BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 03:53 PM

I believe them and Hawkins, but I am not making their case.
It is not my case.
I don't care if you believe them or not.

"You believe who; which 'expert' has claimed a "culturally implanted tendency"

Straw said they do it because their own girls are off limits.
Cryer said the same, adding that only young girls can be deceived into believing a proper relationship is on offer.
Shafiq said they do it because of the low esteem held for females.
Ahmed said they do it because their arranged cousin marriages are often unfulfilling.
Allibhai-Brown endorsed all the above.
I believe them because of who they are, but I am not making a case of it.
It is irrelevant to me if you believe them or not.
I am just making a case for an over-rep.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 03:43 PM

"I keep telling you that I believe them."
Then you have been lying about not saying it about not saying it - that's that one cleared up.
You believe who; which 'expert' has claimed a "culturally implanted tendency", David Irving? Can we have the quotes please?
"evidence so far Jim."
As I said - anecdotal, circumstantial and unqualified opinions which give us no clear idea of what percentage of Pakistanis from a population of 1.2 million are involved - mainly a British Pakistani crime my arse,.
Only you have talked about it being "massive" or even, "massive - massive" - at least forty times - your description alone.
The Barnardo report does not make a claim of "over-representataion," but as well as saying that concentration on race could possibly further put further victims at risk, they have also said; "decent Pakistani men will now be looked at as potential child abusers", and "This is not just about Pakistani men, and not just about Asian men. And it is happening all over the country."
The CEOPs report will possibly throw some light on the real situation next week, but up to now you have distorted and faked non-evidence to make your point that Pakistanis are cultural paedophiles -                  
          YOU HAVE MADE IT UP FROM ISOLATED CASES IN MAINLY ONE PART OF THE COUNTRY - IT IS ALL YOUR OWN WORK - YOU SHOULD BE VERY PROUD.
Is that what they call "creative writing"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 02:44 PM

Reminding you of the over-rep evidence so far Jim.


All the victims who went to their MPs, Straw and Cryer.
All abused by BPs.
All the victims of those convicted in the 17 cases in the Dando report.
95% BPs.
All the hundreds of Sikh and Hindu girls who went to their own support groups .
All abused by BPs.
Barnados.
They said that ethnic groups were "over-represented"
They said there was an issue of "ethnicity" in high profile (many victim) cases.
All the 400 seen by Wilmer.
All stated that BPs were their abusers.
All the victims seen by Bindel.
The same.
All the victims in the German report.
All the same.
The victims who recorded their statements.
All the same.
All the victims in the three current court cases aginst BP gangs.
Whether the BP gangs are convicted or not, the victims all accuse them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 02:36 PM

I wrote that Jim.
I keep telling you that I believe them.
I believe them because of who they are.
I just do not care if you or anyone else believes them.

My case is just the over-rep.

I believe Hawkins about black holes, but his theory has nothing to do with me either.
Do you hold me responsible for black hole theory?
I do not care if you or anyone else believes in black holes.
I can not support or defend the theory.
I believe Hawkins because of who he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:43 PM

"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb."
Did somebody else write this Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:27 PM

"overrepresented?"
WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE F OVER-REPRESENTATION AT THE PREENT TIME AND THERE WAS CERTAINLY O RELIABLE EVIDENCE WHEN YOU BEGAIN TO MAKEYOUIR PRONOUNCEMENTS OF "MASSIVE OVER-REPRESENTATION"
"Why do you keep on about it?
"
Because you've said it, I and others have proved you've said it by reproducing it over and over again, and you have not the bottle either to acknowledge it - you are openly lying about what you have written on this thread.
"That makes us close to agreeing."
Stop being crass.
"Jim, why do you think you can tell me what my case is?"
You've made your case clear - we are repeating what you have written.
"I will drop the "massive" if it brings us into agreement."
A little late don't you think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:33 AM

Your question.
"They are the small number of localised cases known to be the responsibility of Pakistani gangs."

If you change small to large, yes I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:31 AM

1. Laid the responsibility for grooming of underage girls (Paedophilia, by definition) (NO IT IS NOT) squarely and solely at the door of the British Pakistani Community (LIE), whom you have insistently dehumanised by use of the term BPs(ABREVIATIONS DO NOT DEHUMANISE KA).
2. Blamed the Pakistani culture for those crimes.(I HAVE NOT. OTHERS HAVE)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:17 AM

""The idea that all those cases of BPs offending was a statistical fluke and a huge, ongoing coincidence was laughable.
Back then we had many hundreds of victims.
We now have 2000 in 3 years.
The idea that it was simply that the gangs involved just happened to be BP gangs, was my case too.""

Another disingenuous response from our resident wriggler.

The original hundreds (according to you) of victims are what we are discussing here. They are the small number of localised cases known to be the responsibility of Pakistani gangs.

Those new figures, which you so blithely use to bolster your distorted view, have not yet adduced a shred of evidence to suggest a large, let alone disproportionate, involvement of any particular ethnic grouping.

Knowing that, I would like a response to my question:-

Is my suggested alternative possible, YES, or NO?

I am entirely uninterested in whether you choose to believe it, just answer honestly, for the first time on this thread, the question you were asked.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 11:00 AM

""I am not lying when I tell you I do not know enough about the culture.""

We know you aren't lying as to your ignorance of the culture, but we also know that you ARE lying when you claim not to have
1. Laid the responsibility for grooming of underage girls (Paedophilia, by definition) squarely and solely at the door of the British Pakistani Community, whom you have insistently dehumanised by use of the term BPs.
2. Blamed the Pakistani culture for those crimes.

The evidence is there in black and white for any objective observer to decide exactly where your agenda lies.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 10:37 AM

Confirming ident.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 08:38 AM

Jim, why do you think you can tell me what my case is?
I am telling you, my case is just the over-rep.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 08:32 AM

Jim, you said you are not certain it is false.
I am not certain it is true.
That makes us close to agreeing.

I keep telling you that I am NOT postulating paedophilia.
Why do you keep on about it?

"Then why have you made statements implicationg Pakistani culture as a whole "
I have not Jim.

My case is just an over-rep.
I will drop the "massive" if it brings us into agreement.

You may find the odd ambiguous statement, but there are enough unequivocal pronouncements by me that it is not my theory.
I AM TELLING YOU IT IS NOT MINE!
How can I make it clearer boys?
I am not lying when I tell you I do not know enough about the culture.
Are you suggesting I am secretly an expert?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 08:23 AM

Lox, I only claimed an over rep in a large, specified area of England.
Many other intelligent and reputable national figures have done the same.
I have supplied a very large amount of evidence for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 07:26 AM

Again Keith you spectacularly miss the point.

Are Pakistanis overrepresented, or are they only overrepresented in a select area.

If Pakistanis are overrepresented in this crime then that should be apparent everywhere.

But they aren't - its only in areas where Pakistani organized crime is prevalent that ... er ... pakistanis are prevalent in organized crime ...

Is that your case?

If you narrow down the analysis to areas where Pakistanis are overrepresented then you find that they are ... er ... overrepresented?

Its not a very enlightening or revealing case ...

In my home, little girls are overrepresented in not going to bed on time ... but then I don't have a son, only a daughter ... so my "case" is true ... but utterly meaningless.


As is yours.

Thats because it isn't a case - it is a supporting argument in favour of Jack Straws comments and an integral part of a racial hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 07:09 AM

"so you must accept that it might be true. So it can not be racist then."
What kind of twisted logic is that?
We have no information of any kind as to what sort of pressure the perpetrators of these crimes have experienced - and once again - why isn't every single male member of the British Pakistani population a potential paedophile - or are ALL male Pakistanis potential child molesters and if not, why not?
An the answer to my question?
Do you stand by the statement put forward by you that British Pakistani culture in any way contributes to these crimes as stated here?
"There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
And a response to the rest of my posting - do we put them on the shelf along with all the other ignored unanswered questions.
I take it that it goes without saying that you don't withdraw your accusation that nobody has come up with a reply to your statements.
"The explanation is unknowable."
Then why have you made statements implicationg Pakistani culture as a whole if you don't know the answer to one of the most obvious contradictions to your conclusions?
"Be honest Jim. I have put up a lot."
You be honest - you have put up nothing but anecdotally reported incidents and the opinions of a number of people who have in no way qualified those opinions, and you have used those to mount an attack on the British Pakistani community as a whole.
"Why are you and Jim OBSESSED with the explanation."
Because it totally contradicts your case of this being culturally connected. If you don't know the answer you have no grounds for even suggesting that this is a "British Pakistani" problem, let alone that it in any way connected to the culture.
"My case is just the over-rep."
No it isn't; your case from the beginning is that the male Pakistani population in Britain are all potential child rapists because of their culture.
You or anybody have yet to prove the over-rep - not forgetting the "massive and the massive, massive over-rep".
If evidence is given for such next week it will have been gathered responsibly and does not come as part of a not-very-well-hidden agenda.
And now - your answer please - to believe or not to believe?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 06:11 AM

I would expect it be nationwide Lox, but there may be factors I am unaware of.

Why are you and Jim OBSESSED with the explanation.
The explanation is unknowable.
I can not know what it is.
There has only been one proposed, and it does seem plausible, and the proponents are certainly credible.
Even Jim says he can not be certain it is wrong.
None of us can be certain, and you can not say it is mine.

My case is just the over-rep.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 05:45 AM

"I answered in the very next post."

Nope - you danced, or should I say stumbled around it.

"You have still not answered my question to you, and Jim has not answered mine to him."

I can't respond to a report that hasn't been published.

If yesterdays 'exclusive' times article were reliable the story would have been taken up by other newspapers today.

So you have no question to answer.

Meanwhile, do you or don't you agree that if a theory based on Pakistani culture is true then it should apply nationwide and not just in selected areas?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:31 AM

The full quote
"This particular crime, dubbed street grooming, is the domain of male muslim gangs according to the people in a position to know.
There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

It was in reply to, and in agreement with Lox who in the previous post stated "It is not a Moslem problem"

Even here I state that the information comes from " people in a position to know." and not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 04:22 AM

Jim, you admit that you don't know with certainty that it is not due to attitudes to women and marriage practice, so you must accept that it might be true.
So it can not be racist then.

"Where is the evidence?"
Be honest Jim. I have put up a lot.
Would you like to see it again?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 03:43 AM

You continually refuse to take responsibility for your own postings .
Question - do you believe that British Pakistani culture in any way contributes to these crimes as stated here?

"There is lots of other dreadful crime for which other groups are responsible, but let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."

Who put this statement on this thread if not you, and if you don't believe it, why put it up in the terms that you have?
Nowhere have you indicated that this is a quote from elsewhere - your words entirely.
"How do you explain the massive over-rep."
To date, there is no convincing evidence of "massive over-rep" - show us where there is - that is your interpretation alone.
Your rag-bag of anecdotal and circumstantial 'evidence' and personal opinions do not in any way merit the description 'convincing' especially when they are accompanied by your claims of cultural degeneracy.
I and others have been saying this from the beginning; the fact that you have chosen to ignore it is typical of the way you have behaved on this thread.
Even Mike, who has supported you throughout this, makes no such outrageous claims of "massive" anything.
                                     WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF "MASSIVE, OR EVEN MASSIVE,MASSIVE OVER-REPRESENTATION BY BRITISH PAKISTANIS"
If next weeks release produces such evidence then we may have something to talk about, but the early reports, such as that in the Times, indicate no such claims.
Having said that, I have suggested that - and I reproduce what I have written and repeated several times over:

"We know two things for certain about them (British Pakistanis);
a. That they are four times more likely to be harassed, persecuted and assaulted, thanks to the endemic nature of racism in Britain – look it up.
b. That they are almost certainly the most impoverished of all the social groups in Britain (with one possible exception) – look it up.
The outcome of both of these facts are (a) that they have been forced to move into ghetto-like communities, largely for self-protection.
And:
(b) The places they have settled in are low-priced and run-down, with sub-standard housing and poor general amenities, in areas of high unemployment and low spending power and political influence– Thatcher's legacy to the North of England.
The politicians who created these holes and continue to allow them to exist without improvement, including ex Home Secretaries like Jack Straw, have made few attempts to change conditions for the better in these places and have only shown an interest at election times or when certain events attract wider attention and become an embarrassment"

Again, you have chosen to ignore this and claim we have not answered your question - we have - you (conveniently and typically) haven't been listening.
I certainly don't believe this to be the sole reason, I very much doubt if there is a single cause, and even if there was, I don't know of anybody who has done the work to enable them to reach a conclusion, certainly nobody here.
My suggestions go some way to explaining the different situations in the impoverished communities in the North and those more prosperous ones in the south - a fact that drives a double-decker bus through your suggestion that Pakistani culture contibutes in any way to these crimes.
Whatever the results of the survey which will be revealed next week, thanks to your landslide attacks on the British Pakistani people and their culture (five pages-worth reproduced earlier in this thread) and the despicably vindictive and dishonest way you have made them, your contribution here will in no way have added to our understanding of the situation and, as the Barnardos statement made plain, is far more likely to have added to the suffering of abused children because it has been made in total and self-confesssed ignorance, and with an agenda.
"and how do you know, with such certainty, that it is not due to attitudes to women and marriage practice?"
I don't; neither do you; neither of us are qualified to make such a judgement but it is you that has put it up as a statement, not me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 11 - 01:13 AM

Don's first post.
I have always acknowledged that it is not just BPs.
My case is just that they are over-represented.

Don's second post.
This post is wrong.
A lie.

Don's third post.
The idea that all those cases of BPs offending was a statistical fluke and a huge, ongoing coincidence was laughable.
Back then we had many hundreds of victims.
We now have 2000 in 3 years.
The idea that it was simply that the gangs involved just happened to be BP gangs, was my case too.

The FACT is Don, that I have given my honest and considered answers to every question put to me.
If I have missed any, put them up and I promise to answer, but I do not think you will find a single one.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 08:22 PM

""Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox - PM
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:03 PM

"I have not intentionally missed any question Lox."

Well then I guess it must have been an accident.

Scroll back to Jons last 3 or 4 posts and my last 2 or 3 and you'll find the question that you accidentally overlooked.""

It is neither Lox.

He has admitted several times that he doesn't bother to read posts which contain more than two or three sentences, and also demanded that we ask no more than two questions in any one post.

If it weren't on such a serious topic it would be laughable.

1. He espouses a theory which fits his particular prejudice.
2. He presents it as gospel and will defend it to the death, while claiming that it isn't his opinion and disclaiming any responsibility for it.
3. He demands answers to his questions, but answers others' questions in true politician style, by deliberately misunderstanding them and repeating his responses as detailed in point 2.
4. He freely uses epithets descriptive of opponents, calling them whatever names he sees fit (latest favourite being "Arse"), while reacting like a Victorian maiden aunt to the use of epithets not even aimed at or descriptive of any person (i.e. read the f***king posts).
5. He ignores a moderator's request to stop the name calling because rules don't apply to him, only to the rest of us.

I've asked him a direct yes or no question, but I've little hope of seeing a sensible answer.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 08:00 PM

""Added to which, the "over representation" is such that, in addition to being statistically dodgy because of the sampling method and the sample size, it is just as likely to be a case of criminal activity of a localised group of interacting gangs who are Pakistani because gangs tend to consist of just one ethnic group.

This is a concept which Keith will not even discuss, but is a valid alternative to his "cultural predilection" theory, and about ten times as likely to be true.

Don T""

You have repeatedly claimed that nobody has put up any alternative suggestion to explain what happened in a localised area of Northern England

Re-posted above is my own oft repeated answer to that.

One direct question with a yes or no answer. Is my alternative possible, YES or NO?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 07:46 PM

""Do you really think Straw and the others got the idea from me?
Arse!
It was their idea, and I only reported it.""

You didn't only report it, you supported it too, edited out part of it which contradicted your view, and falsely represented it, and no matter how many lies you tell, you can't get over the fact that your posts are there for anybody to read and are regularly highlighted by Jim, Lox, and myself.

Out of respect for Joe's wishes, I won't descend to your level of ad hominem content, I'll merely thank you for confirming what we already knew about your character and attitudes.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 07:35 PM

""Although it concludes that child grooming cannot be associated with a particular ethnic group, meetings have been held with…""

You really need to read what you cut 'n paste Keith.

Tell me, where is the reference specifically to British Pakistanis?

The above clip from your own chosen source directly refutes your claim about them.

What part of "child grooming cannot be associated with a particular ethnic group" do you find it impossible to understand, or is it simply that your desperation to prove your point makes you blind to anything that does not support your bias?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 05:03 PM

I answered in the very next post.
You have still not answered my question to you, and Jim has not answered mine to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 04:09 PM

mm hmm - very nice.

meanwhile, back to your answers to jons questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:48 PM

Me 25th Feb 6.49AM

"ARE YOU NOT CLAIMING THAT THE MUSLIM RELIGION INEVITABLY LEADS TO GROOMING, PIMPING?"
No.

"IF YOU ARE NOT SAYING THIS, WHAT IS YOUR POINT IN MAKING THE STATEMENTS YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY REPEATED."
I am repeating the views of people with impeccable credentials.
I have no cause to doubt their veracity.
Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:45 PM

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 02:49 PM

That BPs are massively over represented is a fact.
An explanation is required.

You are asking me to repeat what has been explained several times now.
Lox or Don would just say "Read the f*****g posts!"
(Except that they had never posted any explanations!)

BP men marry late and are not allowed intimate relationships before marriage.
Ahmed says that even after marriage sex is a problem for many BPs.

Repressed sexuality can be expected to predispose some, a minority, to deviant behaviour.
That would be true of any ethnic group.
This theory is not mine.
People on my list provided it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:39 PM

: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 21 Feb 11 - 04:26 AM

Lord Ahmed did, and it was implicit in the others.
I have no knowledge except what I have learned from those eminent, reputable people with all their knowledge and experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:56 PM

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 02:03 AM

Lox,
The idea is not mine remember.
It is the belief of two intelligent people who have spent years working with and for their large local BP communities.

I though it reasonable, and posted it here when the subject came up.
What is so wrong with that Lox?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:40 PM

"It becomes your opinion when you put it up as your opinion."

I never have Jim.
It is the theory of Straw and the rest, not me.

I have answered every question.
You just choose to ignore my answers.

You have not answered,
How do you explain the massive over-rep, and how do you know, with such certainty, that it is not due to attitudes to women and marriage practice?
And why are those anti racist Pakistanis, racist against Pakistanis for suggesting it?

The report, like me, does not consider explanations.
It only refers to Asian men, not specifically Pakistanis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:03 PM

"I have not intentionally missed any question Lox."

Well then I guess it must have been an accident.

Scroll back to Jons last 3 or 4 posts and my last 2 or 3 and you'll find the question that you accidentally overlooked.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 01:24 PM

"Jim. I have been saying since January that it is not my theory."
It becomes your opinion when you put it up as your opinion.
Take responsibility for what you posted - if you put it up because you didn't agree with it you should have said so.
In putting it up YOU have linked paedophelia with Pakistani culture - take responsibility for having done so.
It will be interesting to see if the report makes that link.
It will also be interesting to see if they have found a "massive" over-representation as you have been claiming (I make it 37 times to date)?
And it will be interesting to see if they describe the crime under discussion as overwhelmingly 'British Pakistani'.
"Lox, perhaps you could remind Jim that he has ignored all questions,"
No I certainly have not - it is you who have either refused or ignored questions put to you throughout this thread.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 08:54 AM

You can pay £1 and view it on Times on line.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 08:48 AM

Lox, perhaps you could remind Jim that he has ignored all questions, and you yourself did not answer my question to you this morning.
Just saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 08:12 AM

I have not intentionally missed any question Lox.
Just put it up if I have.

The report is not published yet.
The Times got an advance copy.
You have to buy or find yesterday's Times.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 07:49 AM

Well it seems you've avoided the tricky questions again Keith.

As for the report - would be be a good lad and provide the link ...

... thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 06:27 AM

Confirming Guest Keith was me.

Jon, I see no reason not to believe them.
They have knowledge and experience of, or are part of, the BP community, and no-one has suggested anything else.

I believe them but am not in a position to support their views.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 05:53 AM

Now this was a nation wide survey so maybe it does happen in all BP communities, and they were just more successful is suppressing reporting elsewhere.
Or maybe it is a north/south thing.
English communities are culturally distinct, which may be a factor.
Perhaps the BP communities are too.
There could be any number of factors that you and I are unaware of.

Perhaps we are getting somewhere on one point at last, Keith.

With the many "unknowns" that YOU acknowledge, do YOU (not Straw or anyone else) consider a "British Pakistanis do... because... " type statement reasonable?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 05:21 AM

Jim. I have been saying since January that it is not my theory.
Even in the post you quote I point out it is just a suggestion and not mine.
They did not get it from me you fool, I got it from them.

Ceop was looking for patterns in offending, and found the over-rep which should have come as no surprise.
Like me, they will not be trying to explain it.

You forgot to tell us your explanation, and why those anti racist Pakistanis are anti Pakistani racists.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:54 AM

No lie Keith - you have had your own words given back to you over and over again and you have persistantly denied having said them; the two quotes are your words, nobody else's and, as with other statements you have made and later disowned, are a matter of record.
You even began to explain why you made them, and now you are back to claiming they are somebody else's.
                                                             "As I said in that post, it was just a suggestion from me."
More than a suggestion - and as you rightly point out, all your own work - or are you going to deny you wrote that one as well?
Whatever the contents of the report next week, it changes not one iota the way you have attempted to use child abuse to attack British Pakistanis as a racial group by describing them as culturally inclined to paedophelia.
Up to next week, the information you will have based your attacks on have been a handful of examples gathered randomly and used selectively
We can assume that the Ceops report has been based on properly gathered evidence which hopefully can now be used used to find the real causes of child abuse, and not the 'wannabe solutions' you have been providing us with over the last months.
Unless you can provide us with an answer as to why your 'cultural flaw' theory has not affected all of the communities sharing that culture in Britain, you have no case and you never have had.
Answer the question please.
It will be interesting to see if the Ceop report contains any reference to cultural tendencies, and if it does, what evidence it has been based on - you continue to provide none to the extent of denying your own statements.
You "keep it coming".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:47 AM

& while about it Jim, answer please the qustn I asked you on 19 Jun 0450 re "facetiousness"? You have dodged it thus far, as Keith sez, by staying away. Come out, come out, wherever yo are. & Answer Answer, as the parliamentarians cry.

Cheers

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 03:28 AM

Will confirm in 5 hours.

Question for you Jim.
How do you explain the massive over-rep, and how do you know, with such certainty, that it is not due to attitudes to women and marriage practice?
And why are those anti racist Pakistanis, racist against Pakistanis for suggesting it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:43 AM

Lie.
I never claimed that.
Do you really think Straw and the others got the idea from me?
Arse!
It was their idea, and I only reported it.
I explained to you many times that I had not the knowledge to either form or hold such an opinion.
Was I lying Jim?
Am I secretly an expert on BP culture?
Keep it coming Jim!
Arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:36 AM

And still no answer to the questions - have they told you that the abuse is the result of 'cultural flaws' yet?
You never got round to explaining why you made the claim that you claimed you didn't make - do we have t wait for that one too?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:22 AM

Jim too!
Good man.
Pleas keep coming forward and making a complete are of yourself as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:09 AM

"A question for you first Lox."
So that you can avoid answering the question you have just been asked and all the others that you have avoided throughout the course of tis thread.
You first - answer the question we have been asking for
The Ceop report has not been published yet and already you are drawing conclusions from it - a little bird in Ceop passing on information, no doubt?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 11 - 02:08 AM

Lox, 20% Asian men.
Asians are about 6% of pop, so that suggests over 300% over-rep.
BPs are concealed in the description "Asian"
All the cases that came to light were overwhelmingly BPs.
They are only 2% so the over-rep is potentially 1000%.
Then, 40% of perps did not have ethnicity recorded.
If as seems likely, that was omitted for the same reason investigation was omitted,(to avoid racial tension) then the over-rep is many times higher even than that.

Now this was a nation wide survey so maybe it does happen in all BP communities, and they were just more successful is suppressing reporting elsewhere.
Or maybe it is a north/south thing.
English communities are culturally distinct, which may be a factor.
Perhaps the BP communities are too.
There could be any number of factors that you and I are unaware of.

As I keep telling you, I have no opinion about the cause of the over-rep, which for 5 months you have stated was a racist lie.
You have made a complete arse of yourself.
But don't hide away like Jim.
Keep it up Lox!