BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 11:52 AM

Oops! That last one was me.

"Cookie corrupted" apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 11:18 AM

Hyperthetically, if it were true, would it be racist?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 10:38 AM

"So, is it racist to say it if it happened to be true?"
Without documentary evidence truth is apparently what you claim to be true.
"We THINK this is the tip of the iceberg." -- my emphasis.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 09:30 AM

So, is it racist to say it if it happened to be true?
900

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 09:28 AM

Lox, I do not know what she meant by "the character" of the gangs so do not know if it contradicts, but this is unequivocal corroboration of what the other witnesses said,
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."

And Lox, where is this from?
"The authors of the only academic report on the subject say that the notion that these crimes represent a new crime type is wrong"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 09:19 AM

Keith - I have described your actions on another thread - whatever Joe decided at a later date, you overruled his decision and faked an identity. I don't follow football, but it amazes me that you weren't asked to leave the field and take an early shower (and debarred from playing in ---- future matches). The fact that you are still unable to see this says all that needs to be said.
"If it were true, would it be racist to say so."
Your quote
"I believe that sexual repression is behind this crime.
It is well known that it drives some men to commit sex crimes.
Apply it to a close knit community and it is a reasonable extrapolation that some will conspire in the crime."
"A sect in India called Thuggee were predisposed to murder."
Members of a 'sect' in Ireland were found to have raped children - probably for generations.
It is not racist or sectarian to point this out.
It would be sectarian to claim that all Catholics are potential rapists.
It would also be racist to claim that all Irish Catholics or Irish Catholics living in England, or Scotland, or wherever were potential rapists because they had been brought up in that religion.
"BPs are predisposed to marry cousins"
I really wouldn't go there if I were you, considering the history of our Royal family, and some of our own great and good.
I haven't witnessed anybody defending the darker side of Muslim culture (my own two favourite books of all times are 'Kite Runner' and, better still, 'A Thousand Splendid Suns'), but if history should have taught us anything it is (a) That it should be the job of members of any said culture to comes to terms with problems that aspects of that culture raises and put them right, and (b) Something about glass houses and stones!
Disapproving of aspects of any culture only when we are not depending on them for oil can be said to be selective racism, yes.
I understand that 'our friend in Libya' is no longer acceptable, though I did hear a nice Conservative lady minister tell an audience on Thursday night that it was ok to have sold the weapons that are now being used against demonstrators because "It is the right of all nations to defend themselves". It took an audience member to mention oil!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 09:18 AM

Keith Hypothesizes that recent trafficking crimes in the North of England are peculiar in nature to British Pakistani culture.

Helen Wilmer says that the crimes have the characer of those committed by International Gangs.


That is a flat contradiction of Keiths position.


Keith describes Street Greooming as being a distinct new crime type.

The authors of the only academic report on the subject say that the notion that these crimes represent a new crime type is wrong/


That is a flat contradiction of Keiths position.


So once again, Keith has to be clear whather he is a liar or merely wilfully ignorant.

Either way, his views misrepresent the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 09:15 AM

The fake guest Joy bringer actually stole the identity of an actual bigot!
You could not make that up!

From: GUEST,Joy Bringer - PM
Date: 27 Jul 08 - 03:24 PM

"Those who are the most vociferous in their condemnation of homosexuality often have issues with their own sexuality that they haven't the courage to face"

That old cry is worn out Don.

I used to hear it from the ladies at work if I remarked on some guy in the office who had a charm to care piles. I have always had a healthy interest in adult women. The thought of a man applying tissue damage to an annal passage of another man is repulsive. What is even worse is when you have to listen to them promote their filth on television or net. I don't come on here to tell you I jockeyed my girlfriend last night and this morning and go into detail. I came across a programme on Channel four last week were two fruit flies were detailing their bedroom games. I turned it off. Sickening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been contacted by a number of folks asking me, in my role as Forum Moderator, to do something about the homophobic posts by Joy Bringer. I have looked at these posts carefully, and I don't see anything that would constitute a reason for deletion or blocking. While I do not share this person's views, in fact I find them ugly, s/he is simply expressing an opinion in a thread about a controversial subject. It is not our role to screen posts for content, but rather to screen them for personal attacks, or in some cases, for hijacking of a thread. We might also delete if they are simply going for sensationalism with no content, or just attempting to be vulgar. None of those apply here. And one simply cannot have a thread about a subject of controversy and expect all posts to be what we like to hear. All the best, Big Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 09:04 AM

No contradiction there fake guest.

They are so desperate to smear me, it is comic.
They call me bigot and racist and liar, but because I am none of those things they have nothing on me.

All they have is that one post, to get back at a lying troll who Joe later accepted should never have been allowed to open the thread at all!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 08:23 AM

Cobra, put up any questions (max two per post) and I PROMISE to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 08:06 AM

Lox, I can't believe this!
"I have posted the ONLY academic study on this subject."

You refer to that Guardian piece that I have quoted and linked to, and jim for some reason has just pasted in the whole piece.

All the authors challenge is that all the victims were white.
I acknowledged they were not in my very first post on this subject, 23rd Jan.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 08:00 AM

So, Keith, you state: "Joe later admitted that was a mistake, and subjected him to the usual rules for anon. guests"

I think Joe was honest and showed that he is open to being influenced by the weight of others' opinions. That does not mean that he is diminished in any way in the eyes of others. Quite the contrary in fact.

And yourself? You still cannot acknowledge that what YOU did in that thread was wrong and no amount of squirming re your rationale will make that stark fact go away. You posted as someone else in order to subvert a thread. FACT. One sheep, old boy, one sheep....

Returning to this thread, you have continually evaded direct questions, refused to read posts seeking answers from you because they are too long(!) and "it would take days to respond". You have also avoided, ad nauseam, the specific issues raised regarding your WikiWarrior-ing, your Google C&Ps and your selective filleting of others' expert assessments, doing so to suit your own argument (but, then, you say you have no opinions of your own!)and on occasion completely subverting your chosen "experts') overall thesis.

Are you really surprised that you continually bring so much opprobrium on your head? For heavens sake, man, grow up!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 07:46 AM

Jim,
"Joe Offer, reasonably to my mind, pointed out the rule, but, as the poster was known to other members, allowed it to go ahead."

Joe later admitted that was a mistake, and subjected him to the usual rules for anon. guests.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 07:36 AM

Jim,
"Keith has done this, but he has taking it a step further by suggesting that this is not just individuals behaving abominably and illegally but is the result of their culture.
That, for me, is racism at its most dangerous "

Is it impossible for a culture to predispose to aberrant behaviour.
If it were true, would it be racist to say so.

An argument you may have missed.
A sect in India called Thuggee were predisposed to murder.
It is true.
Is it racist?

BPs are predisposed to marry cousins, resulting in very high child and infant mortality.
It is true.
Is it racist?
(Don says it is racist to call them BPs.
You are guilty Jim.
Oh dear, oh dear)

Lox,
"Helen Wilmer, (Keiths star witness) CONTRADICTS Keiths hypothesis."
No she does not.
She says that of the hundreds of victims she worked with the perpetrators are BPs

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 07:19 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 07:05 AM

Ha! you guys have surely lost the argument wupportinghen you start supporting " Oakville".....anyone reading Keiths link can work out he was taking the piss!

Later in the thread he was twice warned by Joe for trouble making.

Get a grip!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 07:01 AM

And then we examined those speculations to see if they had merit.

It turned out that the only reliable research contradicted them, and they didn't stande the test of scrutiny.

But Keith isists on sticking up for them.

At which point they cease to be speculation and become blinkered dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 06:56 AM

Jim [and others]:
Mike - "without proof" - The emphasis throughout this thread has been on 'documented' evidence - which is non-existant on the crimes Keith would lay at the door of Pakistani/Muslim culture as a whole. Jim Carroll
===
Despite the flak aimed at him, and the misdemeanours re Guest-posts defending himself brought up from his past record, I do not see Keith on this thread as trying to 'lay crimes at the door of Pakistani/Muslim culture as a whole'; or indeed 'at the door' of anyone. Rather, it seems to me, he has been explicitly speculating [and no more than that], on possible reasons for this demographic's acknowledged preponderance in the proved & documented offences whose existence you do not gainsay.

Some of his speculations may be true, others false; but speculations is all that I perceive them as being. It is surely a recognised fact, undisputed by their own community, that many Pakistani males do marry late, often in arranged marriages with relatives. It is surely worth at least a guess that such a situation might just have on a small minority of the men concerned a frustrating effect leading to their seeking some sort of relief elsewhere. Likewise it is surely the case that the 'infidel' is held in disrespect in certain sections of their community. And that some young binge-drinking females outside the Islamic community do behave publicly in an unworthy fashion which might lead some to consider their moral principles deficient. And all these facts taken as a whole might lead to the sort of speculations [which I say, yet again, is all I perceive them to be] in which Keith has been indulging.

Fair's fair ~~ to Keith as much as to everybody else, whatever may be considered his past record ~~

Isn't it?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 06:56 AM

Can we be clear what Keith actually did.
Against the rules of the forum, Guest Oakville opened the thread.
Joe Offer, reasonably to my mind, pointed out the rule, but, as the poster was known to other members, allowed it to go ahead.
Despite this ruling Keith, attempted to have Oakville ejected - he always has had a 'wannabe adjudicator' complex.
The thread went ahead, with Keith and the OP (and others of course) clashing thoughout - particularly on Ireland.
Keith then faked his posting in the OP's name, giving the impression that the latter had had a 'Road to Damascus' and had seen the light.
The OP was not trolling as claimed, but simply disagreeing with Keith - for which, no doubt, he will suffer hell-fire and eternal damnation!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 06:02 AM

Keith, seeing Lox's post, I thought I might help you out here as I know you will wish to respond. So, the following is posted on your behalf. I know it is what you would want to post and now I have saved you the bother. :-)

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

No, don't thank me. Always happy to help.

Now about my unanswered questions......

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 05:51 AM

I'm not really interested in trolls or slander.


In fact, slander is my big bugbear.


Racial Slander for example.


I have posted the ONLY academic study on this subject.

It CONTRADICTS Keiths hypothesis.


Helen Wilmer, (Keiths star witness) CONTRADICTS Keiths hypothesis.


In addition, I have pointeds out the flaws in Keiths arguments and pointed out the weaknesses in the OPINIONS of his little gang of "expert" politicians.


You have no case - just a desire to slander British Pakistanis.


You are not interested in discovering the truth, but only in proving that British Pakistanis are closet perverts.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 05:41 AM

You mean the one that includes this

"From: GUEST,Oakville - PM
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:18 PM
Keith, I have found no bigotry or slurs in your posts.
I take it back.
I am ashamed.
      This message appears to have been posted by Keith A of Hertford. That's not allowed, Keith - and you damn well know it.
      -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 05:14 AM

Here is that link again.
Read from here.
thread.cfm?threadid=113936&messages=92#2427855

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 05:11 AM

Now those trolling lying guests would be deleted .
Then I was left at their mercy.
I did complain about it.
Use the link I supplied.
So I used their guest identity to tease them and make them look silly.
Did you see how cross it made them?
No decpetion intended or achieved.
I was the good guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 05:03 AM

"I did it once under extreme provocation from trolling Guests lying about me and the mods ignoring it."
Make up your mind Keith - you claimed you did it is a joke because nobody would take it seriously - stick to the story we agreed on!!
"I still feel betrayed that Joe sided with the trolls."
Joe took the line that everybody else did - your behaviour was unacceptable, yet you continue to attempt to excuse it.
"Now I have to defend myself from Jim's personal attacks."
Not personal attacks Keith, just opposition to your abhorrent ideas
Mike
"without proof"
The emphasis throughout this thread has been on 'documented' evidence - which is non-existant on the crimes Keith would lay at the door of Pakistani/Muslim culture as a whole.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 04:55 AM

Now trolling guests, like this turd, get deleted (eventually)
Not so back then.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 04:13 AM

"Keith and his support for beligerant sectarian marches/use of chemical weapons on civilians/blaming children on three days of rioting/massacre of unarmed civilians/posting of fake messages......"

Fake messages.
I did it once under extreme provocation from trolling Guests lying about me and the mods ignoring it.
There was no intention to deceive. It was obvious what I was doing.
The troll would hardly not notice!
I still feel betrayed that Joe sided with the trolls.

Sectarian marches.
Sinn Fein said that hardly any of the parades ever cause trouble and they should be allowed to enjoy them.
I agreed.
Only one march caused troube, days before the parade, and the troublemakers were school kids and bussed in dissidents.
Even the Derry parades were trouble free.
Your problem can only be that you hate to see the prods enjoying their one cultural tradition.
That is sectarian.

Chemical weapons.
Jim insisted on calling white phosphorus smoke a chemical weapon.
No one else in the world defines it as such.
All armed forces use it, including the Irish.

Massacre of Civillians.
Well what's wrong with that?
That is disgusting Jim.

I am happy to be defending myself from personal attack.
They would not need to do it if their case was strong enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 03:59 AM

Jim,
"the undisputed fact that some Pakistani men have been involved in sexually preying on women, underage or otherwise"

Grooming is only a crime if against children.
As their id evedence that a disproportionate number of BPs are involved, it is quite reasonable to ask why.
People who know the culture, and some members of it blame the culture.
They convinced me.
That does not make me racist.

Now I have to defend myself from Jim's personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 03:54 AM

I take your point, Jim, about ill-motivated racists over-extrapolating from these small but unfortunate occurrences and statistics, and deplore such a misuse of the facts and statistics as much as anyone; but I maintain my point that your use of the phrase "without proof", with ref to occasions when convictions had been recorded after all due process, was unjustified and inaccurate. That, and the confusion occasioned by the word 'pimp' having been used in an inappropriate context, were really the only points at which I took issue with you. But I think they were genuine and justified points of disagreement which needed airing.

I hate racism as much as anyone; but I also deplore the use of the term as wolf-crying, smokescreen-spreading evasion of certain facts which some over-enthusiatic anti-racists will so often resort to ~~ the subject, indeed, of that other thread of mine to which you have expressed general agreement.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 03:25 AM

Mike,
My concerns throughout this argument have been that the undisputed fact that some Pakistani men have been involved in sexually preying on women, underage or otherwise has been taken out of proportion and used against British immigrants.
Not only do I believe that Keith has done this, but he has taking it a step further by suggesting that this is not just individuals behaving abominably and illegally but is the result of their culture.
That, for me, is racism at its most dangerous - 'These immigrants are not just evil, but are culturally damaged.
Below is the full text of an article posted by Keith, and used, IMO out of context.
Jim Carroll

CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING STUDY SPARKS EXAGGERATED RACIAL STEREOTYPING
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. Photograph: Gari Wyn Williams/Alamy
Researchers into child sex trafficking within the UK have warned of the dangers of racial stereotyping amid claims of a widespread problem of British Pakistani men exploiting under-age white girls.
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.
Researchers into child sex trafficking within the UK have warned of the dangers of racial stereotyping amid claims of a widespread problem of British Pakistani men exploiting under-age white girls.
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".
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.
The view points to the convictions of 56 men, all but three of whom were Asian and most from the British Pakistani community, found guilty of sexual offences involving on-street grooming. There have been 17 court cases in 13 urban areas in the north and Midlands since 1997.
The most recent case involved the conviction of nine men in November on sexual offence charges, relating to 27 victims in Derby, 22 of whom where white.
Nick Clegg has called such criminal pimping gangs "grotesque", and Keith Vaz, chair of the Commons home affairs committee, has called for a police inquiry.
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth organisation, has condemned the perpetrators, claiming they believed that "white girls have fewer morals" and are "less valuable" than Muslim 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."
Conclusions from their study were cited in an investigation by the Times into the subject, which sparked calls for Home Office research.
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."
According to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, in 2009, the victims were mainly "white British in their mid and late teens" but also Bangladeshi and Afro-Caribbean. Networks of "white British, British Asians and Kurds had been "identified" as internal traffickers, with ethnic and national background varied "between groups" and geography.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 02:46 AM

"Certain other contributors should also read them.........and learn."

Contributors to other 'British' threads too, where insults abound, personal feuds and vendettas are pursued, and very private dirty washing is aired.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:41 AM

The recent posts by Jim and Michael are a perfect example of how two people with diametrically opposed viewpoints, a firm grasp of the English language and decent writing skills can carry on an intelligent, civilised discussion which, whilst probably never leading to agreement between them, at least stands a chance of coming to a successful accomodation. A pleasure to read.

Certain other contributors should also read them.........and learn.

IMHO, YMMV etc., etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Feb 11 - 01:19 AM

Whatever might be Keith's record on other threads, Jim, I prefer to judge each case on its merits (a casuist, perhaps, in the non-pejorative sense), and it has seemed to me that he was being attacked here because of what he might have said elsewhere, regardless of whether or not what he said here made sense: which does not seem fair dealing to me.

Once again, the only allegations to which I, at any event, was referring thruout were those, few but statistically significant in their undisputed demographic disproportion, where convictions for the offence at issue [grooming, NOT immoral earnings &c] had occurred; and these are not 'without proof'. These are the ones commented on by Straw, Warsi & all those others, and to which Keith's comments were addressed as I perceived it. It is no argument to go on, which seems to have been the basis many on here were working on, about how many other demographics have been involved in how many other sex-related offences: might just as well say that a proven rapist should be acquitted because he wasn't the only one, and anyhow murder is worse and there are lots of murderers.

Which is why I engaged with your involvement here, Jim, & challenged your conclusions, which I will frankly say do not appear to me to be worthy of what I know to be your usual clear-thinking intellectual level. And indeed you have now pretty well admitted that, misled by loose use of the word 'pimp', you were under impression we were writing of a different offence from the one actually at issue. As you once said to me when I tried to defend Margaret T from some of her less rational detractors, you are better than that.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 08:04 PM

"They were not being made "without proof", Jim."
Yes they were Mike - nobody ever disputed the fact that some Asians were involved in grooming girls - they/we disputed that the grooming and pimping of girls was a major Asian(BP) acivity.
You seem to forget that some of us have been here before with Keith and his support for beligerant sectarian marches/use of chemical weapons on civilians/blaming children on three days of rioting/massacre of unarmed civilians/posting of fake messages......
I suggest you take a leaf out of Cobra's book and read through some of his disturbing (and disturbed IMO) postings. No matter how much the lady protesteth, it's all on record.
I'm awa' tae ma bed - g'night all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 05:28 PM

Jim,
"Keith's track record (on sectarianism particularly)."

A wicked groundless smear jim.
I have never made a post that could remotely be described as sectarian.
When we discussed the marches, I just put Sinn Fein's view.
Again, put up or shut up Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 04:42 PM

Oh, by the way, Jeri I assume it is me you are referring to as the "identity swiping troll"?

If so, who else have I been posting as???

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 04:37 PM

Jeri, them's the breaks.

Fella from the village I grew up was caught shagging a sheep.... one lousy sheep. He was known as Sheepshagger for the rest of his life.

One lousy sheep, one lousy time. That's all it took.

That's all it takes, Jeri. A bit like pregnant, if you think about it. There is no such thing as "a little bit pregnant".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 04:21 PM

Jim, that post where I made him say sorry for lying about me, I already explained.
It was not believable and never intended to be.
Use my link.

You also said ""and providing yourself with the support you were not getting elsewhere, as you also did)"

Not true.
I never have.
Nor have I used the word pimp.

Lox, in that years old thread, you asked for the source for my statement about IRA, Nazis and cleansing Europe of Jews.
The Ireland History site was down then.
If you are still interested, here it is.
http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume13/issue3/features/?id=113841

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 04:02 PM

Some of you people are idiots.

Keith post that message pretending to be someone else ONCE and got caught.

It was over two years ago.

Our identity swiping troll, the one who keeps posting Keith's old, OLD message has posted as other people uncountable numbers of times, but you're all out to get Keith.

Trolls are just fine with you as long as they're persecuting someone you don't like, right?

You don't look terribly strong or righteous when you get the identity grabbers to speak for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 03:54 PM

They were not being made "without proof", Jim. The point is, they were based on comparatively small numbers but greatly preponderant %age-wise as to the demographic under consideration, of judicial convictions for this specific offence of grooming-exploitation of under-age girls. As they were based on actual convictions, they can scarcely be claimed to be unproved. And my point throughout has been that to denounce these facts, which are not ∴ unproved, or even in dispute, as instances of racism is liable to be counter-productive and inimical to genuine objections to genuine instances of racism, for the reasons adduced on my "catch-all" thread, with which you have expressed yourself as in agreement. The idiomatic phrase, based on Æsop, for such counter-productive activities is 'crying wolf'; which it seems to me is what Lox, Steve, Don & the rest have been doing right thru this thread.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 03:36 PM

"Put up or shut up"
It's already been put up Keith - read the posts - but here goes again:
"Keith, I have found no bigotry or slurs in your posts.
I take it back.
I am ashamed."
The reference you put up leading to your posting as 'Oakville' confirms this exactly - a fake post - what's your point?
"Jim I never referred to pimping, unless it was in a quote."
There were numerous quotes - really can't be bothered counting them - which included the term 'pimp' - you chose the quotes, it's a little late to disassociate from it when it becomes 'inconvenient'.
Also, when I and others asked you to clarify your stance on Pakistani "pimping" you made it perfectly clear that you had no problem with the term.
Please Keith - when you're in a hole, stop digging! Once again I'm beginning to feeling a little embarrased on your behalf.
Mike;
You may well be right that 'pimping' has been used as a shorthand; it's a long thread and I came to it quite late.
My concern is, and remains, that accusations of a crime were being made, without proof, against a single national/religious (bit of an ambiguity there as well) community, and it is this which persuaded me to join in, especially given Keith's track record (on sectarianism particularly). I would probably have reacted similarly if the accusation had been driving without license and insurance!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 02:43 PM

If anyone wants to see my supposed deception in context, read from here, and make up your mind.
thread.cfm?threadid=113936&messages=92#2427855

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 02:36 PM

Jim I never referred to pimping, unless it was in a quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 02:34 PM

Jim,
"and providing yourself with the support you were not getting elsewhere, as you also did)"

Never happened JIm.
That is untrue.
Put up or shut up.

The other one could never have been taken to really be the Troll.
It was obvious to anyone and everyone it was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 02:27 PM

Yes, that is so indeed, Jim; and I did not intend to convey there is no ref to 'pimping'. But I think the word misused in context: the main trend of the thread has been to address those statistics which are the ones on which Straw, Ahmed, Warsi, Alibhai Brown, Hilary ?? et al were commenting, which appeared to show an astounding %age preponderance of British Pakistani men involved in grooming underage girls for sexual exploitation; and to which the application of the word 'pimping' was something of a shorthand catachresis. Did you not find it so in going back over it? It is this which, I believe, inspired Brian May to OP the thread; & certainly which drew the greatest reaction of 'racism' accusations from Lox, Steve, Don T. et al; &, latterly it appeared to me, yourself. Even if that was not your principal point, that nevertheless seems to me to fit in with the flow of the thread.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 02:00 PM

Mike
"I would point out that you refer once again to 'prostitution' in your reply to Keith in the same post."
Just checked - throughout this thread posters, Keith included, have referred to "pimps' and "pimping".
A pimp, according to my dictionary, is someone who lives off the earnings of prostitutes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 01:23 PM

Keith, with respect, if anyone is an obsessive it is surely you. Reading your previous posts was not a pleasant chore, let me assure you. However, I felt it only fair to look at your ouevre in its entirety so as not to fall into the tendency for demonisation which we have all seen on messageboards.

Far from being an ad hominem attack on you, looking over your back catalogue has been a salutary experience. You manufacture theories on the flimsiest of fact and you come across as much more driven by opinion - usually at the expense of fact. You are opinionated in the extreme. That is no crime in itself, however the overwhelming majority of highly opinionated people have taken the time to look meaningfully at existing data and information and then present their own coherent and logical synthesis. You do not do that. You merely Google newspaper reports and regurgitate them verbatim, or selectively filleted to endorse your own view.

This is also interesting in that you have actually owned up, on this thread, to having no opinion of your own and that you are merely restating what other, more qualified people are claimed by you to have said. It is clear from your input that the context in which others have spoken or contributed newspaper etc articles means nothing to you. And yet, you have the temerity to accuse me of having a "twisted agenda". You have yet to explain precisely what is my agenda and how you have deduced it.

You have also persistently fought shy of answering direct questions, most recently two days ago when I invited you on a number of occasions to address the points I had raised. You refused to do so because it "would take days" and then you asked me to resubmit my issues one at a time as it would be easier for you that way. Reading your back catalogue has made it very clear that this is your stock in trade. It is easy to dissemble, to prevaricate and to indulge in sophistry. You have done it with abaandon on virtually every thread with which you have been involved. In fact, I would go as far as to say yours is the classical behaviour of a messageboard troll.

I will not allow you to claim an ad hominem attack. The archive speaks for itself and your claim that you were playing a game in responding to your own posts is patently ridiculous. Your latest diversionary tactic has been to ascribe WORDS IN BLOCK CAPITALS which you would have us believe are all Lox and others have said to you. But, yet again, this is merely a smokescreen to cover up the fact that your arguments are intellectually bereft and you have once again resorted to the victimhood role you have so often adopted in the past when you run out of logical argument.

No sir, reading your previous posts was neither obsessive nor done in anger. It was, nevertheless, a salutary experience showing as it did that you are an incredibly one-dimensional individual, your posts demonstrating that you are consistently lacking in intellectual vigour or, indeed, honesty. The good news is that, having done it once, I can now consign the memory to the dustbin.

I would suggest to you that the mark of a real obsessive is the creation of aliases and imaginary friends. If messageboards have that effect on you, I would suggest that you get out before you slide further into lunacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 01:16 PM

"If you can find any actual deception by me,"
Posting as you did under an alias (and providing yourself with the support you were not getting elsewhere, as you also did) is deception Keith - as is trying to pass it off as a joke when you're caught out.
"It means they have lost the argument."
Sorry to be the bearer of (yet more) bad news, but superior argument 'wins' arguments, not (yet more) empty rhetoric.
I'd quite like to know what the 'child abuse' bit was all about as well.
Mike;
My 'religious' stance reference was made generally and should not have been addressed directly to you - I'm pretty sure you know where I stand spiritually.
Was under the impression that prostitution was one of the issues here - I apologise if I have misunderstood - will read through this somewhat tortuous thread again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 12:42 PM

I give up Cobra.
Who is he?
You say you have reviewed my posts since joining.
Nearly 5000.
You sad man to be so obsessed.
If you can find any actual deception by me, I will make no more posts for you to scrutinise.
That is an easy promise for me to make.
I am always happy when the opposition switches to character assasination.
It means they have lost the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 26 Feb 11 - 12:17 PM

Keith writes:-

"Cobra, I have never pretended to be anyone else.
It was obvious to all that the troll would never have admitted his lie and said sorry.
It was obviously me playing games with him.
No deception."

Sorry matey, that just does not cut it. You were yellow-carded. And not just once. Too easy to claim the "playing games" with a troll defence.But I suppose when all else fails, dissembling and making things up will always be in your toolkit.

And then there is this:-

"In all my researches on this, I have found no evidence at all of this kind of child abuse in Ireland.
I hope that is a comfort to you, Lox and Jim."

What, exactly, has this got to do with the price of eggs? Not relevant and an unecessary diversion on your part. Presumably you see it as some class of a tactical manouevre?

So, who IS Bill Woodcock? Let me put it another way.... does he share your house with you? Or is he merely an imaginary friend?