Thanks for such an interesting article. I'd never considered the question of varying empathy. I know some people who are hugely empathetic, I'm sure if they were police officers or judges they would feel deep empathy for both victim and perpetrator... and give light punishments. If he claimed it was normal in his culture, he didn't know it was illegal and/or he was sorry? Empaths would be disasterous.
I'm going to presume you mean why the focus on the cultural and racial element of these offences?
It should be self-evident. If you're investigating a crime series, the MO is important. This includes profiling offenders and victims. For example, at certain times of the year in British-Chinese communities, it's common for older people to keep gold in their houses. This makes them especially vulnerable to burglary. That means you might want to focus your crime prevention and investigation efforts on Chinese victims, right? What you don't do is say, 'these victims are from a distinct cultural group, we can't possibly reference that within our strategy.' That would be stupid and probably racist too.
Now expand that principle to the rape gangs scandal - sexual offences obviously being more impactive than burglary. You have a well-documented MO and suspect / victim profile. The offences were also clearly racially-motivated within the understood parameters of what constitutes a racially-motivated or aggravated offence. That should inform the response, be it multiagency, prevention or intervention. What *unambiguously* happened here was the authorities abandoned basic safeguarding principles because they feared allegations of racism and causing public disorder. As a result, thousands of victims suffered industrial scale abuse. That's a scandal caused by political dogma around sensitive issues like race, and it cannot stand.
I'm answering your question in good faith. As the old saying goes, 'I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.'
Now, what would the NPCC reaction be to this "can of worms" being resurrected, either on a national (England) or local authority basis? I don't mean the PR "spin", but the damage control and reputation management steps.
Weeding of police records may be? I have a recollection that crime papers had a seven year retention period (before the electronic papers arrived). Assuming a report was generated! No evidence looms, just individuals recollections now many years later.
It is not just the police either: local councils, NHS, charities, elected representatives etc. A veritable bonfire beckons.
This is partly why I made the suggestion not to have a public inquiry, for the reasons you describe. It reminds me of a conversation I once had with a private sector fraud investigator. Action 1 - is investigating and litigating this fraud going to cost *more* than the amount embezzled? Action 2 - is it going to be possible to prove? If either is in doubt, seek alternative redress. In this context, the 'cost' is the sheer time and effort and lack of real satisfaction for the victims. The only winners? As usual, the lawyers and hangers-on of the public inquiry gravy train.
Of course if the rape gangs had been white and victims not white the outrage would be colossal on the self-proclaimed liberal progressive left. However it isn't. They can just about verbalise sympathy with the victims, though I suspect many genuinely don't. They are utterly incapable of even beginning to rationalise any idea of actually admitting that race might just play a teeny tiny part in all this. And for that reason nothing will genuinely happen. The lines of division are now out in the open, and increasingly more and more people are openly talking about it. It can't be put back in the bottle. It's out now.
I expect Dom you have been reading the deluge of reporting and stories this week - ironically set off by a rich American's social media comments, whose motives are 100% political IMHO.
I also read a commentary by Tahir Abbas, who is a British academic who works in Holland. He opens with: 'This blog aims to provide a balanced and evidence-based perspective on this complex issue, examining the construction of the problem, the role of ethnicity, the impact of media and political biases, and the systemic failures that have allowed CSE to persist'.
He ends with (lightly edited): 'It is crucial to avoid racial stereotypes and focus on the systemic failures that have allowed child sexual exploitation to persist. ...The focus must remain on the protection of all children, regardless of ethnicity, from exploitation by any perpetrator, while also challenging the anti-Muslim racism that fuels the false idea of disproportionate crime being committed by Muslim men.
I fear that 'sorry' is getting further away as various political and social issues are - to be blunt - getting in the way. It is the British establishment's practice to "kick" thorny issues "into the long grass", often assisted by those who stand to gain - quite a wide constellation of interests and motives. (Interruption so a pause).
Thanks for such an interesting article. I'd never considered the question of varying empathy. I know some people who are hugely empathetic, I'm sure if they were police officers or judges they would feel deep empathy for both victim and perpetrator... and give light punishments. If he claimed it was normal in his culture, he didn't know it was illegal and/or he was sorry? Empaths would be disasterous.
Why are the minority of sexual crimes so much more significant than the vast majority of such crimes?
I'm going to presume you mean why the focus on the cultural and racial element of these offences?
It should be self-evident. If you're investigating a crime series, the MO is important. This includes profiling offenders and victims. For example, at certain times of the year in British-Chinese communities, it's common for older people to keep gold in their houses. This makes them especially vulnerable to burglary. That means you might want to focus your crime prevention and investigation efforts on Chinese victims, right? What you don't do is say, 'these victims are from a distinct cultural group, we can't possibly reference that within our strategy.' That would be stupid and probably racist too.
Now expand that principle to the rape gangs scandal - sexual offences obviously being more impactive than burglary. You have a well-documented MO and suspect / victim profile. The offences were also clearly racially-motivated within the understood parameters of what constitutes a racially-motivated or aggravated offence. That should inform the response, be it multiagency, prevention or intervention. What *unambiguously* happened here was the authorities abandoned basic safeguarding principles because they feared allegations of racism and causing public disorder. As a result, thousands of victims suffered industrial scale abuse. That's a scandal caused by political dogma around sensitive issues like race, and it cannot stand.
I'm answering your question in good faith. As the old saying goes, 'I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.'
Now, what would the NPCC reaction be to this "can of worms" being resurrected, either on a national (England) or local authority basis? I don't mean the PR "spin", but the damage control and reputation management steps.
Weeding of police records may be? I have a recollection that crime papers had a seven year retention period (before the electronic papers arrived). Assuming a report was generated! No evidence looms, just individuals recollections now many years later.
It is not just the police either: local councils, NHS, charities, elected representatives etc. A veritable bonfire beckons.
This is partly why I made the suggestion not to have a public inquiry, for the reasons you describe. It reminds me of a conversation I once had with a private sector fraud investigator. Action 1 - is investigating and litigating this fraud going to cost *more* than the amount embezzled? Action 2 - is it going to be possible to prove? If either is in doubt, seek alternative redress. In this context, the 'cost' is the sheer time and effort and lack of real satisfaction for the victims. The only winners? As usual, the lawyers and hangers-on of the public inquiry gravy train.
Of course if the rape gangs had been white and victims not white the outrage would be colossal on the self-proclaimed liberal progressive left. However it isn't. They can just about verbalise sympathy with the victims, though I suspect many genuinely don't. They are utterly incapable of even beginning to rationalise any idea of actually admitting that race might just play a teeny tiny part in all this. And for that reason nothing will genuinely happen. The lines of division are now out in the open, and increasingly more and more people are openly talking about it. It can't be put back in the bottle. It's out now.
I expect Dom you have been reading the deluge of reporting and stories this week - ironically set off by a rich American's social media comments, whose motives are 100% political IMHO.
I also read a commentary by Tahir Abbas, who is a British academic who works in Holland. He opens with: 'This blog aims to provide a balanced and evidence-based perspective on this complex issue, examining the construction of the problem, the role of ethnicity, the impact of media and political biases, and the systemic failures that have allowed CSE to persist'.
He ends with (lightly edited): 'It is crucial to avoid racial stereotypes and focus on the systemic failures that have allowed child sexual exploitation to persist. ...The focus must remain on the protection of all children, regardless of ethnicity, from exploitation by any perpetrator, while also challenging the anti-Muslim racism that fuels the false idea of disproportionate crime being committed by Muslim men.
From: https://tahirabbas.medium.com/the-grooming-gang-debate-navigating-race-politics-and-justice-in-the-uk-a9a800f8c859
I fear that 'sorry' is getting further away as various political and social issues are - to be blunt - getting in the way. It is the British establishment's practice to "kick" thorny issues "into the long grass", often assisted by those who stand to gain - quite a wide constellation of interests and motives. (Interruption so a pause).
I'll take a look at the article, cheers.
Great read and bang on the money.