One of hte unintended consequences of political correctness--human trafficking.

Political correctness always has negative consequences, this is a new one.

he sexual abuse of about 1,400 children at the hands of Asian men went unreported for 16 years as staff feared they would be seen as racist, a report said today.







Children as young as 11 were trafficked, beaten, and raped by large numbers of men between 1997 and 2013 in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, the review into child protection revealed.



And shockingly, more than a third of the cases were already know to agencies.



But according to the report's author: 'several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist'.

www.dailymail.co.uk... ildren-sexually-exploited-just-one-town-16-year-period-report-reveals.html

Damn... Terror of the bogeyman prevents real horror from being found and stopped...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Damn... Terror of the bogeyman prevents real horror from being found and stopped...

Permit me to share with you a portion of a post from one of my friends in the UK.

They didn't. However the pressure placed upon them to avoid a "racial incident" by the leftist tossers who were running the country was massive, and once left wing sympathising Police management were installed to generate a climate of politically correct fear it became almost impossible to pursue a case.

In addition, there is a lot of responsibility falls to the local authority social services. They were instrumental in covering up the abuse and playing it down, often blaming the girls or branding them as unreliable. The victims had very little support from the leftists tossers as they worked to cover for the abusers.

Even imams and community leaders were in the Asian community were asking for this issue to be dealt with, but the leftist tossers just kept brushing it under the carpet.

What has happened in Rotherham is absolutely disgusting but it is in the heart of left wing Labour Voting territory - as are most of these areas where abuse went unchallenged for so long.

These grooming gangs were targeting vulnerable teenage girls and abusing them while keeping them plied with alcohol and drugs. They used intimidation and other forms of abuse to keep the girls afraid and subdued - death threats and the like.

Lots of cases in the media over here in the last 2-3 years resulting in a lot of convictions.

A person that knows right from wrong with the need to step up, would have been willing to save a child at the risk of being called a racist.

So these people feared a label themselves. This world has lost its mind!

Or they're using that as an excuse for their inaction. We're talking about a lot of high level professionals who knew about this.

originally posted by: twfau
Or they're using that as an excuse for their inaction. We're talking about a lot of high level professionals who knew about this.

We've seen that here in the states. Major Nidal Hasan was well known to be a radical nutjob in the Army and Navy in the WRAMC/NNMC center but people who complained about him were threatened with EEOC charges if they didn't STFU. PC is a dangerous and blind mindset.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

Racist is the modern day witch. It requires little to no evidence to accuse and convict someone in the eyes of the public; and once convicted, your life is over. I can totally see someone being terrified of that happening to them.

Anyone who knew and did nothing should be charged as an accessory after the fact

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see your point. They could have made an anonymous complaint couldn't they?

They were instrumental in covering up the abuse and playing it down, often blaming the girls or branding them as unreliable.

This, right here, is a huge thing that is used frequently to keep the vicitms from getting help and hide the perpetrators continuing activities.

It's horrible. Why does anyone expect the vicitms to come across as sound, normal, believeable and credible because of the first two descriptions, that obviously can't be pulled off by someone who's being so deeply screwed with on an everyday basis?
tetra50

a reply to: NavyDoc

I can understand that situation because people had concerns about radical views and behaviours of the psychiatrist, it's much more difficult to make a compelling case until the guy did something. In this case though they were criminal acts, so the people who knew about it had a duty of care to do something about it.

The fact that there have been many child sex scandals in care homes come out in the last 30 years, many of which were perpetrated by middle aged white males and were allowed to happen by the authorities, makes me think that the race of the perpetrators in this case has been used as a nice excuse.

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see your point. They could have made an anonymous complaint couldn't they?

IT seems that complaints or having the issue known wasn't the problem. What do you do if you go to the authorities and they don't care?

One of the saddest parts of the article is where the cops arrested some fathers who actually went to rescue their daughters. That is beyond #ed up.

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see your point. They could have made an anonymous complaint couldn't they?

What chance of an anonymous complaint succeeding .... ?? When the

authorities would NOT even believe the complaints of

an actual victim!

originally posted by: twfau
a reply to: NavyDoc

I can understand that situation because people had concerns about radical views and behaviours of the psychiatrist, it's much more difficult to make a compelling case until the guy did something. In this case though they were criminal acts, so the people who knew about it had a duty of care to do something about it.

The fact that there have been many child sex scandals in care homes come out in the last 30 years, many of which were perpetrated by middle ages white males and were allowed to happen by the authorities, makes me think that the race of the perpetrators in this case has been used as a nice excuse.

It seems the race was the protection angle. In the US military, if you are part of a white supremacist group, you are investigated right away and discharged (which is a good thing, don't get me wrong) but due to PC, some fanatics are treated with kid gloves apparently.

a reply to: NavyDoc
I didn't understand that part honestly. Both of my Dads. (I have a StepDad too) are very intimidating and wouldn't need to do anything illegal to make a point. I wasn't certain if I didn't have enough information or if the system was being abused.

The end result is the system seems to need a complete rehabilitation. Too many conflicting laws and the people that need protection aren't getting it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Iamthatbish

Racist is the modern day witch. It requires little to no evidence to accuse and convict someone in the eyes of the public; and once convicted, your life is over. I can totally see someone being terrified of that happening to them.

An alternative view might be that "PC" and the imminent danger of being labeled a racist are themselves conservative boogeymen. It's identity politics at its absolute worst.

Consider that less than 2 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before which no sane person could conceivably entertain in the slightest that racial equality was a reality, the term reverse racism had already entered the lexicon. About ten years after that, the pejorative term white guilt became popular. The history of right-wing propagandists promulgating the idea of whites being subjects of persecution by first other whites and later, non-minorities originates with the Civil Rights movement and the aftermath.

In the late 80's, the phrase playing the race card started to appear in print and by the early 90's, a new term was needed that could be expanded to include the idea that heterosexuals and Christians were also being persecuted by the left and that's when political correctness was dug up from the annals of history and thrust back into common usage.

EDIT:

I don't know the facts of this debacle in the UK but I find it hard to believe that child abuse was allowed to go on because people were afraid of looking like racists. Would you consider California to be a "blue state?" Consider that in California, there are almost as many black children in foster care currently as there are white children and nearly twice as many hispanic children. Even more important, here are the statics on child abuse and neglect allegations by race/ethnicity in California (per 1000):

African American/Black 128.8
American Indian/Alaska Native 102.1
Asian/Pacific Islander 17.0
Latino 50.6
White 45.3

source

In California there doesn't appear to be any issues with under reporting of abuse and if you look at the trends, the reports have actually been going up since 2000. Why don't we see the opposite if PC is such a cause of widespread suppression of these sorts of crimes against children?

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Iamthatbish

Racist is the modern day witch. It requires little to no evidence to accuse and convict someone in the eyes of the public; and once convicted, your life is over. I can totally see someone being terrified of that happening to them.

An alternative view might be that "PC" and the imminent danger of being labeled a racist are themselves conservative boogeymen. It's identity politics at its absolute worst.

Consider that less than 2 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before which no sane person could conceivably entertain in the slightest that racial equality was a reality, the term reverse racism had already entered the lexicon. About ten years after that, the pejorative term white guilt became popular. The history of right-wing propagandists promulgating the idea of whites being subjects of persecution by first other whites and later, non-minorities originates with the Civil Rights movement and the aftermath.

In the late 80's, the phrase playing the race card started to appear in print and by the early 90's, a new term was needed that could be expanded to include the idea that heterosexuals and Christians were also being persecuted by the left and that's when political correctness was dug up from the annals of history and thrust back into common usage.

Or, more truthfully, racist leftists evaluate make everything about race, promote unequal treatment and enforcement based on race, and set up "protected classes" that are beyond reproach.

Your attempt at political trolling does not fly because thus was in the UK and the issues clearly defined by multiple sources, in a country where even speaking ill of a protected group is a crime.

a reply to: theantediluvian

All that you did there was just highlight the evolution of the word into the power charged form that it now holds. Your history lesson certainly doesn't detract from the truth of my statement. For instance, if I were to mention the name Michael Richards, what would be the first thing you thought? He's a racist ass probably. That ONE gaffe in his life destroyed ALL the credibility and humor he built up as Kramer on Seinfeld. That is the truth of the statement, everyone judges him off of one event, no one looks at his personal life to see if he believes the same in private.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: theantediluvian

All that you did there was just highlight the evolution of the word into the power charged form that it now holds. Your history lesson certainly doesn't detract from the truth of my statement. For instance, if I were to mention the name Michael Richards, what would be the first thing you thought? He's a racist ass probably. That ONE gaffe in his life destroyed ALL the credibility and humor he built up as Kramer on Seinfeld. That is the truth of the statement, everyone judges him off of one event, no one looks at his personal life to see if he believes the same in private.

I was attempting to demonstrate that the concept originated before it could be reasonably held to be true. I would think this might give you some pause. You're comparing public servants charged with protecting children with the fallout from an entertainer losing his s# in public?

An entertainer's popularity rises and falls with the public's perception. This is hardly a reasonable comparison in my opinion.

Please see the edit to my original post. I think that might have been a more relevant argument on my part.

When scandals like this occur usually the true responsibility is found by looking up through the ranks rather than focusing on one or two individuals who were concerned about political correctness. This case is another example of the culture of cover-up and corruption in British police and politics. The race aspect is just one part of what was a toxic organisation hell-bent on results.

Threats and collusion kept justice at bay

The story highlights the atmosphere of cover-up and collusion at Rotherham Council. Nobody in the upper echelons of the child-care system could say they were not aware of the raft of warnings. But a collective failure of leadership meant continued, well-founded warnings about the widespread sexual abuse of children were suppressed, ignored or played down because of short-term political considerations.

The priority in Rotherham was jobs and investment and, to some senior figures, any focus on child sexual exploitation was an unwelcome sideshow. In one extraordinary episode in 2009, a senior unnamed official shouted and swore through an hour-long meeting as he complained that Rotherham had “too many looked-after children” which accounted for the council’s spending problems.

The report highlights the highly dysfunctional atmosphere among both officers and councillors which led to the “blatant” failure of its leadership. One person told the inquiry team “the member barometer re sexual matters was skewed”.

The report details an atmosphere of bullying, machismo and sexism at a council where senior women officers were not welcomed and difficult issues of rape and sexual exploitation of children could not be discussed. It heard evidence that the council was a “very grubby environment” in which to work where one woman was encouraged to wear shorter skirts to get on and a senior member said women were fit only for “cooking, washing and darning”.

There are two questions that come to my mind:

1) Why are people focusing so much on just one of the issues?
2) What is it about South Yorkshire Police? The Hillsborough inquiry showed them to be corrupt throughout, this is now evidence that nothing has changed.