BS: UK nuclear subs

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 08:01 AM

"Confusing "culture" with "religion" again Jom."
Confusing "Jom" with Jim again Teribus - and you seemed to be making an effort to grow up - maybe one day eh?
Answer the points rather than throwing up diversive and inaccurate points to create smokescreens.
British Muslim Pakistanis refers to a race an culture and a religion
Britain describes itself as a Christian country, even though only 53% of its people describe themselves as "not religious" and only 30% regard themselves as religious
'Christian' refers to culture as well as religion.
Stop nit-picking, you aren't skilful enough to get away with it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 17 - 01:17 AM

Confusing "culture" with "religion" again Jom.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 04:05 AM

"What about "cultures" that treat women as chattels? "
What about them?
These are not the cultures we are talking about.
The people we are discussing are British Muslims - some of them have lived under British/Muslim culture for decades and absorbed our culture, good and evil
All these National cultures developed under British rule anyway - we were happy enough to live with or off them while we were exploiting them - now, it would appear, we are happy to use them as an excuse to denigrate people and keep them out.
Generally, those who move to Britain, or anywhere settle in and merge with the native culture - if they are allowed to - they may tend to live in their own communities for practical reasons or for companionship in hostile surroundings, or even for safety, but they obey our laws and merge into our society, when they are allowed to.
If you care to read it up, this is the advice given by Muslim teachers - merge into the host society and obey their laws.
Extremist traditions are a problem in any community or religion, that includes Christianity, Judaism and Muslim, but, as I have pointed out, the tiny handful of criminals we are talking about have rejected the Muslim Culture - they certainly aren't representative of it.
They drink alcohol against their religious teachings, they have sex outside of marriage - strictly forbidden in their tradition - they are not traditionalists so they can in no way be described as part of the Muslim culture.
The problem with these misfits is not that they cling to Muslim culture but that they have adopted some of the worst aspects of ours.
We have a society that treats women as 'available' - take a look at some of the readily available porn sites. or take a look at some of the magazines available in newsagents, or turn to page three of The Sun - women as available meat.
Marital rape in Britain was only introduced into law in the late 1970s, more than 80% of rapes go unreported and it is estimated that 994 OUT OF A 1000 RAPISTS TRIED FOR THEIR CRIMES GO FREE
A raped woman who reports the offence undergoes two ordeals - first the rape itself, then her ordeal in court where every inch of her own behaviour us put under scrutiny and, if possible, used against her.
WE HAVE NO CLAIM TO A MORAL GROUND AS FAR AS THE TREATMENT OF WOMEN IN BRITAIN and now America has a President who suggest that it's OK to "just go up and grab a woman's pussy if the fancy takes you"
As Ghandi said of Western civilsation, "It would be a good idea".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 17 - 02:05 AM

What about "cultures" that treat women as chattels? Condone child brides? Arranged marriages between total strangers? FGM? "Honour" killings?

By the way "Christians" are neither a "racial" or a "cultural" group, Christianity is a religion.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 07:48 PM

"Yet for some reason Jim only thinks that this happens in Christian households and communities."
Don't be more stupid than you've already proved yourself to be
I have neer suggested such a thing and have made a point of saying so - no community or racial group is immune fro criminals
It seems you failure to find examples in defence of Keith has reduced you to his habit of lying
One meal you should have taken a longer spoon to
If you can't be homest, be absent
You really are not very good at this, are you - chence your place in the pecking order!!
NO RACIAL OR CULTURAL GROUP IS IMPLANTED TO TEND THEM TOWARDS CHILD RAPE - CHRISTIANS INCLUDED
SUCH BEHAVIOUR IS EITHER A MENTAL ABBERATION OR A PERSONAL CHOICE - CULTURE HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH SUCH BEHAVIOUR
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 06:41 PM

You're the one who has a pathological obsession with this fantasy of yours just as you do with some post of Keith's from years ago that you're obsessed with. Let it go man - it's not healthy.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 06:30 PM

Stop worrying. You were busted but the mods have let you off. What more could you ask for! 😂😂😂

Over over over and definitely out out out this time. Don't let the sword of truth penetrate too far up your delicate bottom!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 06:22 PM

If it bothers you, take it to the mods.

Not bothered at all, just letting it be known that you're a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:57 PM

Another misse'd apostrophe. Hells teeth.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:56 PM

If it bothers you, take it to the mods. But you're bang to rights. You did what you did and we all saw it. Over to you. More importantly, as I havent the time to carry on with this, over and out.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:27 PM

"The individual came from a devoutly Christian family, such people tend to absorb family influences" - Jim Carroll

Yet for some reason Jim only thinks that this happens in Christian households and communities. Wonder what reasoning and logic he employs to come to that conclusion - apparently no family influences are absorbed in homes and families of other religions. He also seems to think that "culture" in which someone is brought up in and lives his/her whole life in is not a factor - when of course it's influence is far greater than that of religion

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:23 PM

You were posting both as bobad and as an anonymous Guest until the rules changed.

You are a liar.

Had you not been abusing the latter identity in order to call us names

I don't need anonymity to call you what you are - I would not hesitate to tell it to your face if I were to meet you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 12:16 PM

The thread was "WWI, was No-Man's Land."
I gave you the date and time of my post.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 11:15 AM

What was the other thread, Keith? I asked you for chapter and verse and you haven't delivered. Why the hesitation? No, really, I want to take a really good look at it. Either that or I'll just have to watch the Leicester match this evening instead. Do we take it that your reluctance to tell us which thread it was speaks volumes?

I never lose, by the way, though I have occasionally been known to defer success.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 11:04 AM

Everything I've said to you in the last 24 hours is the whole truth. I know you don't like it. Take it up with the mods. I still have the PM correspondence I had but I don't divulge that sort of thing in threads for all to read. You were posting both as bobad and as an anonymous Guest until the rules changed. Had you not been abusing the latter identity in order to call us names I wouldn't have given a stuff. Call me a liar all you like. I'm not, and you won't provoke me into divulging private messages here. Ask the mods and perhaps they will confirm these things for you if you're that bothered. They may not even remember our exchanges but I have the wherewithal to remind them if necessary. I can tell you that they're not bothered at all, unfortunately, by what went on before the rule change, otherwise you wouldn't be here now. Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 07:52 AM

And stop sniping.

And you stop lying.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 06:48 AM

"We are all "implanted""
Nobody is culturally implanted tio re children
"(not my choice of word)"
You chose to accept it as a description of what you believe
"I made no claims about it"
Yes you did - you have never produced a single quote of anybody else making such an obscene statement - nor has your running mate.
No quote will ever be produced from any of those you named - it is the stuff of extrtermination camps and white supremacist filth.
"I produced numerous quotes "
Utter lies
"My only claim was that there was an over-representation"
Your claim was that an entire racial culture was culturally implanted to rape chidren - you have been given it and have supported it countless times
"Can we now leave 2011 and discuss current issues."
You instigated the present discussion by asking for examples of your extremism - this is the best one that came to hand
It will remain relevant while you continue to deny your extremism, while you continue to tell lies about who said it and while you continue to expound the views you expounded in 2011
You lose!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:13 AM

Steve,
Well this discussion about Wheatcroft has been about the "not an historian" thread, which, like other threads, stands alone as a discrete area of discussion.

No. It is about the Wheatcroft discussion which took place on two threads simultaneously with the same participants including you.

I introduced the article into the discussion because it wholly supported my case, and I quoted the relevant passage in full.

Your case against me has failed.
You lose.

Now, can you challenge anything I have posted in this thread this year?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:09 AM

You have not prodeced a single quote approaching that sickening suggestion, neither you oer your pack-master will do so

We are all "implanted" (not my choice of word) to some extent by our culture, and I produced numerous quotes that linked that culture to the offending.
I made no claims about it, I just said I believed them and asked why you did not.
My only claim was that there was an over-representation, which was true then and has been confirmed many times since.

Can we now leave 2011 and discuss current issues.
Why are you determined to make every thread about me?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:07 AM

No we can't leave 2011 and 2014 just because it makes you feel uncomfortable and forces you to account for yourself. On two threads, eh? Well this discussion about Wheatcroft has been about the "not an historian" thread, which, like other threads, stands alone as a discrete area of discussion. In that thread you misrepresented Wheatcroft - why you can't admit that God only knows - by stating that he said something that he didn't, and that would have stood for evermore had I not picked you up. It's taken you over two years to dredge up the other thread ( still don't know which one - tell me and I'll do the forensics on that one as well, or maybe you'd rather I didn't...?)

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 05:04 AM

"We are all "implanted" (not my choice of word)"
Nobody is implanted to rape children - you claim that an entire culture is
You have not prodeced a single quote approaching that sickening suggestion, neither you oer your pack-master will do so
Your ongoing claim that you have produced a quote then refusing to reproduce it here only confirms your dishonesty - which is fine by me.
In the and, it doesn't matter anyway
Whoever holds such views is a profound racist and a menace to decent society - no matter where those views came from (or, in your case - where you claim they came from)
"Can we now leave 2011 and discuss current issues."
You say that whenever you are at a loss - your own persistent extremism makes every thread about you - your choice, not mine
If you continue to uphold your obnoxious views, has nothing to do with 2011 - it is ongoing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 04:50 AM

Jim,
We are all "implanted" (not my choice of word) to some extent by our culture, and I produced numerous quotes that linked that culture to the offending.
I made no claims about it, I just said I believed them and asked why you did not.
My only claim was that there was an over-representation, which was true then and has been confirmed many times since.

Can we now leave 2011 and discuss current issues.
Why are you determined to make every thread about me?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 04:44 AM

Steve,
There is no such post in the thread "I'm not an historian but..." at 03.55 pm on 10 December. If this is supposed to be a reference to another thread, you are being completely ridiculous.

Not at all. The same discussion was running on two parallel threads and the same people, including you, were contributing on both.

I had already quoted the passage in full, and you and everyone else involved had seen it.

. You were pontificating about people's quotes. I am demonstrating that your past behaviour, over which you are unrepentant, clearly shows that you are the last person in the world who should be lecturing other people about their quotes.

I do use quotes extensively. If you have to go back to 2014 to find a single one to challenge, and that challenge fails anyway, then you have proved that I am very well placed to pontificate on the matter.
Your case against me has failed.
You lose.

Now, can you challenge anything I have posted in this thread this year?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 17 - 04:11 AM

"Devout Christian - the text of the article does not make any claim that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian"
The individual came from a devoutly Christian family, such people tend to absorb family influences, he used his knowledge of Christianity to entrap his victims - there is no reason to believe he wasn't a devout Christian
Recent history has shown that some of the worst paedofiles in society are not just practicing and devout Christian bu in fact have used their position as clergymen to rape and abuse children - a situation that has prevailed for centuries and is still being uncovered.
"Not so Jim - he even gave you their names. Did you bother to check the information given?"
I most certainly dis and I quoted it back at him in its correct context
Did you?
BOTH YOU AND HE HAVE FAILED TO COME UP WITH A SINGLE QUOTE WHICH IN ANY WAY CORRESPONDS TO KEITH'S OBSCENE ACCUSATION THAT ALL PAKISTANI MUSLIM MALES ARE CULTURALLY IMPLANTED TO RAPE UNDERAGE YOUNG WOMEN AND HAVE TO RESIST THAT IMPLANT TO PREVENT THEMSELVES FROM DOING SO
Instead, you prefer to defend the religion of Britain's declared worst paedofile
I can't begin to tell you how refreshing it is to encounter somebody who has his priorities right - especially when he is a friend of our heroic Troll, Bobad!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 07:14 PM

It's bloody awful round here sometimes, Greg. We get Teribus making an art out of missing the point, akenaton not getting anything at all and bobad and Keith making careers out of dissembling. Give me a bloody raucous shouting match full of insults and swearing any day with someone who is at least trying to be be straightforward and honest! Let me have men about me that are fat! Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights! Yond Iains has a lean and hungry look! He thinks too much (er, bad line, Will)! Such men are dangerous! (Well more daft than dangerous but who am I to gainsay the Bard!) That's why I started me Tr*** thread and why I keep keep talking about flowers and hills and dales. The diversions lift the spirit. Sod the naysayers. I'm determined to be the worst below-the-line drifter of threads in the history of humanity from now on. Let's annoy the annoyers with pleasantries! Let's sprinkle rose petals over the swamp!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:49 PM

I think bobad's missed his/her calling, Steve. He/She should be an advisor to president Trump. Perhaps he/she should submit a CV. Da Prez is always looking for good sources of "alternative facts".

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 06:42 PM

Oh dear, that's got him frazzled! There was no divulging of private "information." You were investigated and it was found that you and the anonymous guest were operating from the same internet address. That's as much as I was told. I don't know who you are or where you live or even whether you're a boy or a girl. I haven't a clue what that address was and I don't want to know, in fact, I don't know anything about internet addresses and could well be using the wrong terminology. If anyone asked me for mine I wouldn't know how to begin to look for it. I still have the message but that is as much as I'm going to say about it. Take it up with the mods if it bothers you so much. But I assure you that the person in question acted with the utmost integrity, which is more than can be said for your behaviour at the time.

And stop sniping.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 05:33 PM

what I said about you was confirmed to me in a PM by a moderator

Then that moderator is as much a liar as you are and besides any forum moderator who would divulge personal information about other members would be in violation of the forum's privacy code.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:55 PM

Oh, sure. Sorry, mate, but what I said about you was confirmed to me in a PM by a moderator who checked the internet addresses. Now stop sniping. You never have anything to contribute.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 04:49 PM

As duplicitous as secretly posting under two identities at once in order to call people names?

More "Made-Up-Shit"™ from one of the jackals.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 02:30 PM

As duplicitous as secretly posting under two identities at once in order to call people names? As duplicitous as coming here only to snipe, never to contribute to a discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 02:22 PM

Carroll caught up being duplicitous again......tsk! tsk!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 02:01 PM

Sneaky bastard Jim:

" Jim Carroll - 21 Feb 17 - 10:23 AM

"that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian"

INSTEAD OF:

"Devout Christian - the text of the article does not make any claim that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian"

If you are going to quote then quote the whole thing in context. What that means is that your Link Title and Article title was incorrect and deliberately misleading - in other words par for the course for your links.

"What Keith A stated on this forum were the opinions of three influential members of Muslim Community of the United Kingdom " - Teribus

A blatant lie - Jim Carroll

Not so Jim - he even gave you their names. Did you bother to check the information given?

"There is no evidence whatever of a cultural link between Islam and paedophelia, which is Keith's claim." - Jim Carroll

No it is not Keith's claim for the umpteenth soddin' time. Why don't you read posts before responding?

Certain societies on this planet regard women as chattels Jim, I note that you do not condemn that. When members of such "cultures" (S.F.A. to do with religion) come to the UK and settle here for whatever reason, then that part of their "culture"(S.F.A. to do with religion) gets abandoned as it is against the laws of this country to treat women in such a fashion. If they don't like it they can form political parties and campaign until they have the support and political clout the disenfranchise over half of our population. Personally I believe that the emancipation of women was the greatest advance for the benefit of mankind during the course of the twentieth century, maybe you disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:29 PM

There is no such post in the thread "I'm not an historian but..." at 03.55 pm on 10 December. If this is supposed to be a reference to another thread, you are being completely ridiculous. This conversation is about the sequence of posts in the above-named thread. Your first reference to the Guardian piece in the "not an historian" thread was the lie in question. Had I not challenged you, it would have stood forever. Quite likely never even mentioned again. You are piling dishonesty on dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:15 PM

"f we are a "gang" Jim, we are willing to debate/discuss any issue seriously."
You are part of a gang Ake and, as you have only written tw lines in this entire discussion it is none of your business what I write
I assume by " we are willing ", oyu mean the Royal "we"
I have not screamed anything - I put what I said in red and large font to underline the fact that, having claimed a dozen time that I am a liar, he is lying in the face of his own written statements.
Surely, even you must recognise that your use of the term "we" is an indication that you consider yourself s synchronized team, having persistently accusing us of same
Kindly remove your foot from your mouth and eiher join in with respect or ride off into the sunset - I really don't mind which
Jim Carroll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:09 PM

AJP Taylor - Vulgar
Alan Clarke - Largely Fraudulent

It's in the passage you have just cited.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:08 PM

Wrong book, Prof.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 01:04 PM

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 12:31 PM

"That is a lie Steve. I quoted in full when I first introduced that article into the debate."

Chapter and verse, time and date, please.

"It is not necessary to quote in full every time it is referenced."

It is necessary to not misquote. Wheatcroft did not call Taylor's book "fraudulent." You said he did. He didn't. That isn't conflating or speaking generally or anything else. It's a lie. Very, very simple. You are bang to rights.

"...thereby rubbishing your views and supporting mine."

You were not rubbishing any views that I had expressed even remotely in connection with this matter of the two books. This attempt at deception has nothing whatever to do with my views. It has everything to do with your dishonesty, pretending that someone said something that it is glaringly obvious they didn't.

"No deception, and no need to deceive. He was supporting my view and rubbishing yours."

See above. Completely untrue. Bears no resemblance to how the matter was being discussed.

"But why are you rehashing a 2014 discussion here?"

It isn't the discussion I'm rehashing. I have no interest in doing that. You were
pontificating about people's quotes. I am demonstrating that your past behaviour, over which you are unrepentant, clearly shows that you are the last person in the world who should be lecturing other people about their quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:52 AM

Interesting Ake that you don't move off topic, because the title of this thread is UK nuclear subs.

As I posted earlier I really don't care, very much like a conversation in a pub over a few pints the topic varies wildly.

The crocus are now in flower.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:35 AM

If we are a "gang" Jim, we are willing to debate/discuss any issue seriously. We do not move off topic or start screaming obscene insults, we respond to whatever comes up in the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:30 AM

"A classic example of Carroll's misrepresentation and "Made-Up-Shit"
Feel free to prove it is not true Bobad
Can't you get your own dialogue instead of repeating Teribus's mindlessness - whoops, I forgot you are a member of the Fucked Up Four
All male
"You will find no single quote of me claiming that, but numerous quotes in that thread of me refuting that it had anything to do with Islam."
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" "
What the **** are "male Pakistani Muslims" - Bush Baptists?
And you still have not produced an example of somebody talking about "cultural Implants
DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR UNLESS YOU WISH TO HUMILIATE YOURSELF EVEN FURTHER
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:24 AM

Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 06:43 AM

Don, on 24th January I said about this issue "It is nothing to do with Islam. "
I do not "see the problem as a Muslim one,"
I have always said specifically that it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: bobad
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:08 AM

"NO evidence has ever been produced to link the Muslim religion with Paedophelia, yet you and Keith are claiming it here"

A classic example of Carroll's misrepresentation and "Made-Up-Shit"™, it's what he resorts to when presented with facts that destroy his argument.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:05 AM

Jim,
There is no evidence whatever of a cultural link between Islam and paedophelia, which is Keith's claim.

That is a lie Jim.
You will find no single quote of me claiming that, but numerous quotes in that thread of me refuting that it had anything to do with Islam.

You only ever quote one of my thousands of posts. You misrepresent that one and the rest make a liar of you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 11:00 AM

Steve,
You quoted the thing in full only after you were challenged for incorrectly stating that Taylor's book had been called "fraudulent."

That is a lie Steve. I quoted in full when I first introduced that article into the debate.

It is not necessary to quote in full every time it is referenced.
I conflated his terms of dismissal when further referring to his rubbishing of those texts thereby rubbishing your views and supporting mine.
No deception, and no need to deceive. He was supporting my view and rubbishing yours.

But why are you rehashing a 2014 discussion here?
If you could challenge what I put in this thread you would.
Instead you go back to 2014, Jim and Rag to 2011 in the desperate search for something to use against me personally.
And still you fail to find anything!

You sad, obsessive little gang of "men."
If you can't argue the thread, leave it or talk flowers

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:25 AM

DtG Did you get my email about the song info for Dave in Scotland.


PS Don't worry they'll never crack our cypher!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:23 AM

"that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian"
It makes no difference
The point I put him up was he was an example of an indigenous paedophile
Surely you are not suggesting that Christians are not paedophiles?
You want examples of Christians using their position to molest children - no problem
This is the man's actual background
"The former grammar school pupil, born to devout Christian parents in Ashford, Kent, led a secret life as a prolific paedophile, targeting children as young as six-months-old to satisfy his depraved desires."
Smoke and mirrors again
"What Keith A stated on this forum were the opinions of three influential members of Muslim Community of the United Kingdom "
A blatant lie - he has never produced examples of anybody saying anything resembling his statement and has refused to do so.
You want to prove that is not true, you ***** produce them
There is no evidence whatever of a cultural link between Islam and paedophelia, which is Keith's claim.
Now - come back when you have evidence of "cultural implants" and until you do, do not call me a liar
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 10:07 AM

Haven't a clue what happened to the text of my last post:

A blatant and deliberately told LIE. What Keith A stated on this forum were the opinions of three influential members of Devout Christian - the text of the article does not make any claim that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian as a means of gaining access to children. In other words Jom it is an irrelevance, if he thought that masquerading as a devout Muslim would have gained him access would you still be saying the same thing?

Should read:

A blatant and deliberately told LIE. What Keith A stated on this forum were the opinions of three influential members of Muslim Community of the United Kingdom coupled with the conclusions drawn from those investigating the incidents that there appeared to be a cultural dimension linking the perpetrators along with "institutionalised political correctness".

Devout Christian - the text of the article does not make any claim that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian as a means of gaining access to children. In other words Jom it is an irrelevance, if he thought that masquerading as a devout Muslim would have gained him access would you still be saying the same thing?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 17 - 09:56 AM

Jim Carroll - 21 Feb 17 - 04:24 AM

As a response to my last post that Jom is pathetic.

So all the detectives assigned to Operation Midland, the Government and M.I.5 are all corrupt. If that was the case numbnuts it would not have taken them 16 months to find nothing, for budgetary reasons it would have been wrapped up a damn sight quicker than that. If it was a cover up then no way in God's creation would those named and who were being "protected" in this supposed cover up would be f**kin' stupid enough, or allowed to take legal action to sue those responsible for blackening their names and reputations - Don't you ever think, question or reason before you write anything??

"Article itself puts an estimated 750,000 males in the UK could possibly be interested in underaged sex"

And those 750,000 males includes Muslin males in the UK Jom {Not all of them by any means before you launch yourself down that route}. Those 750,000 males are NOT paedophiles, if you think they are then you obviously did not read the article.


Which is exatly what Keith said about Muslims and you have supported

A blatant and deliberately told LIE. What Keith A stated on this forum were the opinions of three influential members of Devout Christian - the text of the article does not make any claim that the man was a Christian, devout or otherwise, they said he masqueraded as a Christian as a means of gaining access to children. In other words Jom it is an irrelevance, if he thought that masquerading as a devout Muslim would have gained him access would you still be saying the same thing?

"NO evidence has ever been produced to link the Muslim religion with Paedophelia, yet you and Keith are claiming it here"

Who said any evidence had been produced to link the Muslim religion with Paedophilia? Three prominent members of the Muslim community and those investigating these sex gangs in Rotherham, Bristol and Oxford all commented on the predominance of perpetrators being British-Pakistani males suggesting that there may be "Cultural" reasons - Note that Jom CULTURAL reasons NOT RELIGIOUS reasons - Don't say they are the same because they most certainly are not.

In the case of the Bristol Gang:
"The gang coerced the girls into sex with small payments of money, gifts of drugs and alcohol, and by persuading them that having sex with many men was part of "Somali 'CULTURE AND TRADITION'

No mention or reference there to RELIGION.