Rotherham & other matters

The report by Louise Casey on ‘matters Rotherham’ has been cited by others (here and here), as being not the fault of political correctness; the first blaming it on ‘Government’ and the second on ‘racism’.

Hang on a minute: is not ‘political correctness’ the result of the imposition of ‘equality’, ‘diversity’ and ‘human rights’ for example, on our society? Is not ‘political correctness’ the result of the acceptance of the aforementioned three factors; and the overall results of various ‘groups’, who promoting and adhering to the requirements of said factors, that have developed the ethos of ‘political correctness’, so that it has become ‘accepted’ within our society today? Has not the desire ‘not to offend’ minority groups allowed such events, as has occurred in Rotherham, to flourish? Do we not have ‘wheels within wheels’ that have exacerbated the entire situation ‘á Rotherham’? Do we not have a situation where in the question of which came first, a ‘Chicken and Egg’ question?

Far be it for me to say, but methinks that those who blame ‘events Rotherham’ on ‘government’, whilst taking a ‘dig’ at a certain political party; and those who blame it on ‘racism’, need to take a second look at that which they write?

I note that the ‘Leaders Debate is being reported – and stating with some certainty – that the format will comprise just 4/5 questions, the replies of which will be limited to one minute. In this report we learn that the leaders will draw lots to decide who stands where on the stage and a firm of opinion pollsters will be called in to assemble a balanced audience of “politically interested” people, with at least a fifth calling themselves “undecided”. 

This raises some questions: (a) how do we know that the firm of opinion pollsters will be impartial; (b) who selects which firm; (c) what will be done to ‘weed out’ those in the audience who are fervent supporters of a political party, who to ensure they stand a better chance of attending, do not classify themselves as ‘undecided’? How will the television audience know that any questions posed will not have been previously prepared solely for the purpose of creating a political point, as some topics to be covered can easily be foreseen – such as the EU, the economy, immigration, the NHS – need I continue?

The ensuring debate, if held under the conditions  suggested, will be but a ‘side-show’ – as was that held in 2010 – and thus designed to be but the means by which the ‘unknowing/undecided/politically-ignorant may be ‘swayed’. Plus  ça chance, etc, etc?

I cannot let pass the latest faux-pas’ by Tristram Hunt on Question Time last night (see here and here). As one who spent his years 5-11 (before being sent home from abroad to attend boarding school) being taught by nuns, I can but echo the comments of Christine Odone. Not once, thinking back, was the subject of religion raised (least of all that of ‘Catholicism’); I was taught courtesy, respect for my elders, urged to question – and thus ‘reason’; and a thirst for knowledge – to name but a few.

As with those that care for the elderly (and as I witnessed in the care home where  my mother was blessed to live out her final years and where those entrusted with that duty had been there for between a minimum of 15 years and a maximum of 25 years)  so with teaching: both entail a ‘desire’ to do good and both recognise they do it with no thought other than the wish to care for those in their charge. Neither had a political motive and neither had a ‘hidden agenda’ – both should do that which they do purely with a motive of care for those in their charge. In both cases, either those who do it, do it for the right reasons or they are in the wrong job. Caring and teaching are not careers, they are vocations and perhaps the qualifications for both require a ‘review’ – and one not conducted by politicians, ‘charities’ and the like, consequently why not by those into whose care relatives are entrusted?

Should not the children of parents expect their parents to do – and wish for – the best for them? Should not the parents of parents not expect – nor wish – their children to do the best for them?

Just what has happened to society when society appears unable to understand what society owes to itself?

Just a few thought for a Friday night – and which, hopefully, may provoke discussion?





6 Responses

  1. john in cheshire says:

    I’d suggest that the evil in Rotherham began first in the minds of men and most if not all of those men were and are muslims.

  2. TheSceptic says:

    Mr WfW

    Political Correctness (the avoidance of free expression) is by definition censorship of the most grotesque nature. It has led to ‘turning a blind eye’ to the ills and maladies, all too evident to people endowed with common sense and ‘real’ world experience of our society, as well blatant criminal behaviour and malfeasance in public office of those entrusted (by election to such) to uphold the morals of such office.

    I truly weep at the state of this country, HOW has it been allowed to come to this?

    I would question why you even write about the “Leaders debate” what an irrelevance and utter pointless debacle such would be…..perhaps it may contain some suitably embarrassing demonstrable lack of intellect and or knowledge betwixt a participant or all but I shall find some other more rewarding experience to occupy my time whenever such an event occurs!

    Being a regular worshipper at my local church I find my vicars sermon’s (at times perhaps a little tedious but never irrelevant) worthy of more attention and respect given the moral message within, than any utterance of anyone who seeks to control my life by seeking office…and like you I was educated to be polite courteous, forgiving (politicians aside perhaps) and questioning (especially re; politicians)

    I shall finish with commenting on and or perhaps asking another question “Just what has happened to society when society appears unable to understand what society owes to itself?”

    Interesting question but I’d argue that a society is what it creates for itself; either by evolving to different sets of internal and external stimuli, or perhaps governed by a ‘constitution’ set up by its originators to guide and constrain future generations?

    A deep philosophical question perhaps? Unless you mean what has happened to our British society? which I believe has lost its way, its true direction and purpose due in part (of equal measure I would say) by consecutive elected political leadership pursuing its own ends and a franchise powerless to constrain such….

    bon voyage….I hope to enjoy many more such observations

  3. Not that it needs me to say it, but good questions regarding Rotherham. I read Richard’s piece and the Argy Barry North Jr. was having with commenters over at The Commentator blog which seemed to come before the main article. There is probably truth in both aspects I.e. Ineptitude in the bureaucracy and political correctness. I don’t think it’s accurate to totally decry the political correctness bit. Yes there is ineptitude but political correctness has become like political anthrax in that it renders certain ground (opinions) uninhabitable. It exists by very deliberate design.

    We can talk about the ineptitude, arse covering and all other similar things within local government, but the political correctness angle should not be dismissed out of hand. John Ward over at The Slog has been commenting on the sex trafficking angle for some time and from a number of angles. What often gets alluded to is that everyone knows what’s going on. That knowledge spread outside of the bureaucracy which lends itself to the question how can it just be local government failings. My question is where were the media on this. What was the barrier to them exposing this scandal?

    I remember reading once around the idea of Kaizen and Continuous Improvement in industry, the principle of the 5 Whys. The idea was that to solve a problem you asked why it occurred. To each answer given you would again ask why. The theory was that by simply repeating that process you would get to the real heart of the issue by the fifth why.

    Maybe something so called real journalists should bring to bear on this scandal.

  4. Seemingly it’s not only Rotherham.
    Breitbart reports 45 arrests for similar offences in the Newcastle and Halifax area.
    ‘ve put links to the various reports on my English Pensioner website

  5. Douglas Beckley says:

    ‘How will the television audience know that any questions posed will not have been previously prepared solely for the purpose of creating a political point’

    ‘We’ don’t and won’t in the academic sense but every single word, pause, camera angle and glitch in the lighting or sound quality will be pored over by the backroom boys in each party. OFCOM will be clarifying to the individual Studio Managers that no Party can be seen to be in receipt of an undue advantage in technical terms. So questions which actually mean something will be filtered out at start. (Yes- famous last words and there are no guarantees and whatever …. we’ll see on the day.)

    Five questions will be easy to predict. It will go something like:-

    1. Why should we trust your party on the economy over other parties?

    2. What are the risks to the UK from environmental threats and threats from rogue states and terrorism?

    3. How will your party treat the NHS?

    4. How will welfare spending be treated under your government in consideration with pressure from Immigration, the economic downturn and outsourcing of employment?

    5. Why would you make the better Prime Minister, in particular if the SNP demand a further independence referendum for conditional entry into a coalition?

    6.(There will be an inevitable goading question) Summat to do with women’s issues, racism, the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram or LGBT issues. (Individual questions showing each leader to be hypocritical over legal tax avoidance will have been vetoed in advance).

    (In any particular order).

    Bit simplistic – each debate may be themed by Home affairs, Overseas affairs and leadership matters. But I’d put real money on that kind of questioning – and example questions – we’ll see.

    Bland, sterile and dull – exactly what the parties would have agreed to in advance. Ultimately the debates aren’t really for people who are actually interested in politics. They’re fast-food for the Westminster bubbleworlders who want to obsess over who stumbled, or stammered, or halted, or sweated or looked the most or least statesmanlike. Every one of those bubbleworlders will conclude that the best performer was the adoptive leader of their own media outlet and any questions asked will be forgotten within moments.

    You’re absolutely correct in your summing-up. A side-show. Rather like the actual results of any eventual EU referendum, it won’t matter a jot what happens or what is said. Nothing will change.

  6. In2minds says:

    The second paragraph here in this post puts out an opinion, as the writer is entitled to do, and the reader is free to agree or disagree. With other bloggers it’s not so much opinion as indisputable facts. Due to a process only they can affect the pearls of wisdom are issued forth, ready for admiration. Those who question, add, subtract, or attempt to put an alternative, and heaven forfend, disagree, are pushed aside steam-roller style.

    These, according to the perpetually correct, (another form of PC?) are the people who ‘don’t understand’. Now that’s rather funny. As the same weasel like approach to words is used by the left to shut down and or dominate debate they fear losing and yet have asked for in the first place! It was Humpty Dumpty who declared that words meant whatever he wanted them to mean. This approach has now come to blogging!

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012