Yesterday there was news coverage about an allegedly highly respected barrister (and former supporter of Mary Whitehouse), who headed up a Christian charity, whose alleged abuse of boys, whilst documented in an internal report, was covered up and not reported to the police. Was that the result of "political correctness"? Was it "political correctness" that prevented people from reporting their serious misgivings about Jimmy Savile's behaviour?
An article in the Guardian in 2010 reported:
"There seems to be no end to the scandals buffeting the Roman Catholic church about the abuse of children; most recently in Germany, where the headmaster a school associated with a choir once run by the pope's elder brother Georg Ratzinger has been exposed as an abuser. And there is no doubt that a lot of children were damaged for life by priests, and that this was mostly covered up by the hierarchy until recently. But was the Catholic church unfairly singled out? Aren't all children vulnerable to exploitation, especially when they are poor and unwanted."
Children in boarding schools and in other institutions where they are away from their families are more vulnerable to abuse and sometimes their abuse has been covered up to save the reputation of the school, church or other institution, or of powerful people.
The Rotherham case is just one among many of such cases which cross all classes and cultures and the subsequent report found a number of reasons why this abuse was allowed to continue. These included the ignorance, negligence and prejudice of the police and the inefficiency and understaffing of the child protection team.
I think political correctness (a phrase which I think is misleading) is, in general, a very good thing and is I think an extension of sensitive behaviour and good manners. However, in the case of the "expectant person", I do feel that this is perhaps misguided.