BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 09:08 AM

I asked several times for your explanation Lox.
This is the only time you responded.
You start by quoting me, but never answer.


"you have no alternative ideas."

The subject of the thread isn't "paedophile Gangs"

The subject is "Muslim Prejudice".

Is prejudice against Moslems an issue? Is it understandable? Why? What reasons? ...

... well one is that "they" traffick young white girls ...

(this is presumably after they've come over here and taken our jobs)

Well actually, this has nothing to do with Islam, or Pakistani culture, and there is no evidence or reliable argument that supports that accusation.

Wait - hang on - Keith thinks there is ... and he will fight to the bitter end to try to prove it, even when the very weak evidence he has provided is shown not to give any weight to the views he thinks are "reasonable".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 08:50 AM

Three Labour politicians, one of whom now a Labour peer.
I absolutely do not want special treatment for any group.
Why do you claim that?

I still can not find your explanation for the over representation.
It is not laziness.
Are you sure you ever gave one?

No explanation is provable.
All that can be said is that they are consistent with the facts.
If they are then they warrant consideration.
No flaws have been found in the explanations of Straw, Cryer or Ahmed.
Have they?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 08:10 AM

.


               300


.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 08:09 AM

Keith, why don't you read it for yourself.

It is all in this thread.

It isn't Steve's or my responsibility to recycle it for you if you are too lazy to read it through and try to understand my arguments yourself.

I will know you have read them when your responses reflect that you have digested their meaning and understood them.

Intelligent debate requires intelligent engagement with opposing viewpoints.

In your case, it mainly involves sidestepping inconvenient information and rationale, selective quotation of your opponents, the creation of straw men and tunnel vision.

Noone has said that Moslems or British Pakistanis deserve special treatment ... that is ...

... Noone except you and Ake ... who argue that they should be treated differently on the basis that you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls, while the same crimes committed by other cultures must therefore inspired by a different motivation.

YOU, Ake, Jack Straw, Anne Cryer, Lord Ahmed and that Daily Mail columnist are the ones who think that British Pakistani culture should be treated differently.

I have been refuting that and arguing that ALL sexual criminals operate from the same motivation.


So Keith and Ake, why should British Pakistaani Moslems be given special treatment?

You've been trying to back up this idea for around a week now and still haven't provided any evidence more compelling than the point of view of two labour politicians, a House of Lords Peer, and a Daily Mail columnist.

I think thats quite long enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 07:49 AM

So you could give us his explanation of the over representation, and the logical flaws he found in the others?
Please.

And, do you think young BP girls are allowed out at night?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 06:07 AM

Lox explained all that to you, Keith. And he did a very good job. Read and learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 06:05 AM

My God! You can't even trust a weasel these days!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 06:00 AM

The other "elephant in the room", conveniently ignored by people like Don, is that senior police sources say "we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg in these prosecutions."
Child protection agencies and even the police are afraid to investigate complaints, as these investigations are portrayed as racial attacks and bigotry by "liberals".

Educate yerself as to weasel words. Here are the examples from the Wiki article:

"A growing body of evidence..." (Where is the raw data for your review?)

"People say..." (Which people? How do they know?)

"It has been claimed that..." (By whom, where, when?)

"Critics claim..." (Which critics?)

"Clearly..." (As if the premise is undeniably true)

"It stands to reason that..." (Again, as if the premise is undeniably true—see "Clearly" above)

"Questions have been raised..." (Implies a fatal flaw has been discovered)

"I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)

"There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)

"Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)

"It has been mentioned that..." (Who are these mentioners? Can they be trusted?)

"Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)

"Commonsense has it/insists that..." (The common sense of whom? Who says so? See "Popular wisdom" above, and "It is known that" below)

"It is known that..." (By whom and by what method is it known?)

"Officially known as..." (By whom, where, when—who says so?)
"It turns out that..." (How does it turn out?)

"It was noted that..." (A commonly used start of a line by Auditors with poor workpapers or little evidence)

"See why more of our trucks are sold in Southern California than in any other part of the country." (Southern California is a big vehicle market.)

"Nobody else's product is better than ours." (What is the evidence of this?)

"Studies show..." (what studies?)

"(The phenomenon) came to be seen as..." (by whom?)

"Some argue..." (who?)

"Up to sixty percent..." (so, 59%? 50%? 10%?)

"More than seventy percent..." (How many more? 70.01%? 80%? 90%?)

"The vast majority..." (All, more than half—how many?)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:53 AM

Not a liar Lox.
Maybe I do lack the comprehension skill, but I genuinely can not remember you explaining the over representation.
Will you remind me?
Also the logical flaws you found in the explanations of Straw, Cryer and Ahmed.

I think you are wrong about Steve.
He probably does think Muslim daughters are not allowed out at night.
It is a commonplace.
He will tell us.
It is exactly the generalisation you said I should not make.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:51 AM

I can't recall what I said that originally seems to have offended Lox so much; but it led somehow to my [a perfectly normal, twice happily-married, tho approaching 80th year, man] having become subject of his most peculiar fantasies: first of his coprophilia, and now of his bondage-orientation.

I'm not so much worried or offended for myself, as concerned for the state of (what passes for) his mind. For goodness' sake, Lox, ease off & stop breathing so heavy, before you do yourself a mischief.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,alan Whittle
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:48 AM

Okay. One last try. Then I'm off to join the weasels.

How about if everybody stated their point of view on this subject without giving an opinion of the other guy with the seemingly opposing view?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:30 AM

Thanks for that, Lox. You saved me from having to do a lot of typing there. Yes, they really have started to crawl out of the woodwork now, haven't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:28 AM

Oh no, I forgot about Lord Ahmed.

Well Keith, I caan tell you that I have lived in a Moslem Ghetto significantly more recently than him.

I doubt very much if he has set foot in any of the poor Moslem areas for a good twenty years, unless it was to collect rent.

I lived in Britains most thriving Moslem community for a year aand a half, and I lived side by side with Pakistani moslems, and looked after their kids and they looked after mine throughout that time.

Being an opinionated person, i talked, deebated, argued with annyone who had aa point of view, and that was everyone from the very old to the very young, men and women.


But all that is by the by.


Opinion does not constitute testimony unless it is supported by evidence. Opinion is not evidence in its own right.

There is no evidence that Pakistani sex crimes are driven by a different motivation than other sex crimes. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that Pakistani culture by nature inevitably compels its constituents to be driven to sex crimes where other cultures don't.

This is clearly slander until research can show otherwise.

Keith could start developing his literacy by learning the difference between expert testimony and vague political opinion.

I think it is very sad that people should spend so much of their lives trying to prove that other cultures are Bad.

Especially as, while they are doing it, more sex crrimes are probably being comitted.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:13 AM

"Just negativity. The theories were wrong but he would not say why, just heaping abuse on the authors.
And no alternative theory."

Keith, the above ius either a lie or you are illiterate.

All of the above have been provided, you have just chosen to ignore them and your tunnel vision has been very specifically focussed on bolstering your hypthesis.

On which subject, I'm glad to see that more 'powerful' evidence has been provided to support your case.

The personal opinion of two politicians has been corroborated in undeniable scientific fashion by the opinion of a columnist for the daily mail.

So I suppose that settles it.

Interesting that since I dropped out Ake, Keith and GfS have all staged such a courageous comeback.

Also interesting that Keith should so brazenly misrepresent my posts.

Again, it shows one of two things - he is either a liar or he doesn't have the comprehension skills to understand.

None of his misrepresentations of my posts of course com eclose to this unbelievable bit of selective quoting.

Steve says: "Maybe the Muslim mums and dads wouldn't let their Muslim daughters out at night, that's why. There, achy tony. A stupid reply to your stupid points."

i.e, that would be a stupid point to make.

i.e he doesn't think so.

i'e he doesn't think thats really the reason.

Keith chops off a few words at the end and attributes this view to Steve.

"the Muslim mums and dads wouldn't let their Muslim daughters out at night"

And in addition, then puts the point to Steve that that therefore I would see him as peddling racist ideology.


I think on that point alone Keith blows his cover as a serious debater or even a person of integrity.

I would recommend to Alan and Steve to let this thread die, as it only exists so that the saddos can get attention.

That includes Ake, Keith, GfS and MtheGM, who really should be wheeled back in and strapped down before he hurts himself with the Play-dough cutlery.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 05:12 AM

well i don't see liberal as a term of abuse. I think people should have as much freedom as possible.

Really theres too much abuse going on in this conversation for proper communication to take place. 'Weasel words' for godsake. Weasels don't talk.

On second thoughts - perhaps they do have learned debates with other weasels. Perhaps they have the answer to all our differences, and that's what we need - a weasel dialectic.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 04:44 AM

Sorry GfS....Good to see you again.   Busy makin' music?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 03:51 AM

Steven, these criminals dont require to perform their crimes in the "name of Allah", or strictly in compliance "with the Koran", they only require to be brought up in the midst of a culture which views the behaviour of our children as unclean and immoral.

As I stated earlier,even if this assertion was true, it does not give any other culture the right to practice racism against them, or dehumanise them into sex objects to be used.....often not for money, but to family members.

Regarding your last post, the norms referred to I suppose were society's norms. The norms of producing and contributing to an extended family.....normal breeding patterns....the norms which stabilise humanity and produce some sort of order in human existence.
Simply tacking a word like "marriage" on to certain types of human behaviour, does not make it necessarily beneficial to society.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 01:44 AM

"Muslim mums and dads wouldn't let their Muslim daughters out at night, that's why."
Undeniably true, but a generalisation about BP culture.
To Lox, you are now a bigot Steve.
Welcome.
He would not even accept that " BP girls are discouraged from engaging in courtship."

Don you referred to Lox providing facts.
I wish you would remind me what they were.
I do not remember any.
Just negativity. The theories were wrong but he would not say why, just heaping abuse on the authors.
And no alternative theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Feb 11 - 01:20 AM

Akenaton: "As Al says your remark was insulting. I certainly don't accuse you of stupidity."

Well you're a patient and forgiving man, Akenaton. I think he has shown immeasurable amounts of stupidity in here, plenty of times!

Now as to the topic, It's sorta hypocritical, that many people, some in here, blast all Christians, because of what the Catholic Church did during the inquisition, so they paint all Christians with that brush, even when the Catholic Church was killing Christians who would not fall under their 'authority'...the same can be said about the Muslims, and the more radical zealots who are being CONNED by their 'superiors'. You'd think that that a Muslim, who thinks that blowing himself up, taking a lot of innocent people with him, was a sure way to martyrdom, and an 'E-Ticket to Heaven' to shake hand with Allah, and ask him where the 72 babes are, you'd think they'd be the first in line!!!...but No-o-o-o, they've gotta' hustle the simple-minded ones to do their dirty work, so that they, the 'leaders' can reap the benefits of this temporal 'power'(?)....maybe be 'King' of an area!

Some of you get pissed off at a Nativity scene, or a cross, on the grounds of separation of church and state, but give leniency to having Sharia law accommodated within our form of government. ..and Sharia law has direct allowances for parents 'honor killing' their children!...Go figure!
I guess its the liberal thing to think.....until it hits home!

GfS

P.S. Hi, Ake was just thinking about you the last couple days...we finally crossed paths again....Regards!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 07:22 PM

Oh God, please read the thread, will you. Nice recanting there, by the way, saying that you were being "light-hearted." Ha bloody ha. And the Daily Mail bit of mine you quoted was a deadly serious challenge to your received wisdoms. I repeat. Show me that these young men did what they did in the name of Islam and I'll let you off saying your intolerant things like "Pakistani Muslim men towards young British girls..."

To show I make an effort, I read that tosh from Ms Phillips, whom God preserve, that you linked to. How wonderful the experience was. I mean, take this gem:

And the problem with the gay agenda, it has always seemed to me, is that it has sought instead to commandeer the public sphere by ­dictating a profound change in the moral norms of our society — indeed, to destroy the very idea of moral norms at all.

Ha, whose moral norms? Hers? (heaven forfend!) Christian ones? Establishment ones? Nice bit of moral imperialism there!

To cap that, as if that were possible, she doesn't miss the opportunity further down the article to have a pop at Islamic attitudes to gay people. Well, there's irony for you!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 07:03 PM

Steven ....I dont generally abuse people on this forum.
As Al says your remark was insulting. I certainly dont accuse you of stupidity.

Further up this thread, I believe I said that I thought you daft. That was intended as a lighthearted response to what I presumed to be some banter from you.

"Ah, the Daily Mail on Mudcat. Can you demonstrate that the young men in question performed their actions in the name of Allah, were pointing to Mecca chanting prayers during the rapes, or were following instructions in the Q'ran? Don't be so bloody daft."

Now that statement is deliberately obstructive, as the attitude of some Muslim Pakistani men towards young British girls has been adequately illustrated by the statements of those most closely associated to the Pakistani Muslim community including members of that community.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 06:42 PM

Who's abusing who, Alan? Same old "liberal double standards" shite all over again innit. And just look at the plethora of weasel words in his latest post. Not exactly debate as we know it, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 06:11 PM

'A stupid reply to your stupid points'

that's just abuse. in a way though Steve, I hope you're right and its just scare mongering. like I say. let's not argue, or take up positions....lets see what happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:52 PM

Maybe the Muslim mums and dads wouldn't let their Muslim daughters out at night, that's why. There, achy tony. A stupid reply to your stupid points. All they deserve really.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:40 PM

The other "elephant in the room", conveniently ignored by people like Don, is that senior police sources say "we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg in these prosecutions."
Child protection agencies and even the police are afraid to investigate complaints, as these investigations are portrayed as racial attacks and bigotry by "liberals".

Contrast the views of "liberals" to the RC priest abuse scandal and this racism being practiced by muslim men against young white or non-muslim girls. Not one of the victims was Muslim!

Only a fool could fail to see the double standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:25 PM

and more specifically Muslim gangs

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:04 PM

This thread has of course become a wonderful example of "Orwellian liberalism" in action.

As Keith attempts to engage in meaningful discussion without rancour, the "liberals" line up to demonise him...disgusting.

The real issue is double standards, exactly what we have seen on all the controversial threads is happening again, if an issue which is in conflict with the "liberal" agenda cannot be proved conclusively, discussion is blocked and shrill screams of "bigot" are heard.

Strangely enough, the "liberals" will proclaim the rightness of THEIR causes on no evidence whatsoever......usually "Its just not fair"

As Al says perhaps we shall see the truth emerge from the rubble of our destroyed kids.....but I have not much faith in our justice system to stand against the minority pressure groups.
It is all too easy to break honest men on the wheel of "liberal fascism"

Melanie Phillips, a woman whom I oppose on all political issues,
puts the position succinctly.


Melanie Phillips

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:03 PM

Sorry if I misjudged your mood Don.
You certainly came across as angry.
Just unfriendly?

If you are challenging that there is an unusual distribution here, I will happily discuss that with you.
We have been accepting that.

If it is real, then why?
I did not offer the explanations of Straw, Cryer and Ahmed over those of others.
No other explanation has been offered.
It is like a taboo.
Also no one has found fault with those suggestions.
Obviously they can not be proved, but how is it justified to dismiss them out of hand?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 04:55 PM

From the Yorkshire News if this helps fill some gaps Don.

Derby was typical of a pattern of exploitation being tracked by police and experts around Britain.

The girls tended to be 16 or younger. Often they were from challenging backgrounds - homes with inconsistent parenting, or with a history of alcohol or drug problems.

And there is one controversial factor that many of the experts in the field are often not happy to discuss freely. The race of the abusers.

The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 03:58 PM

In fairness to Keith, he didn't have to search very far. The front page of a quality (albeit right wing) newspaper - with a shit hot record for hot potato subjects - like the MP's fiddling their allowances.

Anyway - we'll find out soon enough - now the cats well ansd truly out of the bag, If there is any substance to these allegations - there are bound to be more prosecutions.

Its a bit reminiscent of the 1960's when people went about singing about pot, banging on endlessly about its benefits and that the society was 'straight'. The 'straights' went on the warpath and kicked the shit out of us.

Could it be, people have got a bit pissed off with being told that we are a secular society, all our children have no morals, and we are degenerate - often by very rich societies that can't be arsed to feed their poor.

If you go looking for a fight with 'the man' - you risk the odd poke in the mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 03:35 PM

""An ethnic group is found to be over represented in a particular crime, and suggestions offered as to why.
Storming out in anger.
Yes.""

This red herring is past its sell by date. Over the whole of the UK, Asians and Muslims are a small minority of the population, but they are not evenly spread throughout the UK.

There are localised areas in which they are in fact a majority, and if, within the confines of those areas there is a criminal gang operating, that gang is likely to consist mainly of Asians and/or Muslims.

Anger?.......NO! LOGIC!


""But 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.""

Don't be taken in by the glib rhetoric DeG.

Thirteen years........17 cases.........53 Muslims.........3 Non-Muslim Asians of unspecified ethnicity,.......and 3 whites who may or may not have been Muslims themselves.

Did anybody ask them?.......No matter.

Take it at face value, and apply a little logic, as requested by Keith.

Breaking the figures down we have:

Average, one case every 9.18 months for 156 months.

Average, 3.29 defendants per case, of which 2.93 Muslims, 0.18 Non Muslim Asians, and 0.18 whites.

So, an average of three Muslims, one fifth of a non-Muslim Asian, and one fifth of a white whatever, are caught committing this crime once every nine months.

We have no idea how many other whites commit the same crime, because the commentators, including our own minority bashers haven't bothered to make the comparison with non Pakistani, and non-Muslim gangs.

Can anybody here suggest that, in the absence of that comparison, the above figures have even the most ephemeral statistical significance?

If so, I'd like a joint of whatever you're smoking.

LOGIC Keith!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 01:45 PM

""It is not a single gang in a single case.
But 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.""

Seventeen cases in thirteen years, over what catchment area, and as compared to how many in that area where there were no Asian or Muslim defendants?

You really can't just quote selective figures without putting them in context.

For example, if those seventeen cases were in the same court, or a few very local courts, the defendants could very well have been members of the same gang, in fact almost inevitably would be, given that most gangs are intolerant of rival gangs on their turf.

If the seventeen cases were spread over a much wider area, then they would not be statistically significant unless compared with the number of cases with few, or no, Asian or Muslim defendants.

You see, while you search uncritically for anything or anyone to bolster your anti Muslim bias, I use my rational faculties to produce logical counter arguments.

You are wrong about something else too. I am not angry, because your inability to handle a simple discussion is your problem and not worth my anger, or even irritation.

You ask why we can't have a normal discussion? I'll tell you why!

1. Because one of us is unwilling or unable to discuss anything rationally.

2, Because one of us believes that quoting the opinions of self styled experts trumps both rational thinking and rational argument.

3. Because one of us actually believes what he reads in the papers, and believes that "expert" opinion is fact, relieving him of the responsibility for policing his own prejudices.

4. Because one of us can't be bothered to read what other people post in discussion, much less respond to its content.

""I will not storm out, but I will not put up any more evidence.
I am prepared to discuss rationally, or leave it there.
Over to you.""

1. You have thus far not put up any evidence other than hearsay.

2. You have had ample opportunity to discuss, rationally or otherwise, and have as yet shown no inclination to do so.

3. By all means do storm out, or stay. Your presence or absence is a matter of total indifference to me.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:54 AM

I got it from this Telegraph piece, which takes the quote from the Times.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8240202/Cover-up-claims-over-Asian-sex-gangs.html
It has not been challenged even in the liberal press

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:35 AM

Not me Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:26 AM

But 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.


That is indeed a very alarming statistic. I assume it is verified, Keith? But are we working on the same basis that in the 70's and 80's most youths involved in stop and search operations were black? I am not disagreeing or agreeing - just wondering if the figures have been skewed by an inherent predjudice against asian gangs by police? Or are the groups of non-moslem paedophiles more sophisticated and not as easy to convict?

Genuine curiousity on my part - No axe to grind. Hopefuly valid questions to ask but I don't know if anyone here is qualified to answer:-(

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 05:23 AM

A rationality test.

Studies have been done to see how different cultural groups benefit from British education system.
Anyone angry about that?

Pakistanis were found to be high achievers.
Angry?
Afro Caribbean boys, and especially white working class boys, were found to be disadvantaged.
Angry yet?
Studies are underway to see how these cultural factors can be overcome.
Anyone need to storm out?
Of course not.
That would be irrational.

An ethnic group is found to be over represented in a particular crime, and suggestions offered as to why.
Storming out in anger.
Yes.
But why?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 03:40 AM

"Keith, Our conversation is over"
·····

To tune of The Wicked Witch Is Dead ~~~

♫Hey-ho
Bravo bravo
Hey hey hey
Oh frabjous day
Hey hey the noxious Lox is gone♪ ...

Maybe

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 11 - 02:14 AM

Repeated storming in and storming out is just as irrational as your earlier ranting anger.
Why can we not have a normal discussion?
Don, you are very angry, without even familiarising with the issue.
It is not a single gang in a single case.
But 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.

For a minority group that is a massive over representation that is not seen in other crimes.
The question why has to be asked.
Not by us of course, but I did not start it.

Respected, intelligent people with intimate knowledge of the culture have put forward plausible explanations.
Why does that make you angry?
It is irrational.

However plausible, no explanation is provable.
One consequence of the culture of cousin marriage is a large over representation of Pakistanis in infant mortality and crippling genetic disease.
The link here IS provable but that debate has also been rejected as racist by many in the community.
Is that rational?

I will not storm out, but I will not put up any more evidence.
I am prepared to discuss rationally, or leave it there.
Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 08:03 PM

""He told the BBC there was "a constant theme of demonisation of the Muslim community" and that politicians were jumping on a bandwagon by "having a go" at Muslims.""

And now, along with Keith A of Hertford, he has decided to book a seat on that same bandwagon!!

Figures!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 07:57 PM

""Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Muslim youth group the Ramadan Foundation said 53 out of the last 65 convictions for grooming had involved British Pakistanis.""

Hardly surprising as it was a single, LOCAL, gang with 53 Pakistani members and 12 of their non Pakstani friends.

I hope this is short enough for your self confessed miniscule attention span Keith.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 06:47 PM

Keith,

Don't be an idiot.

I'm not running from anything.

You have done nothing to demonstrate that sex crimes committed by Pakistani Moslems are different to sex crimes committed by anyone else.

The thread above shows this to be true and anyone reading it will see for themselves.

My arguments, which you have ignored and which expose more than enough reasonable doubt, stand unchallenged, as do the factual examples I have provided, which you have also ignored.

Your determination to hang on only shows one thing - that you really really want to prove that Pakistanis Moslems are different and that their sex crimes come from a different motivation.

If thats what you want then go for it.

You probably see it as a challenge to win such a debate.

I live in the real world.

Now I really have to go back to it because:

1, your fantasy world is unpleasant.

2, anyone who takes the time to read this thread from the start will note
a, your bias,
b, your inability to answer about 70% of the points I have made and
c, that the evidence which shows undeniably that these crimes are cross cultural is a lot stronger than the "evidence" (second hand opinion) which suggests they are peculiarly "British Pakistani".

Your selective mind is clearly able to shut out the bits you don't like, and now mine is going to shut you out.

If I'm running from you, its in the way that a parent 'runs' from their 14 year old when they say "I've heard what you have to say, and you still aren't allowed to go clubbing tonight - the conversation is over".

Keith, Our conversation is over.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 05:59 PM

Nobody's running or turning away, Keith. We have minds of our own and, whilst we listen to these pundits you keep throwing at us as if they have the monopoly on the last word, we prefer to use those brains we've been endowed with. Not just go with the flow. Listen to the beat of the distant drummer, etc. Think for ourselves. Blair was an amazingly authoritative guru on the WMDs, remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 04:57 PM

"..there are so many more desirable things to converse..."
Yes there are.
I would not have instigated this discussion.
Neither did Lox, but he was at it for three days before I joined in.

Denying the reality of a problem is not the way to deal with it.
I tried to persuade him to confront the truth of it.
He chose to turn away.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 04:34 PM

I suppose it is Keith that there are so many more desirable things to converse with this non homogenous community about.

If there is criminality - then the authorities will deal with it and it will sink in that, that's not the way to go.

What will our arguments do other than show our suspicion and dislike, and give succour to those elements in our society that would have us fighting.

The act as committed is not sanctioned by any respectable spiritual leader. God knows there wacko christian groups advocating bad stuff. But thats what they are....... wackos. Human kind knows when it is acting cruelly or badly.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 04:10 PM

Straw and Cryer, impeccable.
Ahmed, an undisputed authority.
He grew up in the British Pakistani community and served it as a Labour Party local politician for his whole life.
A friend to the working class Lox.
I don't blame you for running.

Open your mind Steve.
It happened and it is OK to consider possible explanations.
Why are you people so desperate to close down honest debate and deny the obvious?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 02:37 PM

It's always a good idea to listen to the expressed opinion first rather than simply rely on credentials. It's a bit like using Wikipedia. If you're intelligent about it it's really useful. If you're not it's dangerous shite.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 10:56 AM

Third/fourth string.

Who is better qualified to give an informed opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 10:53 AM

Truth? All you've given me is the credentials of your fourth-string source and quoted what seems to me to be a load of ill-considered tripe. I wasn't suggesting that particular this chap is nasty, just pointing out that you're leaning far too much on his credentials instead of what he actually says. I can't say I'm surprised, as most of what he says (or is quoted as saying) is generalising rubbish, as I indicated.

Sorry, third-string. Your fourth string is Mohammed Shafiq.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 10:06 AM

Desparation Steve!
They are nasty.
On what grounds Steve.
They are misquoted.
Who would dare in a sensitive issue like this? Any complaints recorded?

You are just la la-ing with your fingers in your ears because you can not accept an obvious truth.
Open up to reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 11 - 10:00 AM

Lox, you asked me to tell you when I have proof.

You forgot to tell me what you would regard as proof, since first hand testimony from high profile people with intimate knowledge of the community and the issues apparently does not suffice.