Actions taken by liberals which result in disastrous unexpected consequences are said justified because they are motivated by ardent desire for change in the progressive direction.
Actions taken by conservatives which result in disastrous unexpected consequences cannot be justified with this same motivation for progress.
As long as your intention is liberalism that includes all, and not affirmative action that promotes all minorities at the expense of the majority.
I used to work in a betting office. After having one car stolen, high amounts of anti-social behaviour directed at me, violence, and more, I had to speak to several police officers. After talking to one who was helping me deal with another car of mine being damaged severely, I asked him what was going wrong in this particular area of Birmingham (most Brummies can guess where). He said that the rot had set in when Labour had got into power and insisted on a 'softly-softly' approach to policing where more effort is applied to trying not to offend than actual policing. I asked him what they could do, but he said, and I quote 'It's too late. It's about 10 years too late. We can't do anything'.
This is an example of where the left-leaning get it wrong, and it's the expense of us all. It's not just in terms of application of the law. In Birmingham we have Black History Month. Why not just History Month? We have Black Managers' meetings for the council-run care homes and other Social Care and Health locations. Why not manager's meetings? Why do we need to segregate into unnecessary divisions? These are the kind of things that liberals get wrong. It needs fixing.
Frankly, I'd rather not judge or prejudge someone on their ethnicity or religion and I find child rape abhorrent by anyone.
But for what it's worth, a news outlet in a majority white country* doesn't need to point out when someone is white yet might feel the need to do so when someone is not. Wrongly, I might add.
But because the reporting of such crimes is adjudged to be racist, and become accused of basing it on creed or religion is 'tarring everyone with the same brush', such clarifications need to be made. Where there is a distinct pattern occurring, or a correlation - read Rotherham,
this case, and
this article -
The Independant
The overall statistics give the lie to such claims. Greater Manchester Police, in whose area the offences took place, has declared that 95 per cent of the men on its sex offenders register are white. Just five per cent are Asian. But things do look different when the focus is narrowed to crimes involving groups of men grooming girls on the street. In 18 child sexual exploitation trials since 1997 – in Derby, Leeds, Blackpool, Blackburn, Rotherham, Sheffield, Rochdale, Oldham and Birmingham – relating to the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by two or more men, most of those convicted were of Pakistani heritage.
- between the crime and the perpetrators, such clarifications need to be made so that potential victims can prepare and defend themselves. If we say 'all men are bastards, they're all going to rape you', you'll end up with a generation of women who are unable to form any kind of relationship because of the poisoning.
The defining differing characteristic of those involved was their race or origin. In the case of a Roman Catholic or a CofE priest involved in child abuse, the overwhelming differing characteristic is that they are a priest (usually the denomination is given).
If there's blame, then just Google image 'London Bridge'...
