BS: Muslim prejudice

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

"I am certainly NOT misrepresenting the figures,, just STATING them"

No - you also extrapolated a hypothesis which purports to explain THE CRIME TYPE of street grooming on RACIAL grounds ... therefore misrepresenting the figures in exactly the way described by the authors of the research.


"Lox and Jim refuse to give that evidence any recognition."

Unlike you keith, I actually read it, and examined it. You have yet to respond to the issues I raised about it, or indeed to bother examining how it correlates with your hypothesis.

You just make a statement, call it a hypothesis and then post some stuff that you call supporting evidence without bothering to understand it, let alone examine it.

For example, you posted a report that hasn't even been conducted yet as evidence to support your view.


In addition, you didn't look at the evidence I provided, or you would have known that the report I referred to was a different one to the one you had posted, and mine WAS complete and CONTRADICTED your view as squarely as could be imagined.


You're still just making shit up.

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

Jim again with nothing to add except denial.
None of the evidence counts because it just can not be true because, er, just because!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 08:06 AM

"You are misrepresenting the figures to argue that it is a new crime type and that it has a racial basis."

I am certainly NOT misrepresenting the figures,, just STATING them
56 convictions came within the remit of the study.
53 were BPs.
How do YOU explain that Lox? Jim? Don?
And how do YOU al lexplain Wilmer's case file of 400 families of victims and ALL perpetrators BPs?
And how do YOU all explain away the observations of Cryer, Straw, Ahmed, Allibhai-Brown, senior police officers, Mohamed Suiffiq,...?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 07:53 AM

"Lox and Jim refuse to give that evidence any recognition."
Your 'dippings in and pulling out of the hat' do not constitute evidence, certainly not to back up your all-embracing generalisations about British Pakistani culture - how on earth could it - it has not been collected.
Explain how the behaviour of a minority group of Pakistanis in say, Bradford relate to that of, say, Southall or Clapham or Birmingham.
Facile, agenda laden 'research' like yours would give even The Daily Mail a bad name.
Nobody is attempting to pardon criminals or excuse their crimes; we are opposing your attemps to lay them at the door of a whole culture, as you are still attempting to do.
Perhaps it's time for you to adopt a new persona again!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:58 AM

""But I defy anyone to deny that such customs as I have rubricated above are part of the conditioned expectations of some young males of the community; some among whom might jib at such demands and expectations, and express their dissatisfaction by the sort of unfortunate behaviour we are speaking of here.""

Mike, would you not agree that if the above were true, we should be seeing similar percentages arising in other groups which live with exactly the same constraints on premarital sex?

One might expect that there would be young male Hindu gangs and gangs of non Pakistani Muslims indulging in the same activities.

Doesn't the fact that this is not so give reason to doubt the "Cultural Paedophile Theory" (and it is nothing more than a theory) espoused with such relish by Keith?

Psychologists would take issue with that theory on principle, because they would see Paedophilia as an innate state, not as a lifestyle choice. "Kiddie fiddlers are born, not made", and the vast majority of men do not find children sexually attractive.

Perhaps that will convince you that I am not seeking to pardon these criminals, but to prevent the dissemination of the idea that British Pakistanis are somehow turned into abusive criminals because they are Pakistani and/or Muslim.

Don T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:26 AM

""That is indeed so ~~ and the statistics under consideration DID involve grooming, and DID NOT involve trafficking:""

Wrong again Mike.

The girls were groomed, sexually used, then passed around between multple abusers.

That is the definition of trafficking, unless you can show that no money changed hands at any point in the process, which I would find extremely difficult to believe.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 06:20 AM

""We are discussing the grooming and rape of children from the streets and public places of certain English cities.""

How many more times does this have to be pointed out before it penetrates the hermetically sealed mind Keith?

Grooming of young girls, particularly runaways and those who have been thrown out for various reasons, has been going on regularly at least since the early sixties, and probably well before that.

It has been a major source of sex slaves for big city pimps long before Eastern European crooks were able to travel to Britain.

The fact that it has not been reported separately from other crimes of abuse makes the Pakistani gangs' activities, which have been singled out, seem like a new problem.

Do a little homework for a change, and read up on instances of young men prowling Streets, Railway and Bus Stations, and Local Parks looking for likely prospects.

It might give you some balance in your perspective on this subject.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 05:54 AM

Keith.

The authors of the report which WAS completed say they are concerned that THE FIGURES ARE BEING MISREPRESENTED.

How are they being misrepresented?

They are being misrepresented by people to support an idea that street grooming is a new crime type and that it has a racial basis.

In other words, exactly what you are saying.


You are misrepresenting the figures to argue that it is a new crime type and that it has a racial basis.


The experts are concerned about people like you who draw conclusions that the stats DO NOT SHOW.


I could show you an ice cream and you would call it a brussels sprout!

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

Lively, I do not think that such rings predate the internet.
I believe that in all the cases involving grooming by rings, the grooming was done on line.
There may be a few exceptions, but I have not heard of them.
Have you?

Lox says there is no "new" crime of street grooming.
I have never before heard of men combining in teams to procure children in their hundreds from public places to rape them.

Having said that we now know it has been going on for years hidden from public knowledge, and the perpetrators mostly bps.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 04:58 AM

keith: 'we've all heard of a pervert' etc. Actually keith, As well as using techniques of 'grooming' to ensnare victims organised paedophile rings will also 'share' abused children around to be sexually exploited by other members of the ring. The lone pervert exists of course, but is perhaps a limiting stereotype. large organised networks of adults engaged in the systematic grooming and sexual abuse of minors, has been with us for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 04:37 AM

The evidence I have produced, to explain how I formed an opinion on a subject I have no knowledge of, is not "random."

It is the hard evidence of the convictions and of Wilmer's case files, and the observations of eminent and responsible people in public life.

Lox and Jim refuse to give that evidence any recognition.
They ignore it simply because it challenges their dogma.
It just can't be true, and only a racist would think so.

If you only accept that the evidence is in the very least suggestive that an issue exists, it is perfectly legitimate to ask why.
But not to Lox and Jim.
That also challenges their dogma, so it is racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 03:49 AM

"I am not doing anything of the sort."
Fine Mike, That was what I was hoping for, and what I expected - apologies if I have misread you.
Sure, there is nothing wrong with examining and discussing these issues, as long as they are dealt with honestly and responsibly, which I don't believe is happening here - maybe we have all been propelled into over-defending our own particular corners.
I don't believe that making irresponsible and inflammatory statements, then seeking out examples to back up those statements in the course of the discussion (and ignoring or distorting ones that don't) is the way to honest debate; that is an updated form of 'bar-room just before chucking-out time' argument, which is usually dealt with by the publican with a note over the bar, "No politics, no religion".
I know you say you judge each thread on its own merit, but it is how Keith works - several 'discussions' to demonstrate this, which have been equally as mind-numbing and, IMO equally dangerously culturally generalising and derogatory as this one.
"have you anything to urge against these arguments"
No I don't; I don't believe anybody here has anything like enough real information on the British Pakstani situation to come to any conclusion one way or the other, and to claim they have on the basis of a tiny handful of carefully selected statements of personal opinions, unqualified, unquantified and uncorroborated, is irresponsible and agenda-serving. I certainly don't have enough knowledge on the subject to make definitive claims, and I'm not going to seek out random 'examples' from the internet to back up my ignorance (though I do believe I have enough familiarity with racism in general, personal and researched, to recognise it when I see it).
Thank's for taking some of the heat out of our encounter.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 11 - 02:43 AM

Jim, "You really can't take being found out, can you?"
It was never hidden.
I wanted and enjoyed having it seen and read as mine.
I put true words in his lying mouth.

Lox, the authors were cautious but stoods by their reults.
It can not be said that 53 bps out of 56 convictions is not significant and requires explanation.
What is yours?

You claimed the report found that there was no such thing as on street grooming.
Wrong.

Of course it is not new!
We have all known cases of a pervert trying to pick up children in a public place.

What is new is finding gangs working together at it to rape children on a vast scale.
Have you EVER heard of such a thing?
And, the evidence is that the perpetrators are disproportionately BPs.
An explanation has been given by people who know or are part of the BP community.
I think it sounds plausible.
HOW DO YOU JUST KNOW IT IS WRONG AND WHAT WOULD YOU REPLACE IT WITH???

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 08:24 PM

.

A story about a culture of repression.

All americans must therefore be rapists!! ... right Keith?

.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 06:32 PM

Interesting Story here about how there is a deliberate policy of False Islamophobic reporting for the Daily Star.

And lets face it - they aren't the only ones.

Dirty Desmond also owns the express, but I think it is safe to say that the mail has a similar policy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/04/daily-star-reporter-letter-full

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 04:31 PM

Well, OK, Jim: when I say "Nobody is doing anything of the sort", I am using, I thought, a recognisable idiom for "I am not doing anything of the sort."

And I really wasn't. I was worried by these disproportionate numbers. I felt an explanation should be sought. I did not seek it in any sense in a way that would have involved the entire Pakistani community, or in their 'culture', however defined; but did think it might be worth looking for it, in the effect that the conditioning of their young males ~~ which the marriage customs, which neither they nor anyone else seems to me to dispute, whereby many are not permitted access to young women outside their immediate family, but are expected to submit unquestioningly to marriage with a cousin arranged by both sets of parents, often without meeting, or meeting more than perfunctorily, until the actual wedding; sometimes with a journey to Pakistan by one or other of the parties being required ~~ might have upon some among that young male section of this demographic.

I have sedulously avoided blaming the whole community, or any considerable part of it (let alone your "all"!), or their culture as such. But I defy anyone to deny that such customs as I have rubricated above are part of the conditioned expectations of some young males of the community; some among whom might jib at such demands and expectations, and express their dissatisfaction by the sort of unfortunate behaviour we are speaking of here. Especially, I might add, in view of the undisguised contempt which some of the demographic express regarding the morals of some of the indigenous community's young female population, much of which in turn is observaby earned by the unhappy binge-drinking and other such unhappy public-behavioural habits of some of the young females concerned.

It seemed to me that some consideration of this combination or syndrome of factors might just go some way towards explaining these disproportionate statistics of convictions regarding this particular form of exploitation.

Now, Jim: rationally and dispassionately please ~~ have you anything to urge against these arguments as a possible, speculative, solution to the quest for a reason for these disagreeable phenomena?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 03:41 PM

Keith writes:

"The sexual abuse of children is generally preceded by activity designed to ensnare them. For this reason the Sexual Offences Act 2003 actually has an offence of "grooming"."

Thank you keith - I said that about 900 posts ago when I said that grooming is merely the means by which abusers ensnare their victims.

You disagreed and argued that street grooming was a different crime type.


In posting the above quote, you support my view again and contradict your own hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 03:24 PM

"Lox wanted us to believe that researchers did not regard on street grooming as a separate crime. This research has not even started yet!"


I've posted this quote twice already, but Keith seems to have a short memory.

"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"."


In other words, the research Keith cites hasn't started yet.

Thew research I cite CONTRADICTS keiths racist hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 02:49 PM

"Nobody is doing anything of the sort Jim."
Yes they are Mike - not going to bother posting Keith's statement linking sexual predators with the Pakistani culture puts all Pakistani immigrants in the frame - I never got a reply to my Irish/child abuser question.And the rest of your posting is made up of vacuuous, Keith/Akenaton-like accuasions - pity!
"And did you forget that Joe withdrew his accreditation from that troll and said it had been a mistake?"
No he did not withdraw his accreditation, the "troll"; remained untrollified! The thread remained open, despite Joe's comment that it should not have been started by a nom member - known to members. Even if he had closed the thread that would not have absolved you from your dishonest stunt, no matter how you attempted to wriggle out of it.
You really can't take being found out, can you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 02:15 PM

From Don T

When you put words like that into an opponents mouth, you make yourself ridiculous.

Bringing Muslim/Jewish affairs into the argument is equally specious, as I can cite as many crimes committed by Israel, as you can by Palestine, probably many more.

Your question above is easily answered. You obviously believe strongly that Muslims harbour ill feeling toward the rest of humanity, all Muslims.

I C&P'd the full section to pre-emt accusations of misquoting. Now, where do I start on something wrong at so many levels...

1. Let us compare the statements 1 and 3. 'when you put words in an opponents mouth you make yourself ridiculous' and 'you obviously believe strongly that Musims harbour ill feeling etc.' OK, you are not putting words in my mouth, but you are describing my beliefs in detail that you cannot possibly know., How ridiculous is that?

2. I do not believe for one instant that Muslims, Christians, Jews or Bush Baptists harbour ill feeling toward anyone. I do believe some societies values are not the same as ours but as long as someone else's morals are not forced on me I could not care less.

3. 'put words in an opponents mouth' What makes you think of yourself as my opponent? An opponent is someone I know and respect. Someone I can argue with and shake hands with at the end. Someone who's opinions I can disagree with without being subjected to abuse. An anonymous name on an internet forum is simply that, until I get to know them.

4. 'Bringing Muslim/Jewish affairs into the argument is equally specious, as I can cite as many crimes committed by Israel, as you can by Palestine, probably many more.' Well, firstly, I have never mentioned Palestine. Secondly, everyone is citing crimes by peoples not involved in the initial debate. Lox has somehow introduced east European trafficers; Cobra goes on about the Irish while you have mentioned, Hindus, Moroccans, Bahrainis, Tunisians and Iranians. Are all such acts specious or only the ones you disagree with?

Need I go on?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 01:27 PM

Did you forget jim, that it was Cobra who raised the story of how I posted truth in the name of that lying troll?
And did you forget that Joe withdrew his accreditation from that troll and said it had been a mistake?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 12:57 PM

"17 court cases to condemn the whole British Pakistani population "
=====
Nobody is doing anything of the sort Jim.

And you know it whatever you may say, and whatever you may pretend.

And the sad thing is that I suspect you are even pretending it to yourself.

If you just won't listen, & just won't shift from your entrenched, doctrinaire, my·mind·is·made·up·so·please·do·not·confuse·me·with·facts attitude, then you won't ·····

and there is no more to be said ~~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 12:43 PM

17 court cases to condemn the whole British Pakistani population - it's a fair cop guv, send 'em back to where they came from!
Before I abandon a lifelong belief that racial steretyping is not only wrong, but is utterly evil and extremely dangerous, I would require a transparently carried out survey by qualified experts on the subject, I would want to know the numbers involved, the areas surveyed and the conditions prevailing in those area...... and a damn sight more. These are such stuff holocausts are made on!                                                            
Had your and Keith's claims the slightest substance they would not only be blazened on every piece of BNP literature, but would feature regularly in the Daily Mail headlines, and those of every other right-wing rag. As it is, they remain what they are, unsubstantiated innuendos, not even claimed by any of Keith's cut-n-pastes to the extent you and he have. You really have gone over to The Dark Side!
"Just that one forgivable trick played on a lying troll."
Think he might be addressing me Cobra. He is referring to a forged posting he once made and the troll was actually a guest, fully accredited by one of the adjudicators, Joe Offer - so his latest prevarications are far from the first.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 12:17 PM

There is another figure that you must have forgotten Jim.
We do not know what proportion of victims did not turn to Hillary Wilmer's support group, but we know that 400 families did, and all the perpetrators were BPs.

Why do you keep taking us back over this stuff Jim?
If you have nothing fresh, why post?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 11:42 AM

Cobra ~~ whatever conviction any of your other contributions might have carried, your unspeakably idotic, fatuous [and probably actionably defamatory] obsessively repeated claims that Keith must be paltering with the truth in claiming to be a teacher when quite patently he is one, seem to me to deprive you of any credibility that you might have possessed in any direction or any particular whatever.

You are clearly almost as stupid a fool as daft old you-know-who that rhymes with "Pox": and that is saying something.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 11:32 AM

===
Mike; You still have produced no evidence to even suggest that sexual predation has any connetion whatever with Pakistani culture.
What percentages are we talking about? What are the areas covered by the cases - a street, a district, a town, a county, the whole of the North of England - what?
None of this suggests that Pakistanis as a racial group are in any way prone to these crimes, and nobody has ever claimed such apart from Keith, and sadly, you. Jim ....
==============

Jim: The % statistic I refer to has been already quoted above, IIRC by DelG ~~~
,,,,,,,,,
... in 17 court cases since 1997 where groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls on the street, 53 of the 56 people found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, while just three were white.
,,,,,,,,,,
In fact, the 53 were almost all Pakistanis. I repeat: the numbers are small. The proportions are not. I myself have not used the word "culture" with regard to this; preferring, as you will recall, "customs" &/or "conditioning". But these are actual figures, drawn from available statistics of convictions in courts for this specific offence where due process was followed.

The precise localities are beside the point: which is that these are convictions for THIS PARTICULAR OFFENCE. & of course they suggest that, for whatever reason, Pakistani men are, or at least do appear to be, more prone to this particular pattern of behaviour than other demographics. If it were not so, they would not be so overwhelmingly represented in the numbers, would they? It is not Rocket Science, as they say.

I draw your attention to the words I have underlined a couple of lines back; "for whatever reason". THE REASON IS WHAT WE ARE SEEKING ~ DO NOT PLEASE BEG THE QUESTION BY IMPLYING THAT WE HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE ESTABLISHED IT WHEN WE CLAIM NO SUCH THING ~ we merely suggest that there must be A REASON; & that the "Customs/conditioning" of those involved might be a part of its explanation.

And these are the facts & undisputed figures that you are wilfully and doctrinairely closing your mind to, Jim. These figures have not been contradicted or questioned; and when I ask you why you will not accept them, you unworthily accuse me of indulging in 'rhetoric'.

I wonder why.

That's all.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 11:26 AM

Oh no!
It so matters to me that believe me Cobra.
Somehow I will just have to live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:46 AM

"Just that one forgivable trick played on a lying troll."

What on earth is that supposed to mean? You sad, incomprehensible little man. Given that your entire output on this and other threads is a litany of lies and distortions, I will happily live the rest of my days secure in the knowledge that you are not a teacher and that you never have been. So, you see, your inability to prove your claims is neither here nor there.

I now confidently expect a Googled C&P of some poor, unsuspecting bona-fide teacher whose CV you will present as your own.

Just try and make sure that you do not include proficiency in Urdu or Gujarati in the "languages spoken" section!

And....now....soooo...sleepy.....sooo, soooo...........sleepy.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:37 AM

I am not discussing me with you, how ever much you cajole.

You read through nearly 5000 posts of mine.

Even if you only spent an average of 20 seconds on each, including accessing it, that is nearly 30 hours hunched before a screen.

And if you were not deranged at the start, it would have pushed you over the edge when at the end of it you found not one post you could use against me!

Just that one forgivable trick played on a lying troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:34 AM

Mike; You still have produced no evidence to even suggest that sexual predation has any connetion whatever with Pakistani culture.
What percentages are we talking about? What are the areas covered by the cases - a street, a district, a town, a county, the whole of the North of England - what?
None of this suggests that Pakistanis as a racial group are in any way prone to these crimes, and nobody has ever claimed such apart from Keith, and sadly, you.
"uncomprehending; and doctrinaire"
And you've even resorted to his rhetoric.
Produce your evidence based on actual figures and not random cases - otherwise we might as well just resort to measuring people's skulls to judge whether they are potential criminals - nice try - no cigar.
"I have undertaken to answer any, on subject, question you put to me."
Lucky old Cobra - I'm still waiting.
And by the way - I live in reland Not Ulan Bator - the Pony Express delivers newspapers - English, Irish, American, French, German, - here at least twice a year!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:29 AM

"I regard you as a deranged stalker"

Please explain.

The reality is that you have made so many outlandish claims and been caught out that I personally am disinclined to believe anything you say. You over-estimate your own worth if you think for one minute that I am remotely interested in anything about you and calling me a stalker is reprehensible in the extreme. It would delight you if you could paint me into the same sort of corner that you wish to put British Asians.

That ain't going to happen matey. But I still remain to be convinced about your claims to have been a teacher. And, FWIW, you know only too well that you can illustrate your experience in this area without disclosing any personal information whatsoever.

Is it that you won't do so, or is it that you cannot do so?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:24 AM

"Not one reference is made to Pakistani involvement."

I doubt anyone is attempting to suggest that the grooming of minors for the purposes of sexual exploitation, is something only Pakistani gangs participate in. I think what some people may be suggesting is that these particular "street grooming" crimes under discussion, closely resemble other examples of child grooming? Arguably, there is an area of overlap here between what typifies crimes involving the grooming of children for the purposes of sexual exploitation and what typifies crimes involving organised gangs engaging in international human trafficking for the purposes of financial gain?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:20 AM

No Cobra, the joke is on you.
Read the posts.
Lox wanted us to believe that researchers did not regard on street grooming as a separate crime.
This research has not even started yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:14 AM

Sorry I was wrong about where you live Cobra.
I have undertaken to answer any, on subject, question you put to me.
Just set them up, one or two at a time.

I am not comfortable answering questions about me personally, such as, "Please do share the extent and scope of your "teaching" experience. "

I regard you as a deranged stalker.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 10:08 AM

Oh dear! Does your pathetic Googling know no bounds???

More pertinent, have you actually READ the piece on that link? Did you read the "further links"? I did. And guess what? The BBC story relates to a policeman who was prosecuted for grooming a young boy. The issue of online grooming involved BBC reporters looking into this vile area and they found that, amongst the wider numbers, three people were online at the same time as them, actively seeking sexual contact with minors. These three people were teachers, according to their online personae. The only reference to anything resembling Race in ANY of the posted links made reference to the fact that it was a BBC Wales investigation and one assumes, therefore, that this crime was Wales-based.

Not one reference is made to Pakistani involvement. Not one, save in your twisted and bigoted little brain.

And, on the subject of teachers and CRB checks, and your indignation that anyone could consider you a nonce because of your claimed teaching background, do me one favour. Google for teachers convicted of sexual abuse and predatory behaviour. If you dare.

You are a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 09:57 AM

Why do you assume that I live in Ireland? If you had read my posts you would be aware that I have lived in England for many, many years and that I continue to do so. But then it is a ploy which you have attempted more than once on this thread. It is called moving the goalposts. And that is all your pathetic attempt to create a diversion by dragging Ireland into it is. Pathetic and grubby in the extreme.

As for your ongoing dissembling, refusal to address issues put to you, distortion of the contributions of others and continuing unwillingness to answer the points I have asked you to, I am quite content that you have been exposed for the shallow, racist and basically ignorant lout that you are. Your refusal to address the points raised by me and by others speaks volumes.

You claim to have been a teacher for over thirty years. Given your inability to apply logic or comprehension to the most basic of intellectual matters I very much doubt that. I also very much doubt that your personal style would allow you to escape censure if you were, indeed, a qualified and practising teacher. Please do share the extent and scope of your "teaching" experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 09:49 AM

This is a cut and paste Lox, OK?

The BBC is carrying out research into "on-street grooming", which is the term used to describe children in the UK being targeted by men for sexual abuse. This can be anything from being offered gifts from older boys to being asked to attend 'parties' with older men.

The sexual abuse of children is generally preceded by activity designed to ensnare them. For this reason the Sexual Offences Act 2003 actually has an offence of "grooming".

Section 15(1) of the Act carries the relevant offence:-

...

It may be thought that "on street grooming" is a modern phenomenon. However the Sexual Offences Act 2003 does in fact incorporate many of the previous statutes designed to stop certain kinds of predatory behaviour towards children. In fact, the criminal law has long sought to prohibit the procurement of children for abuse.


http://www.mjsol.co.uk/2011/uncategorized/bbc-report-street-grooming/

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 09:46 AM

That is indeed so ~~ and the statistics under consideration DID involve grooming, and DID NOT involve trafficking: so those of you disputing the question with irrelevancies about Romanians and trafficking are defending the, few but %age·wise over-represented grooming·but·not·trafficking Pakistani men who are the ones we are talking about, against accusations which nobody has made. Please note & take cognisance of that basic fact; and then, if you wish, return to the thread with some relevant objections to the points that are being made, instead of trying divert and deflect attention with dust-in-the-eyes about ones which are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 09:36 AM

YOU would like to conflate them Lox to obscure the issue under discussion, which is the street grooming and rape of children from certain cities (that happen to have a large BP minority.)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 09:34 AM

"Perhaps Lox, Jim and Cobra are at a disadvantage because this issue may not be fully reported in Ireland."

Well Keith, consodering that I have read all your "evidence" and provided more accurate and up to date evidence than you, AND BEEN BOTHERED TO READ IT, it appears that you are forming amother unsupported hypothesis.

But that is besides the point, because your last post is a deliberate attemot to wind up the Irish and merely goes to confirm your attitude.

Finally, and most ironically, I live in London so your last post also serves no further purpose than to prove that you are full of shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 09:30 AM

"personally I'd be disinclined to fully conflate street grooming with human trafficking"

Well currently that is what those ivolved in the researcg are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 09:01 AM

Does the street grooming of girls in UK represent an example of human trafficking, no different to any others? I don't know much about the subject, but my understanding is that street grooming differs in as much as the majority of human trafficking undertaken by organised gangs worldwide, is a financial endevour. Not a lot different in essence to any other form of slave trade, bar the 'services' so to speak provided by the slavers victims. Based on this difference, I would suggest that street grooming does not perhaps naturally fall into the same catagory of criminal activity as the international slave trade? It strikes me that it echoes more closely the covert sexual crimes of paedophile circles. As said, I don't know enough on the subject to offer an well informed opinion on the topic, but personally I'd be disinclined to fully conflate street grooming with human trafficking, as they appear to me to be somewhat different things.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 08:43 AM

The Romanian gangs traffic in women from abroad.
We are discussing the grooming and rape of children from the streets and public places of certain English cities.

Perhaps Lox, Jim and Cobra are at a disadvantage because this issue may not be fully reported in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 08:35 AM

"the small in actual numbers but great %age-wise over-representation of Pakistani males within those numbers in the grooming & group-exploitation of teenage females"

I have shown already that this isn't true.

The percentage in Romanian and other sex trafficking gangs is higher.


You don't have to like me, but the facts that I have posted are verifiable and checkable and stand scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 08:32 AM

"I first posted it to counter your ridiculous claim that there was no culture associated with BPs, just "wild generalsations"!"

I don't say that there is no culture.

I do say it is not homogenous.

I also say that your hypothesis is based on wild generalizations.

I say the same about Anne Cryer.


Remember keith, we are discussing YOUR hypothesis.

Your posts have so far been IN SUPPORT of that.


Including the one referred to above.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 08:20 AM

Jim: The evidence of the topic of this thread - the small in actual numbers but great %age-wise over-representation of Pakistani males within those numbers in the grooming & group-exploitation of teenage females - is in the convictions for this specific offence found in court records. What better evidence can you have than an undeniable statistic based on court convictions after properly conducted due-process, the occurrence or propriety of which have been disputed or contradicted by nobody.

best ~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 08:17 AM

I never made that jump Lox.
I first posted it to counter your ridiculous claim that there was no culture associated with BPs, just "wild generalsations"!
I posted it again because Don somehow missed it first time around

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 08:11 AM

"Lox, that piece makes clear that sexual repression is an issue.
It states that girls a married young so they are not tempted into intimate liasons, but men are left to marry late. "

No, it confirms only what it states which is that inter cousin marriages are common and that Women can be subject to a controlling patriarchal culture.

What the cause of this is, is not commented on, it could be religious or cultural, and how it connects with international or pakistani trafficking gangs is also not covered.

The jump from the comments made in the report to "british Pakistanis are closet Paedos" is a wild and totally unsupportable one as there are so many other variables involved.


Keith - you've become a stuck record.

Your understanding hasn't advance beyond your original hypothesis and you are recycling the first "evidence" you referred to.

Blinkers still on then.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 07:54 AM

"No it isn't, Jim."
Whatevet I might think of Keith, where is the evidence Mike?
Regards
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 11 - 07:53 AM

One or two at a time Don.
Set them up.