BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 12:57 AM

Lord Ahmed
As a resident of Rotherham, Ahmed has spoken on behalf of the communities in that region, particularly the families of the former steelworkers of the 1960s, from the Indian subcontinent who are now second or third generation British. He has expressed that he is anxious to see that these regions continue to live peacefully amidst the growing move towards the far right across Europe, and strives to encourage positive integration into society so that people of all cultures can live together harmoniously.

Born in the region, Ahmed has a personal interest in seeing a peaceful resolve to the ongoing bloody dispute in Kashmir and seeks international mediation to achieve this. As well as being an active figure in the Indian Subcontinent, he has worked on the plight of Muslims around the world ranging from the collapse of former Yugoslavia, especially to the Bosniaks and Palestinians. He has been on many delegations to the Arab world, the US, Eastern Europe, Africa, the former states of the USSR and the Far East, meeting with heads of state to discuss their respective problems and how he may be able to assist them.

Ahmed helps with various charitable causes and is on the board of several organisations from local groups such as his position as President of South Yorkshire Victim Support, to international bodies such as his board membership on the SAARC Foundation.

Ahmed was among the founders of The World Forum, an organization set up to promote world peace in the after math of the 9/11 with an effort to build bridges of understanding between The Muslim World and the West by reviving a tradition of Dialogue between people, cultures and civilizations based on tolerance

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 12:56 AM

What Straw said.
Mr Straw told the BBC's Newsnight there was a "specific problem" in some areas and called on the Pakistani community to be "more open" about the abuse.


Mohammed Liaqat (left) and Abid Saddique, 27 were convicted of rape Mr Straw said: "Pakistanis, let's be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders' wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders.

"But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men... who target vulnerable young white girls.

"We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way."

Mr Straw added: "These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically.

"So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care... who they think are easy meat."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 12:51 AM

Jack Straw.
He served as Home Secretary from 1997 to 2001, Foreign Secretary from 2001 to 2006 and Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons from 2006 to 2007 under Tony Blair. From 2007-2010 he was the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and the Secretary of State for Justice, appointed as part of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's first Cabinet. Straw is one of only three people to have served in Cabinet continuously from 1997 to 2010.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 12:45 AM

My case is just that there is an over-representation.
I am not interested in any explanantion.
Don and Jon, you are taking this thread back 6 months.
I know you were ill then Don, but it is all there to be read.

I will supply what you ask for, but it will require long, multiple threads and it has all been posted before.
Don has put up most of those questions before too, and I have given anwers.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: J-boy
Date: 14 Jun 11 - 12:26 AM

Muslims. Christians. Pagans. Buddhists. Mormons. Scientoligists.
I think all of them are delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 09:23 PM

""Fault is it? OK:-

Your theory is that aspects of their culture predispose (slightly) young British Pakistanis to sex trafficking, and Paedophilia.

The faults, or flaws, in this theory are

1. Several other ethnic groups in this country have exactly the same cultural mores as Pakistanis (Indian, Sikh, etc.), yet have no such problem with their young men.

2. Out of 1.2 million British Pakistanis, only a handful in a very confined area of the country have been found indulging in this "cultural" aberration.

3. As has been said before, your claims of over representation stem from skewed statistics which no genuine mathematician would adduce as even indicating, much less proving a conclusion.

4. Even were the statistics more solidly based, any over representation cannot possibly support your "cultural effect" theory.

It is simply not tenable in the face of the minute proportion of the British Pakistani community involved.

The conclusion: Your extrapolation from a miniscule sample to a conclusion about the whole community is totally invalid.

The best you have, is a statistical anomaly arrising from a localised activity of a small number of sexual predators, who happen to be ethnic Pakistani.

In short, the only way in which you can manage to maintain your "theory" is by ignoring a whole body of cantrary evidence.

Don T.""

Taking a leaf out of your book Keith, and repeating what I have already said (but not to the excessive degree to which you do it), I think the above is clear, factual and accurate.

If you wish to retain any credibility, you need to respond to the points in that post.

To write me off as "Don the folk singer from Kent" shows the lengths to which you are prepared to go in avoiding dealing with any counter argument, and your unawareness of how little you actually know about any of us on the Cat.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,jon
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 06:07 PM

Do you even know who they are?

Is knowing who they are going to affect these observations:

1. Several other ethnic groups in this country have exactly the same cultural mores as Pakistanis (Indian, Sikh, etc.), yet have no such problem with their young men.

2. Out of 1.2 million British Pakistanis, only a handful in a very confined area of the country have been found indulging in this "cultural" aberration.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 06:05 PM

"I have accepted this as the only explanation on offer.
I have no other reason to support it, but the proponents know rather more about it that you or Don!"

In other words - keith doesn't want to think about it critically, he is ignoring the points made on both sides, and this is because his elders and betters have stated an opinion.

The lack of substance to support that opinion is of no concern to keith.

They are his betters and that is enough for him to bow to their greater wisdom.


But funniest of all, he states that he doesn't know enough to have an opinion, yet he clearly knows enbough to know that his elders and betters opinion is correct.


Hipocrisy, dishonesty, and twisted nonsense. all in the name of fighting to the death in the name of a racist hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 05:46 PM

Jon.
"But you appear to support and agree with it."

I have accepted this as the only explanation on offer.
I have no other reason to support it, but the proponents know rather more about it that you or Don!
Have you read what any of them have said, or just Don the folk singer from Kent?
Do you even know who they are?
Before you dismiss it out of hand I think you should find out and read their views first hand.
It is all in the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 05:39 PM

Lox.
"Keith decides that it would be helpful to offer an explanation."

True.

"He provides ONE possible explanation."

No he did not.
He reported the explanation given by Straw and Cryer, that was later endorsed by Shafiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown.

"He makes no attempt to draw our attention to any other explanations."

True.
For the same reason YOU did not Lox.
There isn't one!
If you have one now please share it.
DO YOU HAVE ONE LOX????????
Answer please Lox.

In any case, I do not care about any explanation.
I have not the knowledge to assess one.
Unlike Straw, Cryer, Shafiq, Ahmed and Allibhai-Brown who have more knowledge than all of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 05:03 PM

As I said , the theory is not mine.

But you appear to support and agree with it.


I don't care if you accept it or not, but the proponents are much better informed on the subject than all of us here put together.

I don't care how "informed" these people are. Assuming what Don T has posted is accurate (and I've no reason to dispute it), the only conclusion I can draw is that the theory is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 04:22 PM

Absurd.

Keith decides that it would be helpful to offer an explanation.

He provides ONE possible explanation.

(a racist one)

He makes no attempt to draw our attention to any other explanations.

He just stands up for the racist explanation he has provided, whilst simultaneously claiming indemnity on the ground that it wasn't him who thunk it up.

All Keith ever did was fight to the bitter end to defend it on a public forum.

Spineless and dishonest ... you should become a politician.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 10:48 AM

As I said , the theory is not mine.
I don't care if you accept it or not, but the proponents are much better informed on the subject than all of us here put together.

As for the over-rep, there is ample evidence of children abused, in this particular way, by BPs.
I have seen no evidence of other groups involved.
Clearly none of you have either or you would have mentioned it.

Here is some of the evidence.

The journalist Bindel after a rigorous investigation found large numbers of girls who had been groomed by BPs, but none by other groups.
The German video report, no longer on YouTube, found exactly the same.
Jack Straw spoke about his own personal experience and contact with victims.
The Dando Institue report on On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that has resulted in at least two follow up studies of On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that found 95% BP perpetrators.
Ann Cryer said she had the same experience in her constituency.
Hilary Wilmer with her hundreds of cases, all BPs.
She corroborates all the previous.
Senior police officers, serving and retired.
Shafiq, Allibhai-Brown and Ahmed all tell the same story from BP perspective, and it corroborates all that has gone before.
Hindu and Sikh organisation who report hundreds of their girls have been victims too.
Perpetrators, all BPs

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 08:22 AM

""I put up my theory and you should try to find fault and/or an alternative.""

Fault is it? OK:-

Your theory is that aspects of their culture predispose (slightly) young British Pakistanis to sex trafficking, and Paedophilia.

The faults, or flaws, in this theory are

1. Several other ethnic groups in this country have exactly the same cultural mores as Pakistanis (Indian, Sikh, etc.), yet have no such problem with their young men.

2. Out of 1.2 million British Pakistanis, only a handful in a very confined area of the country have been found indulging in this "cultural" aberration.

3. As has been said before, your claims of over representation stem from skewed statistics which no genuine mathematician would adduce as even indicating, much less proving a conclusion.

4. Even were the statistics more solidly based, any over representation cannot possibly support your "cultural effect" theory.

It is simply not tenable in the face of the minute proportion of the British Pakistani community involved.

The conclusion: Your extrapolation from a miniscule sample to a conclusion about the whole community is totally invalid.

The best you have, is a statistical anomaly arrising from a localised activity of a small number of sexual predators, who happen to be ethnic Pakistani.

In short, the only way in which you can manage to maintain your "theory" is by ignoring a whole body of cantrary evidence.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 01:55 AM

I was too nice to you Lox.
That was not a deception but a blatant lie.

You would have read the whole post during your searches, so you knew I never claimed the theory as my own.
But you put up a remark made about the general process of debate as if I had.
Nasty.

That theory was later endorsed by anti-racist BP campaigners, proving it was not racist anyway.
You and Jim see racism where there is none.
You use denouncing as a tool to silence people.
Like witch-finders.
Like McCarthey.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 11 - 01:25 AM

They did not get the theory from me Lox, I got it from them.
Do you dispute that Lox?

Your last post is a deception.
In this whole thread I said "my theory" only once, back in January.
But I also said,"I offer it as a plausible theory, and it is not my own."
Read the whole post.

25 Jan 11 - 10:23 AM

"If you are going to make such a claim then you need to provide a damn sound and well supported argument."

No I do not.
I offer it as a plausible theory, and it is not my own.
It has been put forward by two Labour politicians, one very senior, both of whom have worked for years with the Pakistani communities they represent, and are supported and respected by those communities.

It works like this.
I put up my theory and you should try to find fault and/or an alternative.
Just calling me names is not the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 05:29 PM

"I am just sayiing that there is ample evidence for an over-rep,in that region in that crime.
That is my whole case. "

That isn't a case - that is a statement of the information that you accept.

You do not refer to other information as you are selective about which information interests you.

Your case, or to use your words "my theory" was to do with what this implies about Pakistani culture.

You made it very clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 02:32 PM

In all this thread you have offered no evidence of any other groups involved in this crime.
Just empty denials.
In desperation you try to denounce me as a racist, as if that would change anything.
And you could find no evidence for that either, because it is a lie.

Meanwhile, here is some of the evidence I have provided for the over-rep.

Jack Straw spoke about his own personal experience and contact with victims.
The Dando Institue report on On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that has resulted in at least two follow up studies of On-Street Grooming By Gangs, that found 95% BP perpetrators.
Ann Cryer said she had the same experience in her constituency.
Hilary Wilmer with her hundreds of cases, all BPs.
She corroborates all the previous.
Senior police officers, serving and retired.
Shafiq, Allibhai-Brown and Ahmed all tell the same story from BP perspective, and it corroborates all that has gone before.
Hindu and Sikh organisation who report hundreds of their girls have been victims too.
Perpetrators, all BPs

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 11:40 AM

Jim...I noticed that you used my name a few posts ago.

Keith and I differ in our political opinions, but on this issue, I agree with him absolutely.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 07:09 AM

I do not generalise about a culture.
I am just sayiing that there is ample evidence for an over-rep,in that region in that crime.
That is my whole case.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 05:04 AM

"Without any evidence, how can I discuss it? "
And without knowing about it how can you generalise about a culture
As I said - stet
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 11 - 04:25 AM

You should know by now that I never lie, never mind obvious lies!
Is it a lie that I have stated about 20 times since January that BPS and Muslims are under represented in other sex crimes?

Is it a lie that I quoted THAT ACTUAL BIT of Straw's statement on 2nd Feb 11.50AM?

Is it a lie that I said

"If you mean sex crimes in general, there may well be(there is a higher predisposition towards crimes of sexual abuse in white British society than in other elements of our society"
.
That part of Straw's statements was not in dispute and I do not fill my posts with irrelevancies.
OR LIES!

"why the opinions of a miniscule handful of so-called 'experts'..."

Simply because they are the only ones who have offered an explanation.
Anyway, I am only concerned with establishing the over-rep.
I have no interest in any explanation.
Why do you care since you don't believe there IS an over-rep?

As for the South, how would I know about it?
Without any evidence, how can I discuss it?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 01:52 PM

And your continuous lying and evasion more and more convinced that you are a dyed-in-the-wool racist.
You have answered nothing exept to onbviously lie about editing the Straw text
....why the opinions of a miniscule handful of so-called 'experts'...
....why you believe..... Your not knowing the situation in the south is enough to destroy your whole case totally how can yo make such a claim and not know thwe situation in one third of the Pakistani population?
....why the opinions of a miniscule handful of so-called 'experts.....
....possible effects of your statements on the relevant communities...
An obviously lying racist.
Case closed.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 09:34 AM

That is the only explanation that exists, AND IT IS NOT MINE!

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

I have given answers Jim.
e.g. in my last post I answered, for certainly the tenth time, why I did not feel it useful to quote everything Straw said.
Did you miss it again?

On the question of the community in the South, I remember saying that I did not know.
I did not know about the Northern situation either before this.

I do not keep repeating those assertions by others.
I reported them once.
It is just that YOU keep challenging me on them.
I would be happy to stop discussing the explanation.
That is the only explanation that exists,

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Silas
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 09:15 AM

Oh, I can.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 09:10 AM

I can't believe this argument is still going on...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 09:03 AM

"I repeat that I am simply asking questions, not trying to supply answers."
Then the gap between our positions is not as wide as I thought it to be.
Keith has based his "cultural" proposal on 'evidence' randomly selected from, as far as we can judge, unconnected cases in different parts of the North of England - areas of high unemployment, low esteem, poor housing and virtually non-existent facilities - that, along with the fact that they contain large immigrant populations, is the only things these areas have in common.
Don is, of course right, "the complete lack of any cases in the one third (approx) of British Pakistanis who live in the south?"
If culture had been an issue here it would have effected every single Pakistani community in Britain.
When this was pointed out earlier, Keith's response was that perhaps there were cases we were not aware of - a clear indication, to me at least, that he was prepared to accept purely speculative, non-existent 'evidence' to back up his claim - classic racist manipulation of 'facts'.
If any informed overall conclusion is to be reached about these incidents they have to be brought together and examined, along with every other possibly relevant factor, in the context of the 1.2 million Pakistani population as a whole, otherwise they remain isolated incidents of criminality, nothing more.
I have been involved in several threads discussing clerical abuse in Ireland.
If I or anybody suggested that these cases were "Irish" or "Irish Catholic" or even "Catholic" cultural incidents, I would be guilty of racism or sectarianism - they weren't, they were acts of criminality by clergymen. The only 'Catholic' conection was a church one, where the heirarchy aided and abetted the abuse by actively allowing it to continue - it had nothing whatever to do with the culprits being either Irish or Catholic - merely a case of situation and opportunity.
The cases Keith has put up here are acts of criminality by individuals who happen to be Pakistanis and are a tiny part of the general crime of paedophelia, and until they are proven otherwise, they will remain so and there is no evidence whatever of overall over-representation or any proven connection with Muslim culture.
"why do you ignore my answers."
Because you haven't given any.
Where have to told us why the opinions of a miniscule handful of so-called 'experts' living outside these communities carry more weight than the many thousands of Pakistanis and other ethnic groups, (and indigenous activists working in the field) including community leaders who find these statements offensive?
Where have you told us why you believe and are prepared to repeat these conclusions over and over and over again, apart from that they wer made by "eminent people"?
Where have you responded to the possible effects of your statements on the relevant communities?
And why did you remove a vital part of Jack Straw's statement rejecting your "cultural" or race conclusion when you put it up?
I could list dozens of questions you have been asked and have ignored, but these will do to be going on with.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 06:00 AM

Don T ~~ no, I can't; nor do I claim to be able to. I repeat that I am simply asking questions, not trying to supply answers. I find the fact of this regional over-representation alarming; and believe that no problem can be solved until its causes are established. As to what these causes may be, I have made one, very speculative {& by no means original with me}, suggestion as to a possible link with these young men's being dissatisfied with what their own community permits them in the way of pre-marital satisfactions in comparison with others of their age-group but of different demographics. That is all. Despite Jims' witty nomination of me for the post of fairy-godmother, I do not see it as any of my biz merely to echo what Keith sez, with not all of which I concur, naturally ~~ nor any of my function simply to echo what he may believe. He seems to me perfectly capable of taking care of himself. But I do feel he is not getting a fair hearing because of certain prejudices against him based on not-always- applicable to this instance comments he has made on other threads at other times; which IMO should have nothing to do with the present controversy.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 05:33 AM

Jim, why do you ignore my answers.
I have repeatedly told you that I acknowledge that paedophilia is mostly a white crime.
That is why I left it out when reporting Straw.
It was not in dispute then or now.

Whatever the case with other crimes, there is an over-rep in this one in the specified areas.
If you call me racist for that, you are also accusing some well respected Mudcatters, even beyond MtheGM and Lively.

You and Don T also ignore the oft repeated FACT, that no assertion about why there is an over-rep comes from me.
True, I have come to accept the one proffered, because it is the only one, and the proponents are knowledgeable and eminent.
If they are not racist, nor are people who are persuaded by them.

JIM, ADDRESS THE ARGUMENTS, NOT THE SUPPOSED MOTIVATION FOR THEM WHICH YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 04:59 AM

""But my posts are intended to disagree fundamentally with those who assert that there is no such over-representation as there clearly is,""

OK Mike, since you are being the voice of reason here, can you suggest any way in which Keith's comment that he believes that British Pakistanis are culturally "slightly predisposed to commit these offences", can be supported in the face of the complete lack of any cases in the one third (approx) of British Pakistanis who live in the south?

Keith insists that he can make assertions about all British Pakistanis while ignoring one third of them to skew the results.

There are of course many other ares where British Pakistanis live without cases of this type.

I would really like to know whether you believe, as Keith obviously does, that statistical results can be obtained from a skewed sample?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 04:47 AM

OK then, Jim ~~ if that is what I am, then I adjure you to be a good boy, or you shall not go to the ball...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 04:42 AM

"Jim's entirely inapposite & confusing adducing of a nurse's abuse of a 6 year old boy,"
Jack Straw made the point that paedophelia in Britain was an overwhelmingly white indigenous crime (removed by Keith in his quote).
I produced a current example of a case and could have, had I followed Keith's example and dredged the net, provided many, many more.
I then asked, following Keith's example, whether this could be described as a British white crime.
It seems somewhat ingenuous do describe my doing what Keith has done throughout this thread as 'inaposite'.
Also, your somewhat free interpretation of the piece of provided as "abuse of a six year old boy" seems a little watered-down - hope you haven't caught Keith's disease - or maybe that's what a fairy godmother does.
"Paul Wilson admitted two counts of raping a girl aged two or three years old and a further 45 charges of making and distributing indecent images and inciting youngsters to engage in sexual activity on the internet."
"Don't run away Jim."
I'm not running anywhere - you have made your 'cultural' statements over and over again, you have ignored every single point I have raised here and your stance;
"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
Then you said (after fine tuning to slight):
"You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,
Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment."
remains exactly as it was at the beginning.
My opinion is that you are a racist uttering racist commonplaces and stereotypes; prove them with collected and analysed data, not isolated examples.
Until you do, you remain a racist in my opinion and, I believe that of others on this thread.
As far as I am concerned, it is no longer of value trying to hold a conversation with a parrot who can only repeat what others have said, without explanation or understading.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 04:33 AM

Correct Keith, I have to say you are wrong on that Jim.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/118/279012493_0d7dd915cf_o.jpg

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

Just those customs related to courtship marriage and attitudes to women that Straw et al alluded to.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 11 - 02:04 AM

Thank you for the clarification.
I too only acknowledge the over-rep in those regions I was at pains to specify.
Acknowledging that over-rep makes me racist according to Jim.

You refer to certain customs prevalent in the culture.
I have referred to culture, but took it as obvious that not all aspects of the culture would contribute.
Just those customs related to courtship and marriage that Straw et al alluded to.
I have also stated that I do not know that is the cause, but accept it as the only one provided so far.
That makes me VERY racist according to Jim.

Jim, I blame you for this diversion, which is only of concern to us.
Suppose you really believe I am racist.
Why do you have to keep saying it?
That forces me to defend myself.
Why not just answer my arguments?
Is the problem that you can not?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 05:39 PM

Once again, apologies for the over-underlining. HTML has taken to fighting me for some reason ~~ I hate it when inanimate objects WILL fight me!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 05:36 PM

I think I must clarify up to a point.

My posts thruout this thread have been, and remain, interrogative, not assertive. I acknowledge the over-representation in these particular communities of northern England; and puzzle as to what its cause can be. I do not think, as Jim says, that I have linked it to any particular ··culture··, tho accept that it might, as others including many in their own community have suggested, be an outcome of certain customs relating to marriage which some young men brought up with expectations learnt from what is sometimes called 'the host community'* might find frustrating.

But my posts are intended to disagree fundamentally with those who assert that there is no such over-representation as there clearly is, and/or who accuse those regarding it as an evident problem, and endeavouring to assess reasons for it, of racism ~~ an accusation which seems to me to justify, at least to some extent, the initial reluctance of the police, the courts, and other authorities involved, to go public about the matter to any extent whatever, although the results of this evasion ultimately and inevitably merely exacerbated an unfortunate situation.

I reject as irrelevancies introduction to the argument of other offences committed by other demographics in other places [like e.g. Jim's entirely inapposite & confusing adducing of a nurse's abuse of a 6 year old boy, which, like the flowers that bloom in the spring tra-la, had nothing to do with the case!].

~M~

*{a usage I dislike as somewhat patronising & unwelcoming but I can't offhand think of an alternative

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 03:12 PM

Don't run away Jim.

Why are Allibhai-Brown, Ahmed and Shafiq not racist, but I am if I repeat what they say?

Why are Lively and MtheGM not racist when they have said exactly what you call me racist for saying?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 02:36 PM

"And the music goes round and round........"
I think it's way past your bed-time, don't yu?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 01:51 PM

I am not implicating anyone.
Lively and MtheGM have both acknowledged the over-rep. and linked it to culture.
If it makes me racist but not others, it shows that it is just personal.
A baseless attempt to smear.

"neither of them have put your effort into proving that Pakistani culture causes paedophilia"

I have made no effort at all!
How could I? It is not provable.
The idea was put forward and reported in the press.
The people I mentioned were the only ones who have put up an explanation for the over-rep.
Or can you quote another Jim?
I have asked you that many times now

" hiding behind a handful of experts, without presenting in full what they have to say"
Lie.
I have quoted verbatim everything Straw, Allibhai-Brown, Cryer, Ahmed and Shafiq have said on this.

"Now please tell us why Pakistani culture = paedophelia"

I did not know it did Jim.
I would never suggest such a thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 12:43 PM

I have yet to hear their opinion fully on the matter - I have certainly not heard Mike suggest that paedophilia is a built-in cultural trait and have yet to hear and debate Lively's views in full on the subject.
Isn't it somewhat spineless to attempt to implicate others in your agenda - neither of them have put your effort into proving that Pakistani culture causes paedophilia. Don't know how they feel about it, but it would piss me off no end.
"That Pakistanis Ahmed, Allibhai-Brown and Mohammed Shafiq are all racist "
I haven't read their views in full, nor am I aware that they have presented any evidence to back up their claims, nor do I know what facts their views are based on - when I find this out I'll beam down my opinion.
I certainly have no idea why their opinions should be any more valid than those still living in the communities who find their ideas offensive, perhaps you can enlighten us on that one?
You, on the other hand, have made your unequivocal statements without evidence, apart from hiding behind a handful of experts, without presenting in full what they have to say, and at tediously great length, without even having the courage so say on what grounds you hold your opinions.   
Now please tell us why Pakistani culture = paedophelia and why it is not racist to make such a suggestion.
You have yet to explain why the effect of your obnoxious views on the Pakistani community should not cause the damage I have outlined - please do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 09:16 AM

I am not lining up supporters Jim.

I am asking if Lively and MtheGM are racist because they acknowledge the over-representation and link it to culture/custom.

Either the 3 of us are racist, or none of us are.

Which is it Jim?

And please confirm that Pakistanis Ahmed, Allibhai-Brown and Mohammed Shafiq are all racist against Pakistanis on Planet Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 08:58 AM

"You say nothing about the over-representation."
The overall case for over-representation has not been proven - certainly not by your tiny hndful of perpetrators.
The cases you have presented are all in limited communities where all sorts of factors could be in issue, but we dwill never know that until we have the details of each community.
Your constant claim of over-representation is every bit as racist as claiming that the crime is in any way connected with the culture.
"I am persuaded by those very eminent and knowledgeable people who link it to culture."
And you continue to hide behind he opinions of others - they are opinions just as the thousands of objectors of these statements are opinions - you choose the racist option because it suits your preconceptions - show us the actual evidence on which these opinions are based (not a handful of examples from a population of 1.2 million).
They are neither eminent nor knowledgeable; some of them are dedicated field workers, others are time-serving politicians who have a vested interest (including hiding their own responsibility for the conditions existing in these communities).
All of which does not change the fact that describing a cultural/racial group as prone to paedophelia is blatent racism and anybody making it is a racist.
"And Lively? And MtheGm?"
Two of your supporters out of how many?
Stop hiding behind the opinions of others and have the courage to back up your own ideas with real, solid evidence. Not doing so makes you spineless as well as racist
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 08:45 AM

Lord Ahmed
As a resident of Rotherham, Ahmed has spoken on behalf of the communities in that region, particularly the families of the former steelworkers of the 1960s, from the Indian subcontinent who are now second or third generation British. He has expressed that he is anxious to see that these regions continue to live peacefully amidst the growing move towards the far right across Europe, and strives to encourage positive integration into society so that people of all cultures can live together harmoniously.

Born in the region, Ahmed has a personal interest in seeing a peaceful resolve to the ongoing bloody dispute in Kashmir and seeks international mediation to achieve this. As well as being an active figure in the Indian Subcontinent, he has worked on the plight of Muslims around the world ranging from the collapse of former Yugoslavia, especially to the Bosniaks and Palestinians. He has been on many delegations to the Arab world, the US, Eastern Europe, Africa, the former states of the USSR and the Far East, meeting with heads of state to discuss their respective problems and how he may be able to assist them.

Ahmed helps with various charitable causes and is on the board of several organisations from local groups such as his position as President of South Yorkshire Victim Support, to international bodies such as his board membership on the SAARC Foundation.

Ahmed was among the founders of The World Forum, an organization set up to promote world peace in the after math of the 9/11 with an effort to build bridges of understanding between The Muslim World and the West by reviving a tradition of Dialogue between people, cultures and civilizations based on tolerance

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 08:39 AM

You say nothing about the over-representation.
Is it OK to believe in that now?
Do you believe in it again?

I keep telling you that I have no way of knowing its cause.
I am persuaded by those very eminent and knowledgeable people who link it to culture.

That makes me racist, but not them?

And Lively?
And MtheGm?

(Did you know that world leaders consult Ahmed on community relations?)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 08:24 AM

"Will you now withdraw that baseless accusation against me, and if not, why not?"
To describe Pakistanis as culturally prone to paedophilia is blatent racist stereotyping, whether it came from, the pen of Martin Borman or was sung in three-part harmony by Paul Robeson, Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglas.
You have taken a tiny handful of examples in order to prove your case and have dragged it through this evil thread, over and over again and still have been unable to produce any proof whatsover to back up your racist claims.
You continually refer back to your 'experts' who, apart from the exception of Jack Straw, whose statement you sanitized with your blue pencil by removing the crux of his argument, are no experts in anything but their own tiny ponds. I suggest you look at Ahmed a little more closely, with his conviction for killing somebody while using a mobile phone while driving and his threat to invade parliament with 'thousands of Muslims'. Whatever the rights or wrongs of his case, (I certainly wouldn't disagree with his cause on that particular issue), he is no more than an off-the-wall politician (a highly trustworthy profession, no doubt!!!) offering a personal opinion based on no research and carrying no more weight than that of thousands of Muslims who found his ideas racist and who, unlike him, still live in these communities and have to bear the consequences of such statements.
You are a man on a mission to prove that Pakistanis are cultural perverts - which in my book makes you a racist of the worst kind.
You haven't even bothered to respond to the effects of your racist statemants would have on the Pakistani population in the obscure chance that they were ever to be taken seriously by anybody other than those racists who already embrace them - apart from first to deny you made them and then just to deny their possible effects.
In my book, by your own statements you are a racist and will remain so until you prove that;
A. You made the statements you did in a bout of drunkeness and you take it all back
or
B You show how describing a whole culture thus:
"let us accept that this is a crime that the culture (not the religion) of the Pakistani community is largely responsible for."
and:
"You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,
Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment"
is not racial stereotyping designed to inflict harm on a British immigrant community.
Stet.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 06:38 AM

Jim, both Lively and MtheGM have accepted the over-representation and linked it to culture and/or customs.
You have sensibly not suggested that they are motivated by racism, but you have made that accusation against me for holding the same opinion.

Will you now withdraw that baseless accusation against me, and if not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 11 - 02:54 AM

Have you forgotten that Cryer had families coming to her because the police refused to investigate?
Have you forgotten the senior officers who admitted they were afraid of being called racist?
The victim who wanted to go to court but her friend was too afraid of the gang? One child's word against the gang would not bring a conviction.

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

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

"In practice, unless the primary victim is prepared to give evidence then it's very difficult to make charges stick. The men know this, so they often wait until the girls are 13 before actually having sex with them."
thread.cfm?threadid=135090&messages=2153#3108471 (slow mudcat link, 1 minute)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 11 - 10:05 PM

"As to your ludicrous claims about hundreds of victims with NO arrests and NO convictions.........not worthy of consideration."

You have not read, or you have forgotten, the accounts from the support workers, journalists and victims about why all those hundreds of cases never came to court.

That makes you and your posts not worthy of consideration.