BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 11 - 01:49 AM

Misuse of statistics!
I have not made my case on statistics, but on the testimony of reputable people whose work brings them into contact with this crime and its pitiful victims.
They all say the perpetrators are BPs.
All.
True Steve?
There was only one statistic anyway.
Of all the cases ever brought to conviction, 95% BPs.

But there is misuse here.
The misuse of young childrens' lives by subjecting them to multiple rape.
These people especially target children in the care system.
They are more susceptible to the lure of faked affection.
Orphans. The easiest of easy meat.

Steve said I should be more "sensitive" about these people.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 11:38 PM

"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? -

- so that Keith's 'misuse' will be exposed as such, a mere factor of his 'prejudices'.

Fair's fair ~ no?

So come on then ~~ put up or shut up.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 09:09 PM

There is nothing to explain, Keith, except your deliberate misuse of statistics by focussing on the bits you need to reinforce your prejudices. It's a time-honoured method, I'll grant you that.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 02:44 PM

Both sides have been at it equally Ollaimh.
Why only criticise one side?

It was not an opinion that this is mainly a crime of BPs.
It is a fact observed by numerous reliable, reputable and vey well educated people, and the victims themselves.

The explanation for it can only be an opinion.
We had the explanation put forward by many Muslims, BPs and others with knowledge of that culture.
Against that we had, errr, nothing.
Not one alternative explanation offered in two months of furious denial.

Perhaps if we do keep at it they will come up with something.
Probably not though.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: ollaimh
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 01:38 PM

boy still at it, what empty and wasted lives keith and the other bigots have. going to your grave as ignorant and uneducated as you came into this world is a great waste and can be avoided but you have to stop opining and get some education

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Nick
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 12:52 PM

"The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II, with the stated goal of regaining control of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims, who had captured them from the Byzantines in 638."

Not exactly a new topic is it?

Lot's of people been persecuted from both sides over the 1000+ years and all to change fuck all.

Move on and get on with people and get over your prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 12:06 PM

I authenticate my earlier Guest posts.

"I have no intention whatever of entering into a dialogue with you,"
Er.....you have been for the last three weeks Jim!

Why would I edit out something I have been saying myself for weeks Jim?
Have you not found ONE THING edited out that contradicts me or helps you?
Not very sensible to mention it then Jim!

You may have withdrawn that answer, but it was not a mistake.
You read my question.
You copied and pasted my question.
You answered it.
The only mistake was that you said what you really think.
Perhaps it was tiredness.
You then pretended you thought I asked something else, but that would have made your answer that of a drooling, rabid racist!
Whoops.

Michael, to be fair, Jim only resorts to invective when he has nothing of substance to say.
Unfortunately that has been most of the time on this thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 09:31 AM

'swat the little bastards''swat the little bastards'
You mean the mosquitos I referred to - should I have called them 'Sir'?
I did not complain about what I incorrectly (now corrected) called your 'invective' - merely pointed out an apparent contradiction in your earlier posting.
Have now apologised, which apparently is not sufficient - enjoy your meal!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 08:16 AM

'swat the little bastards'

'please feck off and foul up somebody else's day.' ---

From Jim's last post addressed to Keith

~~ might, according to the online definitions I posted a bit ago, just qualify as the "invective", of which you inaccurately and unjustifiably, but in so denunciatory a tone of shock-horror, accused me a bit back - eh, Jim?

Just a thought.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Keith
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 08:15 AM

Sorry to be a Guest today.
I will authenticate these posts by 10pm mudcat time.

You did not need a counter Jim.
Any number would have done.
Only The Stalker would have checked.

Back to pure abuse then Jim.
And a smoking gun claim that you can not substantiate.

All you actually need to do to demolish my whole case is to find some non BP examples of this child abuse.
There are just the hundreds and hundreds of children raped by BPs and none to stand against them.

It would be nice if this was just a racist fantasy.
I take no pleasure in rubbing your noses in this truth, much as I enjoy doing it on other issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 08:01 AM

"I have never edited out something that contradicts me or helps you."
Y'know Keith, I have always been sort of grateful to whoever invented the mosquito because they had the good grace to build in an early-warning system so you could swat the little bastards before they got to you. It is the same with racists - enough of the thinking ability has been removed so you can almost smell 'em a mile off.
You have been caught with a smoking gun in your hand and every time you put finger to keyboard the atmosphere becomes a little murkier.
I have no intention whatever of entering into a dialogue with you, or any other of your sub-species - please feck off and foul up somebody else's day.
"I somehow doubt that you counted all my references to Straw yourself".
Then I suggest you count them yourself, or get somebody else to do it for you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 07:47 AM

Steve, despite the "on message" Guardian headline and slant, all the hard evidence and quotes clearly show that this is an extensive and long term issue and overwhelmingly a crime of BPs.

Look up weasel words on wiki, Keith. I suppose you think that if you keep repeating the message like a mantra it will miraculously become true. Poor chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 07:33 AM

I somehow doubt that you counted all my references to Straw yourself Jim.
Was it the Deranged Stalker by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 07:11 AM

Jim, I do not put up pages of pasting and hope someone will read it all and find something helpful.
Straw has said many things that I have not put up.
That stuff about most sex offenders being white was never in dispute, so why post it.
I just showed you evidence that I have been acknowledging that, on this thread, since January!

The other piece was his cultural explanation for why BPs might be predisposed to this crime.
I know your side do not accept that, and do not even believe they are predisposed, so why would I post that?!!

I have never edited out something that contradicts me or helps you.
Never.
Have I Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 05:34 AM

Keith
After carefully editing out the following from Jack Straw's statement:
"Straw said: "Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders."
and
"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."
You then went on to cite Jack Straw no less than 43 times to back up your claims......
......Knowing that you had removed the passages above, two of your own peons of praise for your source of information were:
"You can not just dismiss a statement by a figure like Straw."
and
"What Jack Straw said so carefully is true". (my emphasis added)
You deliberately removed the two quotes from Jack Staw's statement that would have invalidated you from using him to back up your case.   
Say you did none of this, and if you did, why did you do it?
"You even agreed it was true yourself for 24 hours."
And now you are deliberately using something I have withdrawn as a mistake to back your case.
Are you on medication; if not, perhaps you should take advice?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 04:13 AM

"falsified evidence to back up his racist claims"

You have repeated the falsified evidence claim Jim.
I refute it.
It is a lie.

Racist claims.
It is not my fault that all these perpetrators of child rape are BPs.
I do not wish it.
I would prefer it were not so.
Calling it and me racist does not stop it being true.

You even agreed it was true yourself for 24 hours.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 03:36 AM

Mike,
"Really, Jim? What was I supposed to say to your identification of "doctrinaire lefty" as schoolyard language, except "Not in my schoolyard, it wasn't"?"
Sorry Mike - I really do not see any point in continuing to discuss a stupid remark made by me at a time when I (along with others, I suspect) had been reduced to a state of anger and frustration by somebody who has deliberately set out to produce falsified evidence to back up his racist claims.
It was not my intention to insult you or anybody else on this thread, (with the obvious exception) and if I have done so, I apologise sincerely.
I find it mind-boggling that Keith should wish to continue his sordid campaign after his cover has been so conclusively blown - as far as I am concerned, he may crawl back into the hole from whence he came and take his employers/backers with him, whoever they are.
I am happy to discuss racism with anybody, with the exception of full time, long term, and obviously so convinced racists with an agenda to peddle - what was it the lady said about giving them the 'oxygen of publicity'?
Apologies to all,
Jim Carroll

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

Steve, despite the "on message" Guardian headline and slant, all the hard evidence and quotes clearly show that this is an extensive and long term issue and overwhelmingly a crime of BPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 11 - 01:00 AM

Don:- ""I have repeatedly posted on the possibility that these men are a Paedophile Gang, which happens to be mainly Pakistani simply because like gravitates to like, and men trust their own community more than outsiders.""

This is going on in many cities and has been for decades.
I agree that you have described how each gang probably originates, but it does not explain why there are so many gangs or why they are all BPs.
A case of this not involving BPs has yet to emerge.
The MPs and support group people have seen many hundreds of victims over many years and report all BP perpetrators.
The study was of all cases that have come to court so far.
17 cases.

I take your point that you might have expected cases in the South.
I have no explanation, because I have no information.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 08:40 PM

Sorry, I didn't realise that the Guardian article had already been aired (I had temporarily given up the will to live). Though I quoted bits from it, the whole article stands up well to refute Keith and his allies. The thrust of the whole thing is that you can "prove" anything you like by selective use of statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 06:57 PM

Shouldn't we also be seeing the same pattern in other places with a high percentage of Pakistanis e.g.

London       2.4%
Slough      12.2%
Wycombe      5.7%
Bristol      1.4%
Aylesbury    2.4%
Watford      4.6%
Crawley      3.4%

Total 220,200 Pakistanis out of a total of 747,285 in the UK, or 29.47%.

Well over one quarter of the total number of British Pakistanis, and no indication of any cases among those "BPs". What does that do to your percentages Keith and Ake?

Your gangs are highly localised Paedo rings, who just happen to be Pakistani, and I don't even need a failed politician or a publicity seeking "expert" to back up these figures.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 05:48 PM

Don:- ""I have repeatedly posted on the possibility that these men are a Paedophile Gang, which happens to be mainly Pakistani simply because like gravitates to like, and men trust their own community more than outsiders.""


Keith:- ""Don, there has been no alternative explanation given by your side.""


Keith:- ""I do not lie.""

My repeated posts suggesting this alternative are available for anybody who reads this thread.

Therefore both of the above verbatim quotes from your posts are LIES!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 04:48 PM

Me 27th jan.
I will concede at once that they are under represented in every other type of non terrorist crime.

Me 28th Jan.
I acknowledged that Muslims are under represented in all other non terrorist crimes.
That includes other sex crimes.

No need to quote Straw on that.
It was not in dispute.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 04:33 PM

I have made no false claim, and have "doctored" nothing.

"Straw said: "Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders."

I have stated REPEATEDLY that BPs are under represented in other sex crimes.
I KEEP TELLING YOU IT IS ONLY ON STREET GROOMING OF CHILDREN FOR RAPE BY GROUPS.
No one else is doing that, are they Jim?
Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of victims, and perpetrators all BPs.

and
"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."

That supports my issue 2 but is irrelevant to my issue 1.
What were we discussing at the time?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 04:03 PM

PS I didn't think your schoolyard taunt posting was up to your usual standard ++++

Really, Jim? What was I supposed to say to your identification of "doctrinaire lefty" as schoolyard language, except "Not in my schoolyard, it wasn't"?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 03:41 PM

Hope that's not too long and complicated for you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 03:37 PM

Keith YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE TO HAVE MADE FALSE CLAIMS BASED ON DOCTORED EVIDENCE ON THIS THREAD.
IF THAT IS NOT TRUE TELL US WHO ELSE HAS DONE SO AND WHAT CLAIMS HAVE BEEN MADE.
I don't really expect anything other than evasion from here on, but here is how it should be done.
After carefully editing out the following from Jack Straw's statement:
"Straw said: "Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders."
and
"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."
You then went on to cite Jack Straw no less than 43 times to back up your claims.
Ake cited him four times and David el Gnomo once to back you up, though I have no doubt that they were as much taken in by your selective editing as the rest of us were.
Knowing that you had removed the passages above, two of your own peons of praise for your source of information were:
"You can not just dismiss a statement by a figure like Straw."
and
"What Jack Straw said so carefully is true".
Now what use did you say I put my editing to?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 03:28 PM

I see what has happened.

You pasted the photo caption and the first two paragraphs, then pasted it again making it all look like one piece which was extra confusing because those bits also contain quotes from later in the piece!
Your posts are either very long, very dull or incomprehensible!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 02:41 PM

This is how paragraph 9 is supposed to start.

"But Brayley and Cockbaine, whose six-month study was cited as evidence, said they were worried that limited data had been extended "to characterise an entire crime type, in particular of race and gender". They challenged claims that white girls were deliberately sought out by offenders."

Their worry was just about who the victims were.

Jim's version inserts a bit of para 9 into para 2, then runs that into a repeat of para 1 !

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".Authors of study on 'on-street grooming' in the north and Midlands, where young girls have been targeted on the streets and at school gates, are concerned their findings about Pakistani gangs have been generalised.

Stopped in mid sentence, a full stop added, and a sentence from paragraph 2 put after it, and then jump to paragraph 1!

Deliberate distortion to conceal the true meaning

thread.cfm?threadid=135090&messages=1273#3104300
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jan/06/child-sex-trafficking-racial-stereotyping?INTCMP=SRCH

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 01:42 PM

And by the way - the only reference I have ever made to the Guardian article was that you have blatently ignored the warning about its contents being abused for racist purposes (you even attempted to deny tha at one stage, claiming the writer meant something else). Had I, as you claim, deiberately edited it I would have done so for a purpose - what was that purppose and where is any claim I have made?
I have never challenged the articles contents or questioned the veracity of any of the statements contained in it. I have never made any claims on it whatever other than the one stated - that you have used it to further your racist agenda. If I have, show me where - must be easy enough to cut-n-paste - you're good at that!
You are now using it to create a smokescreen to obscure your own blatently dishonest behaviour.
It's a fair cop, I'm afraid.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 01:12 PM

No I did not Keith - I selected the part of the article which contained the warning about the findings being abused by racists such as your good self, which was my stated reason for posting it - you accepted it as such and referred to it as 'a typical Guardian headline'.
As I just said - you had already posted it in full so it would have been pretty stupid of me to attempt to re-jig it.
Anyway, would I try to pass off a hookey cutting in the presence of such a master of the art as yourself?
Stop feckin' wriggling - you're bang-to-rights bor!
Now address your own selective editing.
You have based your case on tampered cuttings and drawn attention to them ad nauseum.
"You are quick to call me liar."
And you are just as quick to prove yourself a liar
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 12:48 PM

Correction.
28th Feb 1200PM is the edited version, and it is not the whole piece.
I forgot he posted it all twice.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 12:34 PM

You are quick to call me liar.
I never lie.
You posted THE HEADLINE AND THE WHOLE ARTICLE on 27th Feb 0325 AM
You just edited out the section that showed the denial of racial stereotyping referred the the victims not the perpetrators.
Here is the post.
Which of us lied?
thread.cfm?threadid=135090&messages=1268#3103412

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 12:22 PM

"Jim, it was YOU who carefully edited the Gaurdian piece to hide something, remember."
Now you're still making it up - I presented a headline and a couple of opening lines claiming it nothing more than that. You had already put up the Guardian article in full (making any attempts at 'editing' on my part pretty silly) and neglected to point out the warning that the opinions contained in it were not to be used for racist purposes - which was my sole point in putting it up (and which you have consistently ignored)
Stop wriggling and come clean - there's a good chap!
Jim Carroll

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

Jim, it was YOU who carefully edited the Gaurdian piece to hide something, remember.
I have never done that.
You can not provide an example can you.
Jack Sraw said what I have always acknowledged, that BPs are under represented in other sex crimes, "But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men who target vulnerable young white girls."

How many non BP cases have you found Jim.
Hundreds and probably thousands street groomed and raped by BPs.
But not one case, not one, where the child rapers are not BP.
Or have I missed one?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:59 AM

Sorry - keyboard trouble
Jim Carroll
PS I didn't think your schoolyard taunt posting was up to your usual standard and intended to apologise in advance in case it was Keith prentending to be somebody else - again.

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

"All Jack Straw's experiences in Blackburn."
Your sources, and the way you have carefully edited what they had to say seem to be falling like ninepins - racist agenda or what?
"doctrinaire lefty"
Whatever Mike!
im arroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:47 AM

Selective?
I posted this on 23rd January.
"The victims are not all sluts.
They were not all picked up on the streets late at night.
Those ones tended to be girls within the care system.
Girls from respectable families have given their stories of being enticed away from shopping malls in daylight.
Not all white either."

I have learned a lot since then.
Unlike you.
On street grooming of children by groups for rape.
Apart from those 3 out of the 56, every instance of the crime is BPs.
(And those three part of an overwhelmingly BP gang)
All ann Cryers experiences in Keithly.
All Bps
All the hundreds who turned to Wilmer.
All BPs
All Jack Straw's experiences in Blackburn.
Wherever you look at it.
Hundreds and hundreds of young girls with devastated lives.
Have you found one case not involving BPs?
Have you?
Why is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:21 AM

I don't ever remember "doctrinaire lefty" being a term of abuse (or, if you prefer, a "name-call") much employed in the playground of Hendon County School! Even there we could be more abusive than that if we really set our minds to it.

Best from the guaranteed invective-free, schoolyard-namecalling-avoiding

~Michael~

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

Once again, Keith, you betray your penchant for selecting bits which you think reinforce your racist argument and ignore the inconvenient bits. From the same article:

The authors, Helen Brayley and Ella Cockbain, from UCL's Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, said they were surprised their research, confined to just two police operations in the north and Midlands, which found perpetrators were predominantly but not exclusively from the British Pakistani community, had been cited in support of the claims that such offences were widespread.

Their comments follow claims that a culture of silence has impeded investigations into a hidden pattern of offending by British Pakistani gangs sexually abusing hundreds of young white girls...

...But Brayley and Cockbaine, whose six-month study was cited as evidence, said they were worried that limited data had been extended "to characterise an entire crime type, in particular of race and gender". They challenged claims that white girls were deliberately sought out by offenders. "Though the majority … were white so too were the majority of local inhabitants." Comparing the percentage of white people in the areas with black and ethnic minorities, their data, they said, showed "black and ethnic minority girls over-represented among the victims".

They added: "This challenges the view that white girls are sought out by offenders, suggesting instead that convenience and accessibility may be the prime drivers for those looking for new victims."

Just shows how selective you've been, Keith. Here we have two women who actually spent months researching this, not Jack Straw, Keith Vaz and Ann Cryer, who simply megaphone about it.

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

Thanks for the clarification Mike, (put my ignorance down to my Secondary Modern education).
Perhaps I should have said schoolyard namecalling - how does that suit?
The rest of my postings I assume you accept with good grace!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:05 AM

If I were really one to use invective, would I exclaim "for heaven's sake" or enjoin you to "go away". I am sure an invective-user could find other terms to employ without too much effort..

Think on, Jim.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:03 AM

Sorry - from The Daily Record, March 10th 2011
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:01 AM

"Thanks for that Lively."

Or perhaps thanks to Emma for sharing her story, and to a generally left-leaning magazine program for airing it. Of couse it is not a thorough statistical analysis of the issue, but as I've been saying through my posts, how can one glean necessary statistics where - as there appears to be here - there is a conspiracy of silence around a topic? And indeed are statistics a prerequisite to public discussion? Because if so, then we find ourselves in a bindingly Kafkaesque conundrum.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 11:00 AM

This is what Jack Straw actually said, in context, and the reaction to it (emphases mine). Interesting to compare it with Keith's selective analysis.
Jim Carroll

Labour statesman Jack Straw sparks race row after Newsnight comments
Jan 9 2011 Mark Aitken, Sunday Mail
ASIAN community leaders yesterday rounded on former Home Secretary Jack Straw after he claimed some Pakistani men see white girls as "easy meat".
The Labour MP faced criticism from party colleagues and Muslim leaders after speaking out on so-called "street-grooming" when young girls are seduced by older men before being sexually abused.
Straw voiced his views after two Asian men were jailed for subjecting a series of girls to rapes and sexual assaults.
Mohammed Liaqat, 28, and Abid Saddique, 27, were jailed at Nottingham Crown Court for raping and sexually abusing several girls aged between 12 and 18.
The judge in the case said the race of the victims and their abusers was "coincidental".
But, in an interview for the BBC's Newsnight, the Blackburn MP claimed there is a problem with young Pakistani men grooming and sexually abusing vulnerable white girls.
Straw said: "Pakistanis are not the only people who commit sexual offences and overwhelmingly sex offenders' wings are full of white offenders.
"But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men who target vulnerable young white girls.
"We need to get the l Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way."
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.
"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."
But Labour colleagues challenged his comments.
Former Govan Labour MP Mohammad Sarwar said: "It is very unhelpful to tarnish any community in a blanket way.
"There are good and bad in every community.
"I don't know many cases in Scotland where the people who are subject of an investigation are Pakistani men."
Labour MP Keith Vaz, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "I understand what he said, but I disagree with it. I think we should look at this issue, primarily, as one of criminality."
Glasgow-based human rights campaigner Osama Saeed said: "Any evidence of this would need to be acted upon.
"But it's not clear what Jack Straw would have the 'Pakistani community' do. Are they any more capable of controlling brown criminals as white people are with those who share their colour?"
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth organisation in the UK, said: "No community or faith ever sanctions these evil crimes and to suggest that this is somehow ingrained in the community is deeply offensive."
Former police officers said the problem of grooming was not linked to any one ethnic group.
Retired detective chief superintendent Max McLean, who led an investigation into grooming and trafficking young girls in Leeds, said: "I'm not suggesting, and I do not think anybody is, that it is a problem within a community."
Graeme Pearson, former deputy chief constable of Strathclyde Police and ex-director of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, added: "I don't have any experience of ethnic groups targeting vulnerable girls.
"There has not been evidence presented to me of a growing significance in that regard.
"But I'm sure there will be areas, particularly in our big cities, where there will be men targeting vulnerable kids and the authorities have to be alive to that threat."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 10:59 AM

Jim: ~~~Definitions of invective on the Web:

vituperation: abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invective
An expression which inveighs or rails against a person; A severe or violent censure or reproach; Something spoken or written, intended to cast opprobrium, censure, or reproach on another; A harsh or reproachful accusation; Characterized by invection or railing
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/invective
An invective is a violent denunciation. It's a severe curse. A violent vituperation. Diatribe, Tirade are the words that mean the same and appear in GRE almost every time.
learnwordlist.com/blog/15-minutes-to-gre-vocabulary/2009/12/gre-word-list-test-blog-barrons-vocabulary
an emotionally violent, verbal denunciation or attack using strong, abusive language.
www.buhstech.org/mackenzie/assignments/Glossary%20of%20Terms.doc
an intensely vehement, highly emotional verbal attack
cmsweb1.loudoun.k12.va.us/5272071714341570/lib/5272071714341570/List_of_Literary_Terms.doc
A violent attack, usually of a personal nature.
www.ravenspire.com/coolschool/docs/dictionary.html
======
Now, Jim; do you honestly think my mild language, words like "lefty" & "doctrinaire", will really qualify as "curse; violent vituperation; emotionally violent verbal denunciation"???

Honest, now? Stop being so wet & thin-skinned. If you can't stand the lukewarm heat I am generating in my language you would do well to get right out of the kitchen. I am surprised at you, using a word like "invective" to me. Get back into the real world, for heaven's sake, or go away.

Best

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 10:36 AM

Thanks for that Lively.
I linked to that back in January, but I listened to the whole 13 minutes again.
Anyone sufficiently interested to post, should do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 10:18 AM

From that Guardian piece.
Hilary Willmer, of the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping, said that since 2002 her group had supported 400 families where girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men. "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg." But she cautioned against treating the matter as a race crime. "It's a criminal thing."

She said "It's a criminal thing."
The Guardian says "But she cautioned against treating the matter as a race crime."
On message.
Like the headline.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 09:55 AM

Here's one story describing gang "on-street grooming" methods, which highlights among other things, the use of glamorous cars and clothes. All abusers no doubt use those enticements available to them which are appropriate to the age range, economic conditions, and degree of protection surrounding their preferred targets:

"So, when your thirteen, if a boy who's seventeen, who's got a nice BMW and he's dressed really nicely in latest clothes and who's nice looking, makes out he's attracted to you, then you're going to be flattered by it."

Woman's Hour - Emma's Story

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Mar 11 - 08:52 AM

Oh dear, Keith. You shouldn't have mentioned the Guardian, should you? The article therein doesn't support your standpoint at all, in fact it cautions strongly against it. Hilary doesn't support it either. She would hate what you're trying to do on this thread.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jan/06/child-sex-trafficking-racial-stereotyping?INTCMP=SRCH

You're sussed, Keith.