Court cases later this year will see allegations against mixed race sex gangs, including one with Asian and white suspects, and another with Asian and African men.

Is it just me or can anyone else see the common denominator here?

All human?

Ok.

One gang were Asian and white. The other gang Asian and black. And the common denominator is..?

Also, I'm wondering what percentage of the first gang were white?

As the report says, the biggest danger is from online groomers and the vast majority of them are white.

But you and you're fellows ignore that; as you do all facts which prove how ignorant your prejudice actually is.

Indeed it's lucky we haven't been culturally enriched by the tribes of the Northern Amazon as we would then no doubt have Liberals defending their right to shrink heads. Coming to think of it maybe a few have arrived judging by posts made by some of the esteemed members of this forum.

Kindly justify your remark by linking to any post made by someone you label Liberal (sic, it should be a lower case 'l') defending anyone's right to break the law.

The post was in response to a post I made quoting Nick Clegg who is leader of the Liberal Democrat party who are presently in a coalition government with the Conservative party.

Evidently your skull and brain have not been yanked out through an incision in the neck, nor has your head been boiled in a vat of herbs and tannin. Incidentally, who was it who stated that quoting out of context was the last refuge of the desperate?

As the report says, the biggest danger is from online groomers and the vast majority of them are white.

But you and you're fellows ignore that; as you do all facts which prove how ignorant your prejudice actually is.

From where do you get the information that 'the vast majority of them are white'?

How many 'white' gangs have been prosecuted? Where and when? Were these British or foreign?

(The recent gang prosecution of Slovak gypsies and one Kurdish associate in the UK cannot really come under the term 'white')

As the report says, the biggest danger is from online groomers and the vast majority of them are white.

But you and you're fellows ignore that; as you do all facts which prove how ignorant your prejudice actually is.

From where do you get the information that 'the vast majority of them are white'?

How many 'white' gangs have been prosecuted? Where and when? Were these British or foreign?

(The recent gang prosecution of Slovak gypsies and one Kurdish associate in the UK cannot really come under the term 'white')

I find it interesting that the media rarely highlights the involvement of the 'white' deviant & criminal population involvement in sexual grooming and other sexual abuse matters.

A report for the children's commissioner in 2012 found there were 1,514 perpetrators. Of these, 545 were white, 415 were Asian and 244 were black. The ethnicity of 21% of perpetrators was not recorded. Attempts to analyse the Asian figure further runs into problems. Just 35 of the 415 Asians are recorded as having Pakistani heritage and thus highly likely to be Muslim, and only five are recorded as being from a Bangladeshi background. The heritage of 366 of the Asian group is not stated in those figures.

However, the view in different parts of law enforcement is that it is wrong to take these figures and cases and say the race or religion of the perpetrator leads to them committing these crimes.

A more credible link, says one senior source involved in bringing the criminals to justice, are their occupations. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said the demography of certain areas and the makeup of the night-time economy explained the over-representation of Asian offenders.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/14/child-grooming-sexual-abuse-race

I believe its justifiable to say that orientation to sexual grooming would also be linked to other forms of sexual abuse. The vast majority of sexual predator network content is white/hispanic in origin, with the overwhelming majority of consumers of sexual abuse content arrested being white and in many cases middle class.

Indeed it's lucky we haven't been culturally enriched by the tribes of the Northern Amazon as we would then no doubt have Liberals defending their right to shrink heads. Coming to think of it maybe a few have arrived judging by posts made by some of the esteemed members of this forum.

Kindly justify your remark by linking to any post made by someone you label Liberal (sic, it should be a lower case 'l') defending anyone's right to break the law.

The post was in response to a post I made quoting Nick Clegg who is leader of the Liberal Democrat party who are presently in a coalition government with the Conservative party.

Evidently your skull and brain have not been yanked out through an incision in the neck, nor has your head been boiled in a vat of herbs and tannin. Incidentally, who was it who stated that quoting out of context was the last refuge of the desperate?

Evidently not; as I am still alive.

Quoting a source out of context is not the same as asking a specific question on a specific remark in a post.

Especially as it was the only remark you made in the post concerned!

You've dodged the question; again.

We all know why; you can't produce such a post for the simple reason that none exist.

As the report says, the biggest danger is from online groomers and the vast majority of them are white.

But you and you're fellows ignore that; as you do all facts which prove how ignorant your prejudice actually is.

From where do you get the information that 'the vast majority of them are white'?

How many 'white' gangs have been prosecuted? Where and when? Were these British or foreign?

(The recent gang prosecution of Slovak gypsies and one Kurdish associate in the UK cannot really come under the term 'white')

What don't you understand about the phrase "As the report says?"

Simple1 has quoted the relevant part above; which he would not have needed to do had you clicked on the link and read the report yourself.

Sexual grooming and other such crimes are carried out by (usually) men of all races and all religions.

They do it for many reasons, but the race and religion of the perpetrator is totally irrelevant.

All religions condemn it; see the quotes from the MCB in the Guardian piece for example

Unless, like The Daily Mail in this article, the press want to use it as an excuse to stir up racial hatred, these cases are either not reported by the press at all or the race/religion of the convicted are ignored.

Like

in this one; they make no mention of Adams' race or religion at all; probably because he's white. If his name had been Muhammad they'd have made sure they published his ethnicity and if they were sure he was a Muslim, that as well..

Those who use this most evil of crimes to try and stir up hatred of a particular race or religion are, in my opinion, just one step above the men who commit the crimes themselves.

I find it interesting that the media rarely highlights the involvement of the 'white' deviant & criminal population involvement in sexual grooming and other sexual abuse matters.

A report for the children's commissioner in 2012 found there were 1,514 perpetrators. Of these, 545 were white, 415 were Asian and 244 were black. The ethnicity of 21% of perpetrators was not recorded. Attempts to analyse the Asian figure further runs into problems. Just 35 of the 415 Asians are recorded as having Pakistani heritage and thus highly likely to be Muslim, and only five are recorded as being from a Bangladeshi background. The heritage of 366 of the Asian group is not stated in those figures.

However, the view in different parts of law enforcement is that it is wrong to take these figures and cases and say the race or religion of the perpetrator leads to them committing these crimes.

A more credible link, says one senior source involved in bringing the criminals to justice, are their occupations. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said the demography of certain areas and the makeup of the night-time economy explained the over-representation of Asian offenders.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/14/child-grooming-sexual-abuse-race

I believe its justifiable to say that orientation to sexual grooming would also be linked to other forms of sexual abuse. The vast majority of sexual predator network content is white/hispanic in origin, with the overwhelming majority of consumers of sexual abuse content arrested being white and in many cases middle class.

Let us separate 'grooming' and 'predators'. Gromming is basically for profit, predation for self-satisfaction.

A lot of the grooming put down to white/caucasian origin is probably in childrens homes and young offenders facilities, where the staff are predominately white.

The street gangs, where the media loves to highlight the Asian aspect, must therefore be predominately Asian or black, as more offences were commited by Asian and black persons than whites. You don't state whether the offences, which are lumped together, were mainly grooming or predation, nor whether it was black-on-black / white-on-white / Asian-on-Asian in the main, or whether the vast number of victims were mainly white / black / Asian.

With regard to the middle-class aspect of this - I would suggest that these were mainly offences against underage (sometimes well under age) kids in the home. This is a lot different from gangs of youths/men grooming underage girls for prostitution, and just as evil. There has always been this adult-on-kid in the home predation - I was a victim myself. And one of a long line of boys offended against by the same family doctor. But I could put that behind me. To be rented out to many men for prostitution would, I submit, be almost impossible to get over.

Yes, I accept that the life-style of the perpetrators probably has more to do with the offence than race or religion, but it is the guys hanging on street corners, not the workers in the many premises open in the evenings. That these may be the brothers or cousins of the workers, offering 'protection' to the many restaurants and fast food outlets that make up the majority of the premises, is also a probable fact.

But it is also undeniable that the majority of these places are 'ethnic' in both flavour and staffing and also many of the street-corner guys are also related to them.

A report for the children's commissioner in 2012 found there were 1,514 perpetrators. Of these, 545 were white, 415 were Asian and 244 were black.

So,according to these figures, Asians are hugely over-represented. Surprise, surprise!!

I wonder what percentage of the UK population is made up of Asians?

But this appears to be dismissed by the usual 'unnamed sources'.

I've never read such apologist BS in my life.

You guys keep denying it, keep quoting the left-wing Guardian and keep your head in the sand.

We have posters here desperately trying to prove the grooming is basically a 'white' issue but grooming is just a part of the problem. FGM was earlier passed off as just a 'cultural' problem.

It's left-wing white liberals on a guilt-trip that are destroying the UK with forced multiculturalism and 'diversity' with immigrants from countries that despise the west.

I can see why the UKIP and EDL are gaining in popularity.

Unless, like The Daily Mail in this article, the press want to use it as an excuse to stir up racial hatred

Amazing! So you think The Daily Mail is stirring up racial hatred by reporting on these crimes? Shoot the messenger much?

Whereas I think Asians and Muslims themselves are stirring up racial hatred by their very actions.

The left so loves to demonize anyone who speaks out against this as prejudiced, racist, bigoted or even fascist. Everyone is so terrified of being labeled racist. It's a perfect way to silence any criticism of the poor behavior of many Muslims in the UK.

And to return to the OP. Lee Rigby RIP. You won't be forgotten and hopefully it won't be in vain as positive changes will come about from your death. Time will come when the real British people say enough is enough.

Suzuki GSX-R1000 L3 182 hp in-line 4 Superbike

A report for the children's commissioner in 2012 found there were 1,514 perpetrators. Of these, 545 were white, 415 were Asian and 244 were black.

So,according to these figures, Asians are hugely over-represented. Surprise, surprise!!

I wonder what percentage of the UK population is made up of Asians?

But this appears to be dismissed by the usual 'unnamed sources'.

I've never read such apologist BS in my life.

You guys keep denying it, keep quoting the left-wing Guardian and keep your head in the sand.

We have posters here desperately trying to prove the grooming is basically a 'white' issue but grooming is just a part of the problem. FGM was earlier passed off as just a 'cultural' problem.

It's left-wing white liberals on a guilt-trip that are destroying the UK with forced multiculturalism and 'diversity' with immigrants from countries that despise the west.

I can see why the UKIP and EDL are gaining in popularity.

Unless, like The Daily Mail in this article, the press want to use it as an excuse to stir up racial hatred

Amazing! So you think The Daily Mail is stirring up racial hatred by reporting on these crimes? Shoot the messenger much?

Whereas I think Asians and Muslims themselves are stirring up racial hatred by their very actions.

The left so loves to demonize anyone who speaks out against this as prejudiced, racist, bigoted or even fascist. Everyone is so terrified of being labeled racist. It's a perfect way to silence any criticism of the poor behavior of many Muslims in the UK.

And to return to the OP. Lee Rigby RIP. You won't be forgotten and hopefully it won't be in vain as positive changes will come about from your death. Time will come when the real British people say enough is enough.

The Daily Hate is not a great source of reference though they do on occasion bring up news items (with lots of spin as usual) that are unreported by other news outlets. You need to ask if the news (minus the spin) is of interest which many times it is not (without the spin) but not always. Problem with the Daily Hate is that they cry wolf too many times so other outlets which decide to not report on issues because of fear (for the most part) get a free ride.

Need to post and go back to look where this racial hatred came from.

Here is a breath of fresh air from a Muslim, Dr Taj Hargey, Imam of the Oxford Islamic congregation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10061217/Imams-promote-grooming-rings-Muslim-leader-claims.html

Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, said race and religion were inextricably linked to the recent spate of grooming rings in which Muslim men have targeted under-age white girls.

I wonder which part of 'inextricably linked' is so difficult to comprehend. The Dr must of course be an Islamophobe.

Incidentally, returning to honour killings I see the fact that the link I provided demonstrated that 91% were committed by Muslims is being studiously ignored seeing as the source is less easy to label a 'hate' site. True, it does not necessarily follow that the causation is religion and not cultural, but the over representation is huge. I would also point out that recently in Jordan moves to increase the penalty for such crimes from the current two years was opposed by religious conservatives.

Finally you might find an Imam who quotes scripture to demonstrate murder is forbidden, but other Imams will quote 'The reliance of the traveler, which states retribution is compulsory for murder, except for those spreading fitna in the land, or for parents, or grandparents murdering their offspring.

Check out Sunniforum and you find a discussion concerning this question. One answer was indeed such a case is not punishable by death, but by payment of blood money. There was a recent outcry in Saudi Arabia where an Imam had to only pay a pittance after torturing his three year old daughter to death.

I suspect similar findings would result in an exploration of any taqqiya spin that some insist on dredging up.

I find it interesting that the media rarely highlights the involvement of the 'white' deviant & criminal population involvement in sexual grooming and other sexual abuse matters.

A report for the children's commissioner in 2012 found there were 1,514 perpetrators. Of these, 545 were white, 415 were Asian and 244 were black. The ethnicity of 21% of perpetrators was not recorded. Attempts to analyse the Asian figure further runs into problems. Just 35 of the 415 Asians are recorded as having Pakistani heritage and thus highly likely to be Muslim, and only five are recorded as being from a Bangladeshi background. The heritage of 366 of the Asian group is not stated in those figures.

However, the view in different parts of law enforcement is that it is wrong to take these figures and cases and say the race or religion of the perpetrator leads to them committing these crimes.

A more credible link, says one senior source involved in bringing the criminals to justice, are their occupations. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said the demography of certain areas and the makeup of the night-time economy explained the over-representation of Asian offenders.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/14/child-grooming-sexual-abuse-race

I believe its justifiable to say that orientation to sexual grooming would also be linked to other forms of sexual abuse. The vast majority of sexual predator network content is white/hispanic in origin, with the overwhelming majority of consumers of sexual abuse content arrested being white and in many cases middle class.

Let us separate 'grooming' and 'predators'. Gromming is basically for profit, predation for self-satisfaction.

A lot of the grooming put down to white/caucasian origin is probably in childrens homes and young offenders facilities, where the staff are predominately white.

The street gangs, where the media loves to highlight the Asian aspect, must therefore be predominately Asian or black, as more offences were commited by Asian and black persons than whites. You don't state whether the offences, which are lumped together, were mainly grooming or predation, nor whether it was black-on-black / white-on-white / Asian-on-Asian in the main, or whether the vast number of victims were mainly white / black / Asian.

With regard to the middle-class aspect of this - I would suggest that these were mainly offences against underage (sometimes well under age) kids in the home. This is a lot different from gangs of youths/men grooming underage girls for prostitution, and just as evil. There has always been this adult-on-kid in the home predation - I was a victim myself. And one of a long line of boys offended against by the same family doctor. But I could put that behind me. To be rented out to many men for prostitution would, I submit, be almost impossible to get over.

The referenced report states that the majority of grooming is via online means, this would refer to 'tools' from social media such as chat rooms, Facebook and so on. From reports various law enforcement agencies around the world have dedicated specialist units monitoring and prosecuting this activity that I suggest reinforces this POV.

Unfortunately sexual deviancy/abuse content is often driven by those paying for the content, whether the content is 'produced' by individuals or in many cases by criminal gangs.

The ignorant and prejudiced trumpeting their own right wing sources and occasional Muslim they have to search hard for as fountains of truth and proof.

But, as ever, they completely ignore the many articles, papers etc. which show that all the crimes we have been talking about are against the teachings of Islam and are condemned by most Muslim leaders, scholars and teachers.

Instead they make wild accusations against their opponents; calling them 'apologists for terrorists' and saying that they 'condone honour killings, FGM, child grooming etc.'

Yet when asked to prove their accusations with a link to the relevant posts, they ignore the challenge or respond with childish insults.

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating.

What we are seeing from some members of this forum and their sources is very similar to the rhetoric produced in Germany in the 1930's; just a different target.

Those concerned have such closed minds that I am inclined to leave this topic and let them wallow in their filth.

"You wont be missed" they'll say.

The ignorant and prejudiced trumpeting their own right wing sources and occasional Muslim they have to search hard for as fountains of truth and proof.

But, as ever, they completely ignore the many articles, papers etc. which show that all the crimes we have been talking about are against the teachings of Islam and are condemned by most Muslim leaders, scholars and teachers.

Instead they make wild accusations against their opponents; calling them 'apologists for terrorists' and saying that they 'condone honour killings, FGM, child grooming etc.'

Yet when asked to prove their accusations with a link to the relevant posts, they ignore the challenge or respond with childish insults.

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating.

What we are seeing from some members of this forum and their sources is very similar to the rhetoric produced in Germany in the 1930's; just a different target.

Those concerned have such closed minds that I am inclined to leave this topic and let them wallow in their filth.

"You wont be missed" they'll say.

So that's no comment on the 91% I take it. By the way your repeated slur of invoking memories of the holocaust is a common and repugnant piece of projection that the both the left and the Islamists often indulge in. A UK body called 'tell mama' ceased to be granted funding because of it's blatant fabrication relating to supposed hate crimes against Muslims. Juxtapose the above with the fact Jews are leaving France and Sweden in their droves due principally to violence and intimidation from Muslim immigrants, meanwhile the left tries to organize boycotts of Israel, whilst thousands are murdered each year in adjoining nations . 1930's indeed.

The ignorant and prejudiced trumpeting their own right wing sources and occasional Muslim they have to search hard for as fountains of truth and proof.

But, as ever, they completely ignore the many articles, papers etc. which show that all the crimes we have been talking about are against the teachings of Islam and are condemned by most Muslim leaders, scholars and teachers.

Instead they make wild accusations against their opponents; calling them 'apologists for terrorists' and saying that they 'condone honour killings, FGM, child grooming etc.'

Yet when asked to prove their accusations with a link to the relevant posts, they ignore the challenge or respond with childish insults.

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating.

What we are seeing from some members of this forum and their sources is very similar to the rhetoric produced in Germany in the 1930's; just a different target.

Those concerned have such closed minds that I am inclined to leave this topic and let them wallow in their filth.

"You wont be missed" they'll say.

So that's no comment on the 91% I take it. By the way your repeated slur of invoking memories of the holocaust is a common and repugnant piece of projection that the both the left and the Islamists often indulge in. A UK body called 'tell mama' ceased to be granted funding because of it's blatant fabrication relating to supposed hate crimes against Muslims. Juxtapose the above with the fact Jews are leaving France and Sweden in their droves due principally to violence and intimidation from Muslim immigrants, meanwhile the left tries to organize boycotts of Israel, whilst thousands are murdered each year in adjoining nations . 1930's indeed.

I suggest to you the rise of predominately white right wing groups, who are increasingly gaining membership, have a great deal of ownership for the discomfort of European Jews. E.g. Hungary far right won 17% of votes. Front National 17%, Sverigedemokraterna party in Sweden this year expecting 10% of votes – all incorporate an anti-Semitic agenda. I am sure you have the figures at your figure tips for the voter support for similar parties in Holland, Austria and so on.

BTW in which adjoining countries are thousands of Jews being murdered each year?

A report for the children's commissioner in 2012 found there were 1,514 perpetrators. Of these, 545 were white, 415 were Asian and 244 were black.

So,according to these figures, Asians are hugely over-represented. Surprise, surprise!!

I wonder what percentage of the UK population is made up of Asians?

But this appears to be dismissed by the usual 'unnamed sources'.

I've never read such apologist BS in my life.

You guys keep denying it, keep quoting the left-wing Guardian and keep your head in the sand.

We have posters here desperately trying to prove the grooming is basically a 'white' issue but grooming is just a part of the problem. FGM was earlier passed off as just a 'cultural' problem.

It's left-wing white liberals on a guilt-trip that are destroying the UK with forced multiculturalism and 'diversity' with immigrants from countries that despise the west.

I can see why the UKIP and EDL are gaining in popularity.

Unless, like The Daily Mail in this article, the press want to use it as an excuse to stir up racial hatred

Amazing! So you think The Daily Mail is stirring up racial hatred by reporting on these crimes? Shoot the messenger much?

Whereas I think Asians and Muslims themselves are stirring up racial hatred by their very actions.

The left so loves to demonize anyone who speaks out against this as prejudiced, racist, bigoted or even fascist. Everyone is so terrified of being labeled racist. It's a perfect way to silence any criticism of the poor behavior of many Muslims in the UK.

And to return to the OP. Lee Rigby RIP. You won't be forgotten and hopefully it won't be in vain as positive changes will come about from your death. Time will come when the real British people say enough is enough.

Suzuki GSX-R1000 L3 182 hp in-line 4 Superbike

So who qualifies to be "the real British people"?

Who gets to decide who the "real British people" are?

A report for the children's commissioner in 2012 found there were 1,514 perpetrators. Of these, 545 were white, 415 were Asian and 244 were black.

So,according to these figures, Asians are hugely over-represented. Surprise, surprise!!

I wonder what percentage of the UK population is made up of Asians?

But this appears to be dismissed by the usual 'unnamed sources'.

I've never read such apologist BS in my life.

You guys keep denying it, keep quoting the left-wing Guardian and keep your head in the sand.

We have posters here desperately trying to prove the grooming is basically a 'white' issue but grooming is just a part of the problem. FGM was earlier passed off as just a 'cultural' problem.

It's left-wing white liberals on a guilt-trip that are destroying the UK with forced multiculturalism and 'diversity' with immigrants from countries that despise the west.

I can see why the UKIP and EDL are gaining in popularity.

Unless, like The Daily Mail in this article, the press want to use it as an excuse to stir up racial hatred

Amazing! So you think The Daily Mail is stirring up racial hatred by reporting on these crimes? Shoot the messenger much?

Whereas I think Asians and Muslims themselves are stirring up racial hatred by their very actions.

The left so loves to demonize anyone who speaks out against this as prejudiced, racist, bigoted or even fascist. Everyone is so terrified of being labeled racist. It's a perfect way to silence any criticism of the poor behavior of many Muslims in the UK.

And to return to the OP. Lee Rigby RIP. You won't be forgotten and hopefully it won't be in vain as positive changes will come about from your death. Time will come when the real British people say enough is enough.

Suzuki GSX-R1000 L3 182 hp in-line 4 Superbike

So who qualifies to be "the real British people"?

Who gets to decide who the "real British people" are?

Those of us who actually live in Britain?

Those concerned have such closed minds that I am inclined to leave this topic and let them wallow in their filth.

Before I do, though, I wonder what they think of the following figures:-

Offenders found guilty of selected offences by ethnicity in England and Wales, 2011, source: MoJ

Murder

White – 223 (65.01%)

Black – 57 (16.61%)

Asian – 29 (8.45%)

Other – 4 (1.16%)

Not stated – 30 (8.74%)

Total – 343

Blacks are 6.6 times more likely than whites to commit murder

Asians are 1.6 times more likely than whites to commit murder

Rape/attempted rape

White – 820 (71.11%)

Black – 118 (10.23%)

Asian – 85 (7.37%)

Other – 34 (2.94%)

Not stated – 96 (8.32%)

Total – 1153

Blacks are 3.7 times more likely than whites to commit rape

Asians are 1.3 times more likely than whites to commit rape

Robbery/assault with intent to rob

White – 5054 (54.54%)

Black – 2377 (25.65%)

Asian – 730 (7.87%)

Other – 279 (3.01%)

Not stated – 825 (8.90%)

Total – 9265

Blacks are 12.2 times more likely than whites to commit robbery

Asians are 1.8 times more likely than whites to commit robbery..................

The vast majority of whites in the UK are not Muslims; if anything they are Christians.

Ditto for the vast majority of Blacks.

So the figures above show that you are far more likely to be murdered, raped or robbed by a Christian than by a Muslim. The list carries on, and shows this for all other crimes listed as well.

No doubt some readers are now asking which PC, liberal, apologist organisation I got the above figures from.

It was the British National Party!

Do you have those figures per 100,000 of head of population?

I'm sure that they are somewhere; if you care to look.

The BNP page linked to does give a breakdown of population; so you could work it out for yourself.

Population of England and Wales, source: 2011 ONS Census
White – 48,209,395 (85.97%)
[White British – 45,134, 686 – 80.48%]
Black – 1,864,890 (3.32%)
Asian – 3,820,390 (6.81%)
Chinese – 393,141 (0.7%)
Mixed race – 1,224,400 (2.18%)
Arab – 230,600 (0.41%)
Other – 333,096 (0.59%)
Total – 56,075,912

So who qualifies to be "the real British people"?

Who gets to decide who the "real British people" are?

To your first question. People who were born there. But if they're immigrant or descendants of immigrants, ones who respect British culture and don't follow cultural anomalies such as FGM, arranged/forced marriages, grooming, vigilante patrols, halal butchery and refuse to learn English or integrate.

To your second question. The law. But some laws in this area need looking at.

Suzuki GSX-R1000 L3 182 hp in-line 4 Superbike

So, apart from Halal, that's nearly all British Muslims then.

But you wont count them as 'real British' because of Halal.

Therefore, you must also consider Steely Dan and his co religionists as not 'real' British because of shechita.

Yet he 'liked' your post, so must agree with you that the majority of British Jews, like the majority of British Muslims, aren't 'real' British!

So, apart from Halal, that's nearly all British Muslims then.

But you wont count them as 'real British' because of Halal.

Therefore, you must also consider Steely Dan and his co religionists as not 'real' British because of shechita.

Yet he 'liked' your post, so must agree with you that the majority of British Jews, like the majority of British Muslims, aren't 'real' British!

Divide and rule on religious grounds does not work with atheists, besides that Jews don't try to foist their dietary customs on the rest of the populace, in contrast to Halal, adopted by default by various supermarkets and by school canteens too. It even led to the sacking of a dinner lady for accidentally serving pork to a Muslim student. Indeed the whining about one thing or another seldom stops.

Meanwhile back to that 'cultural phenomenon', honor killing.

In his bedroom, which Cook described as a converted garage, the murder suspect had a copy of the Koran open to a page which talks about homosexuality as a sin, family advocate Quanell X told KHOU. The find may give some insight into Cosby’s disturbed mindset, the advocate said.

“It’s quite unfortunate but he had a real, real warped understanding, in my opinion, of the religion of Islam and its position on the gay lifestyle and what one should do,” Quanell X said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/dad-killed-daughter-lesbian-lover-gay-mom-article-1.1722103#ixzz2wKQJmPVZ

The article continues, Police, though, say they are still searching for a motive in the gruesome crime.

There you go, another misunderstander of Islam, who went so far as to having a copy of the Koran open on the page he 'misunderstood'. Coincidentally Lee Rigby's murderers were helpful enough to point out the passages of the Koran they misunderstood which caused them to commit such a horrific act. It's a shame that the many misunderstanders of Islam don't choose instead to misunderstand cosmology instead of another sort of big bang theory.

In all honestly and with all due respect to a fellow TV member, you are wasting your time going down the misunderstanding avenue. I've gone down what is known as the cookbook analogy which is as basic as possible to know avail. I'll see if I can jink it about a little.

Cookbook says roast the chicken for exactly 20 minutes. Some people roast the chicken for 25 minutes and get a different result which may or may not be a better result depending on personal taste. Some people may put the chicken into a blast oven (furnace) for 7 minutes and may or may not get a better result depending on personal taste. For some inexplicable reason and I do mean explicable, the person who roasts the chicken for 20 minutes as the cookbook says is considered a radicle chef. It could certainly be the case that most do not roast their chicken for 20 minutes but this, as an argument, is vacuous, fallacious and intellectually dishonest when/ if used. The cookbook says 20 minutes regardless of whether is it the best way, a good way or even the worst way no matter how much 'la la la, I can't hear you' is done.

People such as the Taliban and Creationists follow the cookbook, they cook the chicken for 20 minutes it stated in no uncertain terms. So called moderates just make it up as they go along.

In all honestly and with all due respect to a fellow TV member, you are wasting your time going down the misunderstanding avenue. I've gone down what is known as the cookbook analogy which is as basic as possible to know avail. I'll see if I can jink it about a little.

Cookbook says roast the chicken for exactly 20 minutes. Some people roast the chicken for 25 minutes and get a different result which may or may not be a better result depending on personal taste. Some people may put the chicken into a blast oven (furnace) for 7 minutes and may or may not get a better result depending on personal taste. For some inexplicable reason and I do mean explicable, the person who roasts the chicken for 20 minutes as the cookbook says is considered a radicle chef. It could certainly be the case that most do not roast their chicken for 20 minutes but this, as an argument, is vacuous, fallacious and intellectually dishonest when/ if used. The cookbook says 20 minutes regardless of whether is it the best way, a good way or even the worst way no matter how much 'la la la, I can't hear you' is done.

People such as the Taliban and Creationists follow the cookbook, they cook the chicken for 20 minutes it stated in no uncertain terms. So called moderates just make it up as they go along.

I cooked chicken the other day.

It was a frozen chorizo-stuffed chicken and it was supposed to be cooked for 35 minutes at 180 degrees in a fan-assisted oven. I was cooking potatoes and cauliflower as well and when they were cooked (boiled) and the potatoes mashed / cauliflower covered in melted cheese, then I looked through the glass panel of the oven to check on the chicken. It looked a trifle over-ccoked, so I took it out and put it on the plate. Then I went into the living room to eat. I cut into the chicken and found it was under-cooked on the inside, although dry and overcooked on the outside. I checked the timing - 20 minutes only. I checked the instructions again - I should have covered it in baking foil.

I had a restless night, thinking that eating under-cooked chicken may give me serious stomach trouble, but luckily it did not.

Next time I will make sure I follow the cookbook's precise instructions. Thus I should be able to eat a pleasant and tasty meal.

In all honestly and with all due respect to a fellow TV member, you are wasting your time going down the misunderstanding avenue. I've gone down what is known as the cookbook analogy which is as basic as possible to know avail. I'll see if I can jink it about a little.

Cookbook says roast the chicken for exactly 20 minutes. Some people roast the chicken for 25 minutes and get a different result which may or may not be a better result depending on personal taste. Some people may put the chicken into a blast oven (furnace) for 7 minutes and may or may not get a better result depending on personal taste. For some inexplicable reason and I do mean explicable, the person who roasts the chicken for 20 minutes as the cookbook says is considered a radicle chef. It could certainly be the case that most do not roast their chicken for 20 minutes but this, as an argument, is vacuous, fallacious and intellectually dishonest when/ if used. The cookbook says 20 minutes regardless of whether is it the best way, a good way or even the worst way no matter how much 'la la la, I can't hear you' is done.

People such as the Taliban and Creationists follow the cookbook, they cook the chicken for 20 minutes it stated in no uncertain terms. So called moderates just make it up as they go along.

I cooked chicken the other day.

It was a frozen chorizo-stuffed chicken and it was supposed to be cooked for 35 minutes at 180 degrees in a fan-assisted oven. I was cooking potatoes and cauliflower as well and when they were cooked (boiled) and the potatoes mashed / cauliflower covered in melted cheese, then I looked through the glass panel of the oven to check on the chicken. It looked a trifle over-ccoked, so I took it out and put it on the plate. Then I went into the living room to eat. I cut into the chicken and found it was under-cooked on the inside, although dry and overcooked on the outside. I checked the timing - 20 minutes only. I checked the instructions again - I should have covered it in baking foil.

I had a restless night, thinking that eating under-cooked chicken may give me serious stomach trouble, but luckily it did not.

Next time I will make sure I follow the cookbook's precise instructions. Thus I should be able to eat a pleasant and tasty meal.

A perfect example of why I told a fellow member not to even bother HB. If anyone doesn't understand this piece of way way below logic 101 then there is really no point going further. Peter and Jane books are way above this league.

The Key Words Reading Scheme is a series of 36 English language early readers children's books, published by the British publishing company, Ladybird Books. The series are also often referred to as Peter and Jane, the names of the main characters.

The first book in the series, Ladybird series 641, was published in 1964, and the series was completed by the first publication of the 36th book in 1967. Over 80 million books in the series have been sold worldwide, and the books remain in print in 2012.

The books were designed as materials for teaching a small child to learn to read, using a system of key phrases and words devised by teacher William Murray. Murray was an educational adviser at a borstal and later headmaster of a "school for the educationally subnormal" in Cheltenham. From research undertaken in the 1950s by Murray with Professor Joe McNally, an educational psychologist at Manchester University, Murray realised that only 12 words account for ¼, 100 words account for ½, and 300 words account for ¾, of the words used in normal speaking, reading and writing in the English language.

Starting with book 1a, a budding reader of primary school age, from 3 to 5 year old, is introduced to brother and sister Peter and Jane, their dog Pat, their Mummy and Daddy, and their home, toys, playground, the beach, shops, buses and trains, and so on. The first book uses the 12 key words which are used repeatedly ("Here is Peter", "Peter is here", "Here is Jane", "Jane is here", "I like Peter", "I like Jane"). Additional words are introduced gradually, page by page, to expand the reader's reading vocabulary, with the new words on each page set out in a footnote. The reader can consolidate their learning with books 1b, or practise writing in book 1c, all with the same vocabulary; or progress to book 2a (and 2b and 2c), and so on, with 12 sets of three books in all.

All of the books are small, thin hardback volumes with 56 pages, measuring 112×170 mm. Each book has text on a left page and an illustration on the facing right page, drawn by artists Harry Wingfield, Martin Aitchison, Frank Hampson, Robert Ayton and John Berry. The illustrations vary in style from books to book, depending on artist, but Peter and Jane are recognisable throughout. The clear sans serif typeface used in the books starts at a large size and gradually becomes smaller as the reader progresses through the series. The sentence structure also becomes gradually more complex.

The books were first published in 1964, with a firmly 1950s feel to the illustrations provided by the furniture and clothing depicted, and the social context reflecting the life of a white, middle-class family. The books were revised and updated in 1970, and again in the late 1970s, to reflect changes in fashions and in social attitudes. For example, golliwogs were airbrushed out; Daddy takes a more active domestic role; and Jane moved out of skirts and dresses into jeans, and abandoned her dolly for rollerskates. However, it remains notable how often Peter goes out to help Daddy, or actively plays with a ball, for example, while Jane stays at home to help Mummy, passively watches Peter, or plays with her doll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_Words_Reading_Scheme

From Wiki so no copyright issue.

So who qualifies to be "the real British people"?

Who gets to decide who the "real British people" are?

To your first question. People who were born there. But if they're immigrant or descendants of immigrants, ones who respect British culture and don't follow cultural anomalies such as FGM, arranged/forced marriages, grooming, vigilante patrols, halal butchery and refuse to learn English or integrate.

To your second question. The law. But some laws in this area need looking at.

Suzuki GSX-R1000 L3 182 hp in-line 4 Superbike

So how many generations does it take to become "real British people"? Can a black man play for a British team, should Mo Farah not be a part of Team GB, how about a mixed race person, where do they fit in? Can a child with a British father and Thai mum not be considered to be British? Are Rio Ferdinand or Theo Walcott really British?

Who in the UK is not a descendant of immigrants? It is hardly a place that has been inhabited continuously for the last 100,000 years. Any island nation is the recipient of endless phases of migration.

Who are you to proclaim who makes the cut or otherwise?

Love the conditional approval of British law. Fine, but only if it suits you and your agenda. Who are you to determine which laws should or should not be in place? And all this from a person who has had to leave their country for alternative locations.....

If you didn't like where you come from why worry about it?

The Key Words Reading Scheme is a series of 36 English language early readers children's books, published by the British publishing company, Ladybird Books. The series are also often referred to as Peter and Jane, the names of the main characters.

The first book in the series, Ladybird series 641, was published in 1964, and the series was completed by the first publication of the 36th book in 1967. Over 80 million books in the series have been sold worldwide, and the books remain in print in 2012.

The books were designed as materials for teaching a small child to learn to read, using a system of key phrases and words devised by teacher William Murray. Murray was an educational adviser at a borstal and later headmaster of a "school for the educationally subnormal" in Cheltenham. From research undertaken in the 1950s by Murray with Professor Joe McNally, an educational psychologist at Manchester University, Murray realised that only 12 words account for ¼, 100 words account for ½, and 300 words account for ¾, of the words used in normal speaking, reading and writing in the English language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_Words_Reading_Scheme

From Wiki so no copyright issue.

A perfect example of why I told a fellow member not to even bother HB. If anyone doesn't understand this piece of way way below logic 101 then there is really no point going further. Peter and Jane books are way above this league.

Ahhhh - the Janet and John books. I used these, together with the accompanying flashcards, to teach my daughter to read when she was three. We both thoroughly enjoyed the daily sessions and she was a very quick study. She has loved learning, and later teaching, ever since.

Unfortunately these books were allowed to retire in the UK and new methods of teaching were brought in - thus our current kids, and those schooled during the past 25-30 years, suffer an unbelievably low standard of literacy. Many parents blame the computer for this. I blame the so-called 'modern' methods of teaching the kihdergarten years. The old-fashioned ways worked. Current thinking does not.

I do like the cooking analogy. Of course there are other well respected schools of cuisine, which may cause pause for thought if the original directions were followed. To bake a potato simply place it on a metal grid above the glowing embers of your campfire for one hour or so. To tenderize goats meat simply tie it to the tracks of the closest railway line, after first consulting the timetable. Of course today one simply stuffs the potato in the microwave for convenience, the result may even be acceptable if it has a combination heating element to brown the outside. In this day and age, with the exception of one sort of cuisine, nobody seems to be bothered with the original cooking instructions, rare exceptions to this are front page news whenever they do occur.

If your cookbook is called submission in the pantry then you might not pause for an instant to question whether the prescribed 19 minutes to boil an egg is optimum, especially if you expect hellfire and damnation for doing otherwise, not ours to reason why inshallah.