So a left wing politician dares to point out that

[Peter]

Hmmm. This community that doesn't exist is regularly referred to by these same politicians in the aftermath of terrorist attacks, when we are regularly told not to hold them responsible for the actions of a crazy few and their 'community leaders' are wheeled out to mouth some half-arsed platitudes. So it seems that they do exist when it suits and not when it doesn't.

Equally, of course, 'white people' regularly get called out for every ill under the sun and they're not a single community, either.

It doesn't exist as one community. It isn't as easy to control as some people like to make out. Which is also why this issue is no quick fix.

[Burney]

It doesn't exist as one community. It isn't as easy to control as some people like to make out. Which is also why this issue is no quick fix.

My point is that no all-encompassing 'community' exists in that sense. Such terms are always imposed from without and are invariably inaccurate.

That does not, however, alter the fact that, were one to look at these crimes in an epidemiological manner, only a fool would dismiss the clear correlation between the ethnicity, culture and religion of its perpetrators and the incidence of such criminality. From such evidence, any decent epidemiologist would feel there were reasonable grounds for assuming and investigating a causal link.

So the point is this: if we would apply this logic in a scientific sense without a moment's hesitation, why would we not apply it here?

The answer, of course, is cowardice.

[Peter]

My point is that no all-encompassing 'community' exists in that sense. Such terms are always imposed from without and are invariably inaccurate.

That does not, however, alter the fact that, were one to look at these crimes in an epidemiological manner, only a fool would dismiss the clear correlation between the ethnicity, culture and religion of its perpetrators and the incidence of such criminality. From such evidence, any decent epidemiologist would feel there were reasonable grounds for assuming and investigating a causal link.

So the point is this: if we would apply this logic in a scientific sense without a moment's hesitation, why would we not apply it here?

The answer, of course, is cowardice.

I am not disagreeing with the link. I am saying that this is not one, clear cut community you can enter and deal with.

When we criticise 'community leaders' for not dealing with it we are often drastically exaggerating their ability to do so.

[redgunamo]

My point is that no all-encompassing 'community' exists in that sense. Such terms are always imposed from without and are invariably inaccurate.

That does not, however, alter the fact that, were one to look at these crimes in an epidemiological manner, only a fool would dismiss the clear correlation between the ethnicity, culture and religion of its perpetrators and the incidence of such criminality. From such evidence, any decent epidemiologist would feel there were reasonable grounds for assuming and investigating a causal link.

So the point is this: if we would apply this logic in a scientific sense without a moment's hesitation, why would we not apply it here?

The answer, of course, is cowardice.

No, cowardice is unfair. I doubt you, or any of us, have had the environmental upbringing and education that would prompt us to automatically conclude that these crimes demand to be be seen through the prism of the current interpretation of the ethnicity, culture and religion of their perpetrators.

Rules are only useful if everyone agrees to, and accepts, them before the game begins. After the fact is no good.