In reply to stroppygob:
> The point is obvious to everybody, (apart from you.) A report is produced which points at the fear of being seen as "racist" and possibly probably managerial instruction to ignore the race dimension to crimes a contributing factor, nay a major factor in the abuse of young children over 16 years.
I'm not denying that the fear of being seen as racist negatively impacted the way the authorities dealt with the cases.
Admitted I haven't been very clear about this, but what I'm objecting to is the
implication (I know that's a concept you have great, great trouble with) in your and PP's posts that's is someone or something external to the failing authorities, this thing called "political correctness" that is the problem. Individual people or organisations fail to deal with the race taboo, and you seem to want to blame "political correctness" not them! I think it's just pushing an agenda against political correctness, it fails to see what the problem really is.
> So why has your entire input been aimed at dismissing the race issue?
Well it hasn't. My entire input has been aimed at dismissing the argument that the problem lies in some external "political correctness" concept, but lies internally with the inadequacy of the authorities. Your entire input seems to be aimed at saying that political correctness was the cause of the crimes going on. [Evidence that you imply this: "What is more important, political correctness or child protection?"]
> There is stacks of evidence that this happened in the presence of political correctness is there not?
Yes, but it doesn't show that they'd be any better if it wasn't for the bogeyman of political correctness that you seem to be blaming.
> So tell me, if we had a situation where gangs of white males in Rotherham were targeting vulnerable Pakistani girls due with them "gang-raped, doused in petrol and threatened with handguns by groups of men," would you be happy to ignore the race dimension in that?
What a dumb question. Nowhere have I argued that I'm in favour of ignoring the race dimension. Are you trying to tempt me into typing "liar" in bold?
> You can however highlight that the FACT that "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so, exacerbated and prolonged a terrible decade of abuse of children.
What's missing from the argument is the part where it can be shown that if the race element was faced up to, then everything would have been fine. I just don't believe that would be the case. The people involved here weren't up to the job - their bonkers treatment of the race issue, that it must not be mentioned, certainly wasn't helpful, but there's no evidence to say that the outcomes would have been different. You have to imagine how thick someone is who interprets "political correctness" - the intention of which is to promote equal rights - as "I'm not allowed to mention that these crimes are happening in the Pakistani community and the victims are white girls".
Plus, what you also seem intent on ignoring is that a good chunk of the issue was not white lefties being afraid of being seen as racist, but of the inconvenient of truth for Pakistani councillors that these crimes were going on in their own ethnic communities - communities that they were presumably trying to champion, to raise their status. The implication of your OP (do I need to quote it again?) is that "it happened because of political correctness". My argument is that that's a really stupid way to frame a complex issue, in which the fear of looking racist is but one part.
> You are the only one talking about PC being "to blame" are you not?
Back to your OP again, "What is more important, political correctness or child protection?"
> I have done no such thing, show where I have claimed "the authorities had a binary choice: that the authorities chose political correctness instead of child protection," or admit you have lied .
"What is more important, political correctness or child protection?"
> Your inability to debate, without resorting to lies, is shocking.
It's the same every single time, and I've been through this in great detail before. Your OP has a very strong implication of a particular political view: in this case, the implication of your OP is that the authorities were faced with a binary choice of obeying political correctness (a bad thing) - or protecting children (a good thing). Then when I discuss this very strong and clear implication, you say "I never said any such thing, you're lying". And then I quote you over and over again and explain how what you've written clearly implies what I say it does, and then you shut up.
Post edited at 12:04