find yourself - isn't life just full of 'if onlys'.
"but I am very happy that you have put up evidence for me."
I just bet you are!!!
"You have no justification for saying Keith's deliberate manipulation of his own quotes is out-and-out lying "
Why are you now referring to yourself in the third person - have you suddenly become somebody else (the queen maybe - Thatcher used to do something similar), or do you just wish you were somebody else?
Please stop this embarrasing charade; the more you dig the deeper you sink.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 12:28 PM

Keith A of Hertford is on a determined and hard fought campaign to ram home his message that all young British Pakistani men are potentially Paedophiles and Rapists, made so by their culture.

That is the sum total of this thread, stripped of all irrelevances.

Not one of those he cites as authority went halfway to that conclusion.

If not Racist, then what?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 12:13 PM

""I think reasonably and as I have never concealed, that you are deliberately ignoring such evidence as there is, as it fails to conform to certain predetermined political doctrines which you embrace.""

And that wouldn't of course be exactly what Keith is doing in the opposite direction?

Your stance is, in my opinion, even more dangerous, in that you seem to be saying that these 17 cases involving 56 men over a thirteen year period are statistically significant in themselves (which any good mathematician will tell you is arrant nonsense), and that no consideration should be given to anything outside that narrow set.

This is akin to claiming that because a riot has taken place in a small eskimo village, Eskimos are over represented in the violent crime figures of Alaska.

It is both disingenuous and dishonest to state that the lack of similar incidents in the South is not germane to the issue. Keith has put forward a theory win which he asserts a number of "factoids":-

1. That British Pakistanis are over represented in the crime of street groomng.

2. That there have been no cases of street grooming which were committed by any other ethnic group.

3. That the reason for this is that their repressive culture slightly predisposes them to commit this crime.

From point 1, we now have you saying that in assessing whether or no any over representation occurs we must ignore 29% because taking them into account would destroy the average required.

You claim that taking the whole group when working out averages would be trying to prove a negative. Try getting that one past any competent primary school teacher, let alone a mathematician.

From point 2, another rent in the fabric of the claims. Street grooming has been endemic since well before the arrival of the first Pakistani immigrant, so if not committed by non Pakistanis, then who?

Point three completes the cycle of Keith misinformation, because it is apparent that it doesn't hold for any but the small contingent already exposed.

This is where we get the only true statement from Keith, when in response to a comment from me, he replied that there were only these seventeen cases, and 56 men

ONLY FIFTY SIX MEN!!........out of the British Pakistani population of SEVEN HUNDRED AND FORTY SEVEN AND A QUARTER THOUSAND.

And please don't feed me the tired old "tip of the iceberg" crap, because that would be introducing untestable conjecture, which by its nature cannot prove anything. A bit like trying to prove a negative, which as you can see, I was not.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 12:13 PM

Steve,
"What conclusion have you and Keith reached about young Pakistani males? I bet you don't answer that. "

I began here just trying to make you people accept there is an issue.

By conclusion, I assume you mean an explanation for that behaviour.
That has been given by people with knowledge of the culture and from within it.
I had an open mind but they have convinced me.

What makes you so certain they are wrong Steve?

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

Jim,
"If it was "your cultural case", then why deliberately edit it out?"

It IS my cultural case, so it does support me, but it carries more weight when put forward by actual BPs and Muslims.
There were plenty of them so I did not need Straw.
I try not to put up unnecessary stuff, but I am very happy that you have put up evidence for me.

You have no justification for saying Keith's deliberate manipulation of his own quotes is out-and-out lying

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 10:55 AM

Once again Mike, I am not complaining about your invective, why would I, I'm prone to it myself on occasion. I'm just commenting on it in the light of your "not doing" it.
On the other hand, if you spent more time answering questions, (like why Keith's deliberate manipulation of his own quotes is not out-and-out lying), and less time disparaging people who disagree with you:
"I think that you are floundering so out of your depth in this thread,"
"seem to me to have deprived you of all judgment as to what you are saying in this present exchange."
"Get off before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself: please, for crying out loud...":
we all might regain a little of the 'respect' we once had for one another's views.
"That was my 'cultural' case"
No it was not and you know it; how could it be; you deliberately removed what Straw had to say on this issue?
"Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders."
"Straw added: "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"
If it was "your cultural case", then why deliberately edit it out?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 10:48 AM

You lose! What was the bet. Come on, pay up.

If you had read my posts [as your are always enjoining people o-so-vehemently ~~ indeed, hectoringly! ~~ to read yours], you would know I have reached no "conclusions" whatever about the actual phenomenon under consideration; I merely find it somewhat alarming intrinsically. I cannot, of course, speak for Keith, who will no doubt respond for himself.

The only "conclusion" I have reached is that you lot, for doctrinaire, prejudiced, biased, politically tendentious {cont p 94} reasons of your own, prefer to pretend that the phenomenon doesn't even exist.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 10:39 AM

The point is that focussing on a specific and easily-identifiable group's activities in a narrowly-defined area does not yield any justifiable extrapolation beyond that area. Basically, the point is that this happened, and the fair-minded among us are all saying "so what?" What conclusion have you and Keith reached about young Pakistani males? I bet you don't answer that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 10:32 AM

I am sure the whole of the Mudcat community will be much entertained by your last post, Steve ~~ if any of them can make any kind of heads-or-tails of what your point or purpose in posting it may be. It seems to be addressed to me as it bears a quote from a post of mine at the top ~~

~~ but if I am expected to glean any enlightenment therefrom, I am blessed if I know what it may be.

Honest, now ~~ can anyone give me any idea what Steve is on about?

{Was that a rude or insulting or hectoring thing to say, Steve? Oh dear me. That will never do!}

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 10:12 AM

My point is simply that certain very specific numbers have been published which show a remarkable over-representation in certain places of members of a certain community in a particular malfeasance

Last August, in my back garden (=the inner city), three members of my extended family (=vulnerable young white girls) were stung (=groomed then raped) by wasps (=young Pakistani males). When I told all my mates about this, complaining that wasps in general had it in for my extended family (=racist attitude), they told me not to be so silly, because didn't I know there was a wasps' nest (=Pakistani community) ten feet away from my picnic table, so of course I was going to be prejudiced against wasps! They pointed out to me that wasps in general, away from wasps' nests, are generally quite benign beasts, disinclined to sting at all. I mustn't tar all wasps with the same brush on the strength of just a couple of incidents in my back garden. Not only that, bees (=not Pakistanis) also sting, and midges and mosquitos (=also not Pakistanis) with their bites (=a sex crime but of a different sort) are just as bad, if not worse, and certainly they strike far more frequently, and not just at my extended family (=not just vulnerable young white girls). They castigated me for my unfair focus on wasps whilst ignoring all that other stuff that insects visit on humanity. One of them even called me Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 09:52 AM

Steve, you say I " focussed sharply on what goes on, sex-crime wise, in a couple of very restricted areas of the country. Areas with relatively large numbers of young Pakistani males. He is being exceptionally selective in choosing to point just to these instances whilst ignoring the generality of sex crimes in the country as a whole."

This is about on street grooming by groups.
These are the only places where it has been identified, unless you know different.
Do you Steve?
Sorry, but I did not choose this subject for discussion, and I did not choose where it is found.

This has only been criminalised in recent years, mainly due to the lobbying of people like Hillary Wilmer and Ann Cryer.

There had only ever been 17 court cases when the study was made, and since then I think just one more where the study was accepted in evidence.

If you want to talk about other crimes, start another thread.
Do not castigate me for providing information relative to this debate, and especially do no falsely say I have witheld or distorted anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 09:40 AM

P.S "hectoring"; "rudeness"; "insult" ~~~

Your post addressed to me contains a "bloody"; a recent one of Jim's had a "bastards" & a "feck off".

My posts contain no such. Just show me one such on this thread ~~ or any within the last year or so.

Pots & kettles, my dear Steve. Likewise glasshouses & stones.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 09:32 AM

I don't know what Keith's point is, Steve. How should I? He is not my 'mate', we have never met. I simply feel he is being consistently misrepresented in posts at least as cogently expressed as any of my poor efforts {rude? insulting? moi!], which I consider unfair.

My point is simply that certain very specific numbers have been published which show a remarkable over-representation in certain places of members of a certain community in a particular malfeasance; I find this worrying; I speculate, without coming to any conclusion tho obviously listening to suggestions from other informed people like ex-cabinet-ministers and leaders of the community in question, as to the possible causes of this.

I find the lack of worry about this from those of you over there most questionable motive-wise, suspecting, I think reasonably and as I have never concealed, that you are deliberately ignoring such evidence as there is, as it fails to conform to certain predetermined political doctrines which you embrace.

That is all my point. I am still not sure what yours is.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 09:22 AM

Jim
YOU DOCTORED JACK STRAW'S STATEMENT BY REMOVING THE PASSAGES THAT UNDERMINED YOUR 'CULTURAL' CASE - Jack Straw took pains to say the case was not a matter of race, The Trial judge said it was not a matter of race, the police incvolved said it was a matter of race, you continue to insist that it is a matter of race.

Straw said they have the same sexual drives as other young men, but their own girls are off limits.
That was my 'cultural' case, but I felt it carried more weight when given by actual Muslims and BPs
Straw said "But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men who target vulnerable young white girls."

The trial judge is required to treat each case in isolation.
That is not valid.
I produced many senior police who were aware of an issue with BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 09:20 AM

Michael. I don't care whether we call it lying or self-delusion. The point is that Keith (with your moral support, which appears to include hectoring of other posters with rudeness and insults) has focussed sharply on what goes on, sex-crime wise, in a couple of very restricted areas of the country. Areas with relatively large numbers of young Pakistani males. He is being exceptionally selective in choosing to point just to these instances whilst ignoring the generality of sex crimes in the country as a whole. He's your mate so perhaps you could elicit from him what his motive is. Grooming young girls for sex, gang rape, pimping, soliciting and trafficking have been merrily going on since Adam were a bloody lad, and certainly it was all going on long before there were Asian communities here. What some of us want to know from Keith, and you, is what's the point here?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 08:24 AM

+++"Get off before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself: please, for crying out loud..."
Is that invective, btw?
Jim Carroll+++

Now you are just being an old tease, Jim. If I wanted to be invectivous {if that is the word}, don't you think I caould find better synonyms for "get" and for "idiot" in the above"/

Don ~~ sorry you find my "sideswipes" "sarcastic" ~~ but, as I said, I am not concerned with those statisics, in which you demand a proof for a negative, which, as any logistician will tell you ... ~~ but simply with the statistics which we do have as to what did happen, undisputedly, in specific instances, which seem to me to provide worry enough. I have not joined in the "this proves it's all in the culture" brigade at any point. My speculations as to positive causes for the phenomenon have been merely ~ ah ~ speculative. But the existence of the phenomenon in itself appears worrying enough to me; which , it seems to me, what you lot over there are in alarming denial about.

Non-sarcastic greetings, and please let us all keep our tempers.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 08:16 AM

As I have pointed out several times, street grooming of underage girls has been a feature of British crime since before there were ANY British Pakistanis.

Underage runaways mostly, because they were naive and and unlikely to survive in the Cities.

They were picked up and offered help at bus stations, railway stations, and in the streets, then groomed, broken in (by multiple rape), often hooked on drugs then turned out as prostitutes, or kept as sex slaves rented out to clients.

So Keith's contention that this is a new, or a Pakistani, crime is simply not true.

The reason why he can pretend it is true is simply that it has always been reported as part of the wider category of sex abuse, and not separately as grooming.

So, it is not true that British Pakistanis have invented their own crime, and it is not true that they are culturally predisposed, which leaves the question of what is true.

Easy!! They are Paedophiles, Rapists and Sex Traffickers who have been caught, tried, convicted and sentenced.

Oh and they are members of a small number of gangs of mainly British Pakistanis, who have been interlinked by their predilection for Paedophilia, rather than by their ethnic origins.

Surely the point is they have been dealt with, as have any others (Eastern European, Caribbean, or White British) with the same nasty habits, who have been caught.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 08:13 AM

""You will gather, Jim, that, due to cross-posting with DonT sticking his oar in to muddy up the waters a bit more, that it was your penultimate post that I couldn't make heads or tails of ~~ that of, just to make sure, 0550 am""

May I suggest Mike, that since I have been polite to you, you might serve yourself better by reading and respondingto my posts, than by snide sarcastic sideswipes.

That way you could tell me what your explanation is for the fact that there is no cultural predisposition in the 29% of British Pakistanis who live in the South.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 08:09 AM

"Get off before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself: please, for crying out loud..."
Is that invective, btw?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 08:05 AM

which he has not, I repeat (see above what I say to Steve), done.
Distortion of facts which not only do not back your case, but positively contradict them is a form of lying - and it is a time 'dishonoured' tactic.
To say I have 'floundered' is a matter of opinion - yours Ake's nd Keith's I hope - I can comfortably live with that, especially as you now appear to have taken up one of Keith's tactics of presenting past mistakes which I have acknowledged. That to me is a pretty clear indication of 'floundering'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 08:03 AM

You will gather, Jim, that, due to cross-posting with DonT sticking his oar in to muddy up the waters a bit more, that it was your penultimate post that I couldn't make heads or tails of ~~ that of, just to make sure, 0550 am

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 07:52 AM

Keith has claimed nowhere, Steve, to be writing of more than the small number of particular cases he has identified, + the others found in her further investigations by Hilary Wilmer. He has written with entire truth & accuracy of these, and of the gross imbalance shown in the racial identity of the perpetrators revealed therein; and of nothing else. You persistently accuse him of lying because he has not quoted any other instances of the same pattern of behaviour; but why should he? ~ it isn't what he is writing about; & if you are so concerned about this, why have you provided no such examples? All you have done is to name some other towns with large communities of Pakistani origin in which no such instances are known to have occurred ~ and who has contradicted you? ~ and appeared to have mistaken this for some sort of knockdown argument. Pray explain how this convicts Keith of any untruth. I say again ~~ put up or shut up ...

... which formulation you repeat to me, Jim. I "put up" way back, convincing you then that my interest in this topic has been confined to the statistics furnished by these instances, which I find worrying enough just by themselves, and by nothing else. You previously accepted my assurances of this with relief; but have now shifted your ground yet again to accuse me (insofar as I take your meaning at all ~ see below) of acting to protect Keith from accusations of lying ~~ which he has not, I repeat (see above what I say to Steve), done. I am afraid, Jim, with all due respect (& I do mean that), I think that you are floundering so out of your depth in this thread, and have been doing so throughout {ever since you joined it late, didn't read the preceding posts properly, & had to have it pointed out to you that the accusations were of grooming for passing around within the groups involved and not of brothel-keeping; as well as what the correct meaning of 'incvective' was}, that your contributions have degenerated to the point of absolute incomprehensibility.   I have frankly no idea what this last one is supposed to be talking about. Your hatred of racism, together with your annoyance at some previous statements by Keith on other threads which have nothing to do with this one, seem to me to have deprived you of all judgment as to what you are saying in this present exchange. Get off before you make an even bigger idiot of yourself: please, for crying out loud...

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 07:41 AM

""misuse of statistics by focussing on the bits you need to reinforce your prejudices." ···
,,,,,,

So give us the other 'bits', Steve, why don't you? -""

I have saved Steve the bother Mike, and done just that for him......TWICE!!!

But none of the Keithophiles seem to have bothered to read it, and Keith, who did, simply missed (as usual) the point.

Give it a read. It only involves looking at my posts of yesterday and today.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 07:39 AM

"But you can not give a single example."
I have done and you continue to ignore it YOU DOCTORED JACK STRAW'S STATEMENT BY REMOVING THE PASSAGES THAT UNDERMINED YOUR 'CULTURAL' CASE - Jack Straw took pains to say the case was not a matter of race, The Trial judge said it was not a matter of race, the police incvolved said it was a matter of race, you continue to insist that it is a matter of race. The Guardian report warns against dealing with these events as a racist ssue - this is exactly what you have done.
Tell me which of this is NOT "appalling and dishonest behaviour"
Several 'single' examples - take your pick.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 07:36 AM

""Not one alternative explanation offered in two months of furious denial.""

Yet another terminological inexactitude from Keith, who of course would never lie........except when he does, which is about five times a day on this thread alone.

When are you going to give up this proven LIE Keith?

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 07:29 AM

""I know your side do not accept that, and do not even believe they are predisposed, so why would I post that?!!""

I don't know why you still adhere to that nonsensical idea.

It may have escaped your notice, given that you admit to not reading opposing posts, but I think it fair to state that I shot that theory down in flames a short time ago.

No similar cultural predisposition exists among the more than 29% of British Pakistanis who live in the South.

Explain the difference between Northern and Southern British Pakistanis in a logical fashion which allows your "Cultural Paedophile" theory to stand.

If you can't then STFU about it, and accept that these are Paedophiles who are coincidentally Pakistani for the reasons I suggested.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 07:25 AM

"appalling and dishonest behaviour"
But you can not give a single example.
That IS dishonest.

You have no answer so you try and smear.
That IS appalling.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 06:44 AM

Very tiresome, Michael. I've covered this again and again. By focussing on specific sex crimes in specific parts of the country and ignoring the generality of sex crimes in the country as a whole you can prove anything you want. Which is Keith's mission in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 05:50 AM

Why is this stupid and vicious thread continuing?
Keith has shot his bolt with his appalling and dishonest behaviour.
He appears to be in total denial of what he has done and will continue to humiliate himself by keeping this thread open and drawing attention to his dishonesty.
If Mike wants to help him, tell us how his behaviour wasn't dishonest.
As you say - put up or shut up.
Jim Carroll