Helen S wrote:
And, of course, if you turn out to be wrong John Archer and PAL in your insinuations, you will eat humble pie. Not, I suspect. Let's see.
I was going to say never mind PAL—he simply asked a perfectly reasonable question. Oh well....
But why should
we eat humble pie if we're 'wrong', as you put it?
But let's not be coy. Are you
insinuating that, in particular, the soldier's religious/ethnic origin or background could have no possible bearing on what happened?
How about a bet on the next five stabbings reported in the UK with, let's say, Britons* as victims? What odds would you give me that at least four of the perpetrators will turn out to be ethnics
, i.e. non-Britons?
Oh, let's see now. If 20% of the UK population were ethnics—not much of an overestimate in my view—then one should expect only about one perp to be an ethnic and 'fair' odds would work out at about 183 to 1. If you prefer an estimate of ethnic population density of 15%, then they go up to 555 to 1. At 10% they're 2,702 to 1. These assume 'communities' are all mixed in nicely. The odds go even higher if they're not.
So how about offering us, and any others, a paltry 150 to 1? It would be a steal for you.
What do you say?
Oh yeah. I nearly forgot. What if we're right?
* Please don't be tempted.