BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 05:44 AM

"Catholic priests can be regarded as an ethnic group with a culture and customs of their own."
What??????????
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 05:19 AM

You could engage in debate Cobra, instead of just slandering me personally.
It would be a bit more demanding to actually refer to my posts though.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 05:02 AM

"Catholic priests can be regarded as an ethnic group with a culture and customs of their own."

That takes the biscuit!!!! So Catholic priests from India/ Africa/ Brazil/ Ireland/ England/ Germany etc etc etc form "an ethnic group"??


Keith,I believe the answer to this thread is rather simple, in truth. You are a BNP/ EDL member, no?

It strikes me as illuminating that your position in this matter mirrors exactly the party line. And, as we all know, the BNP seeks to demonise the Asian community in general and the Pakistani Muslim community in particular. Its objective? Quite simple really. To create divisions within society so as to increase its vote and thereby look forward to the establishment of a fascist state.

Is that your agenda? Are you, in fact, a party member? Is this why you have told lies, misrepresented what others have written and distorted their research findings, ignored the statistical shortcomings which the research scientists themselves have warned against?

Oh, and there is your blatant deceit in posting as someone else. And lying about that when you were caught out. Your determined last-wordism would probably have worked by now were it not for the fact that you have, on each occasion, sought to tell yet more lies and distort what people have said.

There are two possible explanations. One, you have a political agenda (see above) or two, you are incredibly thick - which is why you persist in exposing yourself as the Mudcat sheepshagger: "...just one sheep....". by repeating your lies ad nauseam. Is that it?

Oh wait! There is a third possibility. You might well be both.

And then there is your ongoing refusal to answer points put to you, claiming that it would take too long to read through the questions asked, that you cannot address more than two points at a time. The reality, of course, is that you are intellectually bereft. You have actually admitted that you have no opinions of your own, that you are merely positing the positions which others have put forward. Yet you do not even extend the courtesy of an accurate reflection of what these people have said. For someone who has no opinions of your own, you certainly come across with very strident and firmly rooted outpourings which are most certainly all your own.

So, which is it? BNP/ EDL activist, intellectually lazy buffoon or both?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 04:46 AM

No one said it was wrong to draw attention to the raping of children by priests.
Catholic priests can be regarded as an ethnic group with a culture and customs of their own.
No one said it was wrong to speculate on what predisposed some priests to rape children.
It was all discussed here.
Jim, Lox and Stringsinger all contributed.

It was a major news story that BPs had been observed to be disproportionately involved in the on-street grooming and rape of children in some areas.

I did not start the discussion. I joined after a few days and provided material for discussion, all from reputable sources and none of it my own creation.
What is wrong with that?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Mar 11 - 04:28 AM

A final thought, and then I really am off.
This has been one of the most squalid threads I have ever been involved in.
It has been unbelievably depressing to see up close, concerted attempts by a tiny handful of posters to brand a whole racial/cultural community as sordid criminals, based on unresearched (and largely undigested by those who would attempt to make capital of it), 'information'.
All my life I have been witness to racism in three of Britain's major cities. I know it exists; I've seen it almost daily and have, when we were working with Travellers, experienced it first hand, yet, when I attempted to play devil's advocate and suggest that it might be an English cultural trait, the screams of outrage from the most vociferous advocates of British Pakistani degeneracy, could be heard from here to Buckingham Palace.
You really can't have it both ways.
If it is permissible to openly advocate that British Pakistanis are culturally inclined towards sexual degeneracy, then it is equally permissible to advocate that the English are culturally racist (and lousy lovers who can't make it in the bedroom), that Irishmen are moronic, Guinness-swilling bomb-throwers, that blacks are over-endowed, over-sexed drug dealers and users, and Americans are gun-toting loudmouths who tolerate torture and imprisonment without trial to be used by their politicians in their name.
Racial stereotyping is evil; it divides our society, it impoverishes and disadvantages whole communities, and it can kill – ask the parents of Stephen Lawrence.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 06:54 PM

Strinsinger, Google Hillary Wilmer too.
Some of the stuff you may have missed, all posted here.

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."

"At the beginning we worked on the assumption that girls were groomed by individual pimps, but later discovered widespread pimping networks, much like international people trafficking gangs. Shopping malls, games arcades, places around takeaways and parks are common meeting places.

"The girl (who's typically aged between 13 and 16, but can be only 11 or 12) may meet the man alone, or be introduced by a friend who already knows him. He is usually quite a lot older and good looking, well-dressed and may well have a fast car. He'll meet her regularly, shower her with gifts, give her drink and maybe also drugs, take her for rides, tell her how special she is. He may have sex with her, but not at first, and he will discourage her from telling her parents about him because "they wouldn't understand".

"At some point further down the line he will take her to a flat or down an alley and tell her that in return for all the things he has done for her, it's payback time and she has to do something for him. She will then probably be gang raped. She will be confused, weak, think she's in love with the pimp, but also feel ashamed and guilty. She goes home and takes it out on her family and also drops out of education."


Hilary said,
"The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"""The girl (who's typically aged between 13 and 16, but can be only 11 or 12) may meet the man alone, or be introduced by a friend who already knows him. He is usually quite a lot older and good looking, well-dressed and may well have a fast car. He'll meet her regularly, shower her with gifts, give her drink and maybe also drugs, take her for rides, tell her how special she is. He may have sex with her, but not at first, and he will discourage her from telling her parents about him because "they wouldn't understand".

"At some point further down the line he will take her to a flat or down an alley and tell her that in return for all the things he has done for her, it's payback time and she has to do something for him. She will then probably be gang raped. She will be confused, weak, think she's in love with the pimp, but also feel ashamed and guilty. She goes home and takes it out on her family and also drops out of education."""

"The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg."

Hilary Willmer set up a charity to help victim
She has worked with 400 families of victims, as I reported.

According to The Guardian, she said "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg."

Hilary Willmer, from the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping (Crop), said while she welcomes the new initiative, tackling internal trafficking would be hampered by a law that dictates girls over 13 should give evidence against their handlers in court - something they are rarely willing to do.

"It can happen to any child from any family," she said. "The men, the gangs have all the experience. The children, the families and the parents are bewildered, don't know what's happening.

"In practice, unless the primary victim is prepared to give evidence then it's very difficult to make charges stick. The men know this, so they often wait until the girls are 13 before actually having sex with them."

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

I do not think you have followed this whole debate Stringsinger.
Did you read this for instance?
http://www.sacw.net/article1945.html

It is written by a part Pakistani Muslim women whose whole life has been dedicated to fighting racism.
Yasmin Allibhai-Brown.
Google her, and also British Pakistani Lord Ahmed Stringsinger.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 06:05 PM

Racism proves nothing.
Who could argue.

This issue became a news item in January.
There are gangs operating in certain English cities.
They win the confidence of children and then rape them.
Gang rape them whenever they feel like it.
Young lives destoyed.
This is not a nightmare fantasy, it has been going on for years.
There are certainly hundreds, and maybe thousands of young victims.

Should we continue the conspiracy of silence about this Stringsinger, just because the gangs happen to be from a particular ethnic group?

Is it OK to talk about it or not Stringsinger?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 05:39 PM

From reading the article in the Guardian it seems to me that sex traffic is a world-wide
problem and not limited to any cultural group or gang. To narrow the issue it so that it fits the present xenophobia regarding Muslims is specious and destructive.

Any mention of Pakistani or Muslim groups today are subject to the same kind of
baiting that was used in earlier times to refer to African-Americans regarding white women being molested (history of the KKK and Reconstruction ala DW Griffith's "Birth of a Nation") and is based on fear and demonization and a long legacy of this sickness.

The point of the Guardian article as I see it is that it doesn't point to these incidents
as being exclusive to any one culture.

Racism doesn't explain anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 05:13 PM

Don, there has been no alternative explanation given by your side.
Lox kept up a pretence for a while that one could be found in his posts, but it was a charade.
Please do not pretend that I could find one by reading the posts.
I have scoured them now.
Your side has offered nothing.
It was all a lie.

We do not need the survey to know that the over representation is a fact.
We have the testimony of Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Suffiq, allibhai-brown, Wilmer, the senior police officers, Hardeep Singh of Network of Sikh Organizations (NSO), director NSO Inderjit Singh, and Ashish Joshio, all speaking from the FACT of their own contacts with victims, with their families and in some cases with perpetrators.

Then we have the survey.
It also found a massive over representation, but you all claimed that proved there is no over representation.
Ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 02:56 PM

""If issue 1 is not true, the results would be a bizarre anomoly requiring explanation.
I have not heard one.""

Any scientist will tell you point blank that statisics based on very small samples are unreliable in the extreme.

Why do you think you know more than the scientific experts?

Statistically, basing your claims on the existing sample without reference to what is happening in other areas with a high Pakistani population, is arrant nonsense, and any conclusions arising from it are not defensible.

On your second point, you would have heard (seen actually) alternative possible explanations had you taken the trouble to read our posts, and, unlike your theory, we are not claiming to have the only possible answer based on xenophobia.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 02:40 PM

""You have also denied even the possibilty that those who suggested an explanation might possibly be on to something.""

No we have not! We have suggested that there are other possible alternatives, which you have wantonly chosen to ignore, because they do not gel with your hard wired prejudice.

You in fact are the only person who is denying the possibility of any explanation other than your own, which is not fully supported, even by those you quote.

You act like a disaffected teenager, answering any questions with the equivalent of "Wha'evor!

Don T.

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

This takes you to Jim's cut and paste that is carefully edited to change its meaning.
thread.cfm?threadid=135090&messages=1139#3103412

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 06:25 AM

Before you answer Mike, look what Jim Carrol edited out of the Guardian piece he posted.

The passage as in the original,
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."

Read the original to see which of us is the liar who distorts the evidence.http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jan/06/child-sex-trafficking-racial-stereotyping

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 04:55 AM

Don't bother Mike, sorry I asked.
Can't stomach this lying ratbag any more - I'm off
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 04:14 AM

The exaggerated racial stereotyping referred to the findings being used by racists - you are deliberately ditorting this up to defend your racism.
Don't you agree Mike - or not?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 03:23 AM

The "exaggerated racial stereotyping" referred to the race of the victims.
Why can we not accept over representation and debate reasonably the possible causes?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 03:03 AM

Sorry Mike, we're not going to get beyond Keith's mantra and discover why 'it's a cultural thing' now.
Leave you all to your own opinions along with the "typical Guardian headline" from of one of Keith's findings, quoted ad nauseum and rejected by him.
"CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING STUDY SPARKS EXAGGERATED RACIAL STEREOTYPING"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 02:53 AM

Lox, all those people did NOT say they suspect there is an issue.
They all say the issue is FACT and say that from there own personal contact with victims, their families and in some cases perpetartors.

The over represenation is a fact.
The survey found a massive over representation which can hardly be claimed to be evidence against over representation.

There is a massive over representation of BPs in this crime.
Fact.
Accept that and then we can debate why.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Mar 11 - 12:28 AM

"In addition, in this case, he demonstrates a sinister fascination and need to slander a raciql group that he finds distasteful.
For that reason I'm out."   Lox
===
Keith, so far as I can see, has mentioned nothing about his views on any racial group; he has merely deplored & questioned the [undisputed] activities of a small but over-represented group among one localised demographic & has never claimed to be doing more.

So Lox is "out", is he? How many times is that on this thread, can anyone be bothered to count? And he has the gall to call other people 'liars' as well as indulging in random unbased lying abuse about them of a sort to raise severe concern as to his mental condition and sexual stability.

Wonder how long before he's back on-thread with more of his drivelling evasions. About 15 minutes, I should think, if past form anything to go by. Anyone care for a bet?

Mind you, because I have said that, he might after all actually take himself off and stay away. Wouldn't that be a delightful outcome, now, eh!

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 07:23 PM

It is apparent that Keith does not debate to uncover the truth, but only to win.

The big challenge is to win the unwinnable argument.

A debate to him is nothing more than a battle of wits.


but in fact, his wits are insufficient to the task, which is why he must distort, misrepresent, and in extreme circumstances, simply tell lies.


In addition, in this case, he demonstrates a sinister fascination and need to slander a raciql group that he finds distasteful.


For that reason I'm out.


The first thing Keith will do in my absence will be to misquote, misrepresent and lie about me.

I don't understand that mentality, but I shall have to accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:51 PM

"A triumph of dogma over reason! "


The only Dogma here is that British Pakistanis are closet Paedos.

a dogma Keith has been fighting to assert for over a month.


Tell me what my dogma is keith and where I have said it.

You can't because I have none.


Another lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:49 PM

"The study actually found an over representation, but Lox and Jim claim this proves that there is NO over representation!"

The Authors specifically stated that the study reveals nothing of the sort.


Keith is lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:46 PM

This is utterly ridiculous.

Keith ... select = limited

ie - not enough evidence

Why not enough?

Because of limitations of geography AND SIZE ..

... DID YOU READ THAT? ... SIZE ... THE STATS COVER TOO SMALL A SAMPLE ... ie ITS TOO SELECT ...

The study does not corroborate your view unless its results are deliberately misrepresented - the authors have made that clear.

The reasons given by its authors are scientific, not political.

The study also SPECIFICALLY contradicts the OPINION of Straw, Cryer etc.

Yet Keith states that it "corroborates" their "evidence"


Cryer Straw etc have given no evidence.

They have only said what they SUSPECT.


Keith is asserting that if someone suspects you of a crime, then that is evidence enough that you have committed it.

This is another attempt to put the onus of proof on the denier.

Its YOUR hypothesis - you, Straw and cryer have to provide the evidence.

Just saying "a high profile politician suspects it therefore it is true" is NONSENSE.

Keith is inventing racist bullshit for which there is no supporting evidence and deliberately misrepresenting research done to support his agenda, even though those who carried out the researh specifically point out that his interpretation of their work is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:38 PM

I wiil repeat it again because it is no distortion.
It is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
"I got it from Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Suffiq and Allibhai-Brown as you very well know."

That has been my position throughout and I defy you to show otherwise.

Now Issue 1 is that there is an over representation.
I know Issue 1 is correct because of the experience reported by all those eminent people in public life.

The study actually found an over representation, but Lox and Jim claim this proves that there is NO over representation!

A triumph of dogma over reason!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:21 PM

"I got it from Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Suffiq and Allibhai-Brown as you very well know."
Repeating your distortions alters nothing
Where has anybody said that sexual grooming and abuse is a trait of Pakistani culture - apart from yourself?
Why have you consistently ignored that warning of one of your own posting (which you dismissed as "a typical Guardian headline") that any findings that might have been made are at risk of being used by people like yourself to make racist points.
Try Lox's posting:
"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" based on race"
You continue - virtually alone now, apart from your homophobic friend - to take your own postings out of context and use them as an attack on the British Pakistani community.
"Why say it?"
It is you who have said it - address your own statement - including the implication that if it covers Pakistanis in the north of England, does it cover those in the other areas I mentioned - come on, don't be coy; we need to know?
"You have also denied even the possibilty that those who suggested an explanation might possibly be on to something."
Once again - where?
My point all along has been that RACIAL STEREOTYPING OF THE TYPE YOU ARE INDULGING IN IS WRONG, IS EVIL, AND IS RACIST.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 05:36 PM

That does not make it a "select" study Lox.
Geographically concentrated, because that is where the cases turned out to be.
A crime type.
Obviouslsy.
They were studying the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men.
So that is what they found.
Not based on race though.
They must not say that.
And I do not say it.

If issue 1 is true, those results are EXACTLY what you would expect.
If issue 1 is not true, the results would be a bizarre anomoly requiring explanation.
I have not heard one.
If the study had never been carried out we would still KNOW issue 1 is true from the testimony of Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Suffiq, allibhai-brown, Wilmer, the senior police officers, Hardeep Singh of Network of Sikh Organizations (NSO), director NSO Inderjit Singh, and Ashish Joshio .

The study is just an extra bit of corroboration.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 04:39 PM

Knowledgeable sources have called those cases which have actually come to court as "the tip of the iceberg"
.
"Child support groups and even police are afraid to report or follow up lest they fall foul of civil/human rights legislation"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 04:35 PM

i wish the moderators would attempt to manage the freely weilded abuse on this thread of all threads. Personally i find the tone here to be quite intimidating. As such this will be my last posting on this topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 04:17 PM

Keith,

I've quoted it 3 times already.

You don't know because you HAVEN'T BEEN BOTHERED TO READ ANY POSTS.

Here it is AGAIN.

"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" based on race"

note "small, geographically concentrated" ie 'select'.

note concern that the data was generalized into a crime type based on race.

IN OTHER WORDS - THEY CLARIFY THAT THE DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR HYPOTHESIS.


Learn to fucking read.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 03:42 PM

Jim,
"the behaviour they have described is a consequence of Pakistani culture, which is totally your own invention, and it is this that makes your stance racist"

It is not totally my own invention.
it is not my invention at all.
I got it from Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Suffiq and Allibhai-Brown as you very well know.
Why say it?
And, are they racist for inventing it?
And, are you accepting or denying that "the behaviour they have described " is real, or a lie?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 03:19 PM

No I haven't - if I have where?
I have consistently denied that the behaviour they have described is a consequence of Pakistani culture, which is totally your own invention, and it is this that makes your stance racist.
"You have also denied even the possibilty that those who suggested an explanation might possibly be on to something."
Where?
"I do not know if or how the behaviour relates."
Then how can the behaviour under discussion be an outcome of the British Pakistani culture, as you have claimed - are they not all Pakistanis living in Britain?
"You have contributed nothing yourself."
If I have contributed nothing, at least I have not attempted to brand a ethnic community as potential sexual predators - I'm sure you have your quote off by heart by now.
Still very much in the minority, are resorting to empty rhetoric yet again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Smedley
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 02:11 PM

Help is certainly needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 02:10 PM

I do not think anyone here has used specific incidents to define the behaviour of any religious group.

The street grooming issue was a major news story and was picked up here.
We just can not agree if there is a specific issue or not.
Can you help?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 01:52 PM

Unfortunately, we are still fighting the Crusades. There seems to be religious ideological differences that escalate into a Beirut style war.

The problem is that "belief" often translates into rigid ideology.

So much hinges on interpretations of religion. They differ, reading one thing into them,
shutting out other possibilities of meanings, categorically painting all with the same brush,not allowing for different behaviors resulting from interpretations, and above all not separating these religious ideologies from the ethics of the people who subscribe to them is important here.

There have been religious atrocities conducted historically in every epoch. There also have been religious productive efforts in stabilizing and generating social good, as well.

To get excited about specific incidents and using those to define the behavior of any religious group is narrow-minded, ignorant and a kind of intellectual denial.

Separate the ideology from the behavior of people and you find a positive solution
to the contemporary "Crusades".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 01:31 PM

'men combining in teams to procure children in their hundreds from public spaces.' in answer to your question, no i dont know of examples of teams of adults grooming in such a public fashion. Most peadophile rings operate in a highly covert manner. I dont neccesarily think this therefore describes a new 'crime type' but it does perhaps describe a highly succesful methodology currently being employed by a particular group of abusers.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 01:15 PM

"THE DANDO INSTITUTE SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED THE EXACT VIEWS THAT YOU ARE EXPRESSING AS BEING WRONG."
I do not think they did Lox.
Quote please.

"Ane Cryer, Jack Straw etc are just expressing OPINION!"
No.
They were speaking of there own actual experience with victims of the child raping gangs.
It was not an opinion that the children were raped, and not an opinion who did the raping.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 01:10 PM

Lox,
"Those who carried out the study say it was a select study."

I do not think they did say that Lox.
Quote please

I think it was a study of, 17 court prosecutions since 1997, 14 of them in the past three years, involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men.

Witness statements.   
accused some Pakistani men of specifically targeting Hindu and Sikh girls. "This has been a serious concern for the last decade," said Hardeep Singh of Network of Sikh Organizations (NSO)
We raised the issue of our girls with the previous government and the police on several occasions over the last decade. This phenomenon has been there because a minority of Islamic extremists view all 'non believers' as legitimate targets," said director NSO Inderjit Singh.

Targeted sexual offences and forced conversions of Hindu and Sikh girls was not a new phenomenon in the UK, said Ashish Joshio from Media Monitoring group.

Hardeep said that in 2007, The Hindu Forum of Britain claimed that hundreds of Hindu and Sikh girls had been first romantically coaxed and later intimidated and converted by Muslim men.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 01:02 PM

"What exactly you have denied is issue 1.
To do that you have denied the evidence of the Dando Institute study"


Keith - you are making more shit up.


THE DANDO INSTITUTE SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED THE EXACT VIEWS THAT YOU ARE EXPRESSING AS BEING WRONG.


Ane Cryer, Jack Straw etc are just expressing OPINION!


You are still lying.


One and a half months spent trying to prove that Pakistanis are closet Paedos...

... Makes you a Racist Liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 12:56 PM

"Some more witnesses."


Where?


Your link leads only to a second hand report, from a hindu website, based in India, reporting about more OPINIONS of some people in the UK..

People who are responding to the same news reports as you.

And who do not state ANYWHERE that british Pakistanis are predisposed in any way to child abuse.

So they don't even support your hhypothesis anyway.


not 1 shred of evidence anywhere.


NONE!


You can provide 10,000 opinions and it will STILL NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE.


Your hypothesis remains BASELESS.


Its foundation is 100% unqualified opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 12:38 PM

"It was NOT a select study.
It encompassed 14 separate cases.
Almost all the perpetrators just turned out to be BPs."

Those who carried out the study say it was a select study.

You are representing it falsely, in exactly the way that they are concerned about and that they clarify is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 12:20 PM

Found it.
"Explain how the behaviour of a minority group of Pakistanis in say, Bradford relate to that of, say, Southall or Clapham or Birmingham."

I do not know if or how the behaviour relates.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 12:17 PM

What exactly you have denied is issue 1.
To do that you have denied the evidence of the Dando Institute study and the testimony of Straw, Cryer, Ahmed, Allibhai-Brown, Wilmer, Suffiq, Senior police, and now Inderjit Singh and Ashish Joshio.

You have also denied even the possibilty that those who suggested an explanation might possibly be on to something.

You have contributed nothing yourself.
I now have to hunt down your half formed question.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 12:07 PM

And what exactly have I denied - and where?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 11:49 AM

"Jim again with nothing to add except denial."
And once again no answer to the question.
"Explain how the behaviour of a minority group of Pakistanis in say, Bradford.....?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 11:47 AM

Some more witnesses.
Racist bigots?
A day after UKs' former home secretary Jack Straw blamed some Pakistani Muslim men for targeting "vulnerable" White girls sexually, UK's Hindu and Sikh organizations also publicly accused Muslim groups of the same offence.

Straw, in an interview to the BBC recently, had said, "...there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men...who target vulnerable young white girls...they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care ... who they think are easy meat."

Feeling emboldened by Straw's statement, UK's Hindu and Sikh organizations have also come in open and accused some Pakistani men of specifically targeting Hindu and Sikh girls. "This has been a serious concern for the last decade," said Hardeep Singh of Network of Sikh Organizations (NSO) while talking to TOI on Monday.

Sikhs and Hindus are annoyed that Straw had shown concern for White girls and not the Hindu and the Sikh teenage girls who have been coaxed by some Pakistani men for sex and religious conversion.

"Straw does other communities a disservice by suggesting that only white girls were targets of this predatory behaviour. We raised the issue of our girls with the previous government and the police on several occasions over the last decade. This phenomenon has been there because a minority of Islamic extremists view all 'non believers' as legitimate targets," said director NSO Inderjit Singh.

Targeted sexual offences and forced conversions of Hindu and Sikh girls was not a new phenomenon in the UK, said Ashish Joshio from Media Monitoring group.

"This has been going on for decades in the UK . Young Muslim men have been boasting about seducing the Kaffir (unbeliever) women. The Hindu and the Sikh communities must be commended for showing both restraint and maturity under such provocation," he added.

Read on.
http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/11088.html

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 11:09 AM

17 court prosecutions since 1997, 14 of them in the past three years, involving the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by groups of men.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 10:59 AM

Lox,
"The figures only appear disproportionate because they cover such a select case study."

It was NOT a select study.
It encompassed 14 separate cases.
Almost all the perpetrators just turned out to be BPs.

But anyway, Straw, Cryer and the senior police KNEW that issue 1 was true years before the report.
They knew from their own personal contact with victims over the years.
Allibhai-Brown KNEW it was true years ago from her own personal contact with some perpetrators.
They would all have predicted the outcome of the report.
The outcome was exactly what you would find if issue 1 was true.

Why do you deny this?
Do you claim they are all lying or deluded?
No.
You just know it can't be true.
It just can't be or you would have to open your mind and think.
Robotic repetition of your discredited dogma is so much easier, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 09:07 AM

"ISSUE 1. Is there are disproportionate number of BPs involved in street grooming and rape of children in certain cities?"

This is not a supportable assertion.

The figures only appear disporoportionate because they cover such a select case study.

The experts have made clear that for that reason iit is wrong to extrapolate that there is either a new crime type or a racial dimension.


"GIVEN that a disproportionate number of BPs are involved in this cruel and wicked crime" ...

As I have just stated, this is not a given - it is merely how YOU interpret SOME of the available evidence.

And the experts have made clear that your interpretation is a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 08:52 AM

Are you incapable of separating the two issues Lox?

ISSUE 1. Is there are disproportionate number of BPs involved in street grooming and rape of children in certain cities?

The hard evidence of the survey alone is highly suggestive that it is true, and in conjunction with all the other evidence leaves any rational thinking person with little doubt that the over representation is a fact.
No hypothesis there.

ISSUE 2. GIVEN that a disproportionate number of BPs are involved in this cruel and wicked crime, what makes them do it?

This is not amenable to proof.
The hypothesis was made by people with deep knowledge of the community, or actually part of it.
They all agree on the same hypothesis.

On the first issue Lox, Jim and Don, do you have any other explanation, other than bizarre coincidence, for all the evidence?

On the second issue, why should we listen to you and ignore them?