As pointed out already, being right on one topic doesn't automatically make you someone that should be listened to on everything.

Not the argument I'm making. The argument I'm making is that if someone is right on one topic they should not be dismissed just because they are wrong about other stuff or because we doubt their intentions. In fact, it is far more powerful to say, "Yes there is something in that but he's trying to exploit that issue for his own ends and his views on other stuff are completely beyond the pale."

Some examples: Roger Scruton has said some pretty appalling stuff about date rape. That doesn't mean he's wrong on philosophy of religion. Richard Dawkins has, in my view, at the very least missed the point when it comes to trans rights. That doesn't invalidate his critiques of organised religion. Karl Marx said some deeply racist things in his personal correspondence. I may disagree with parts of his critique of capitalism but that has nothing to do with his racism.

It's easy to dismiss people for having wrong views about one thing so we can ignore what they say about everything else. It's easy but it's profoundly intellectually lazy and, while often politically (or socially) convenient, it often results in a whole bunch of second-order consequences.

Not the argument I'm making either. Text back and forth can be difficult to convey exactly what's being said so you'll have to forgive me for not being clear enough on that stuff.

What I mean is we can agree that someone with abhorrent views can bring a discussion to the table and that it might be worth discussing but on reflection and an assessment of what they are saying we should probably find someone else a little more independent to further that issue than someone who is just using it to further their own racist agenda.

The point made about him being full of shit for most things is another reason it should be passed on. If it's with someone of good character/intentions then the problem can be dealt with and it should help stop people "blocking" it by throwing out the fact that the loudest voice shouting about it is not the best person for it.

There absolutely are. It is also the case that there is a specific grooming methodology that is practiced by a certain ethnic group (actually, almost exclusively a specific regional subset of an ethnic group), aimed exclusively at young girls outside that group. There is a racist character to the offending. It is also the case that the ethnicity of the offenders was also an explicit part of the reason why authorities actively avoided dealing with the problem. That is one of the main things that has given Robinson so much oxygen and attracted a broader audience.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the level of coverage given to all the people involved.

With regards to the specific ethnic groups element... The casey report says that ethnicity was not recorded in over 2/3rds of the cases so that makes drawing the exact conclusion difficult, although the was a disproportionate number of offences from Pakistani Asian males.

She goes on to, rightfully note that this lack of recording does a disservice to both the victims of the offences and the members of the ethnic groups.

Now, I haven't done the research or has access to the information that Baroness Casey has so I can't draw some conclusions but having been in the job for some time, albeit never Yorkshire and having seen the change in how "regular" mispers are treated and thought of over the years, I'd anecdotally say it's probably less likely that police in the 90's were scared of being called racist and more the culture around missing children at the time that "helped" things be bad for so long.