Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:15 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Why do you feel it is necessary to state what race/religion it is? Does it somehow increase the gravity of the crime if the perpetrator is from a particular section of society?

I'd be more inclined to ask why the Bradford Telegraph & Argus chose not to print any pictures, name any individual or reference any specific characterisitics of the perpetrator. I wonder why they would do that. Doesn't the public have a right to know who these monsters are?

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:22 am  

Chris28 wrote: Do you mean this story, which doesn't skirt around anything. It simply doesn't mention it. Or are you implying "Bradford must mean darkies" to suit your ridiculous agenda? What agenda do I have? Darkies? It would be interesting to learn why the newspaper didn't mention the perpetrator by name, say where he lived or print a picture of him. Just like the BBC did in the story linked to in posts by one who says they probably wouldn't invite me to dinner (irrespective of the fact that I have no desire to be invited by them)

Chris28 wrote: Do you mean this story, which doesn't skirt around anything. It simply doesn't mention it. Or are you implying "Bradford must mean darkies" to suit your ridiculous agenda? What agenda do I have? Darkies? It would be interesting to learn why the newspaper didn't mention the perpetrator by name, say where he lived or print a picture of him. Just like the BBC did in the story linked to in posts by one who says they probably wouldn't invite me to dinner (irrespective of the fact that I have no desire to be invited by them)

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:25 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You have no idea whatsoever of the race/religion of this man.

Nor does his race nor religion have anything even remotely to do with the offences of serial rape.

That aside, you either somehow fail to grasp that the press are prohibited from publishing anything that might identify the victim, so cannot publish any such irrelevant details even if there were a point in doing so, or more likely you do know this, but are just attention seeking.

You're right, I don't.
I didn't say or infer it did, nor do you know that it didn't.
Your last paragraph is something you have made up to suit your position. Doggie deja vu.

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:33 am  

cod'ead wrote: I suppose he could've linked to This Story but although it doesn't state the accused's religion, he does look a bit white to me. Mind you, I don't reckon "White, professional paedophile" would fit his agenda Agenda? The reporting of the BBC hides nothing. A piece of filth laid bare. I rather think it's the reporting of the local newspaper covering the story I referenced that is agenda based. The clarity of the BBC report demolishes the poorly constructed Ferocious Aardvark attempts to proffer justifications for the reporting of the local Bradford newspaper. Is he politically correct too?

cod'ead wrote: I suppose he could've linked to This Story but although it doesn't state the accused's religion, he does look a bit white to me. Mind you, I don't reckon "White, professional paedophile" would fit his agenda Agenda? The reporting of the BBC hides nothing. A piece of filth laid bare. I rather think it's the reporting of the local newspaper covering the story I referenced that is agenda based. The clarity of the BBC report demolishes the poorly constructed Ferocious Aardvark attempts to proffer justifications for the reporting of the local Bradford newspaper. Is he politically correct too?

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:47 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

It would be interesting to learn why the newspaper didn't mention the perpetrator by name, say where he lived or print a picture of him.

Do you know anything about the law?

Where a child is involved, they are not identified in legal proceedings to protect them, regardless of whether they are the victim or perpetrator. This extends to not identifying any family members that could lead to the child being identified. I'm sure FA can elaborate.

The newspaper may know who they are, but would risk contempt of court if they print anything

Is that interesting enough?

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:49 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

Your last paragraph is something you have made up to suit your position.

It really isn't. Do some research.

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:19 am  

Chris28 wrote:

Do you know anything about the law?

Where a child is involved, they are not identified in legal proceedings to protect them, regardless of whether they are the victim or perpetrator. This extends to not identifying any family members that could lead to the child being identified. I'm sure FA can elaborate.

The newspaper may know who they are, but would risk contempt of court if they print anything

Is that interesting enough?

What is my 'ridiculous agenda'?

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:22 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

What is my 'ridiculous agenda'?

Raising race/religion and "political correctness" when there is no evidence of anything in the case you mention. Why are you interested in these issues? Are you trying to find something to moan about for no reason?

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:31 am  

Chris28 wrote:

It really isn't. Do some research.

I'm sure he can answer for himself.

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:41 am  

Chris28 wrote:

Raising race/religion and "political correctness" when there is no evidence of anything in the case you mention. Why are you interested in these issues? Are you trying to find something to moan about for no reason?

In the light of the Jay report, I'd say the two are inextricably linked. I asked a question around a rather dreadful case in Bradford. Apparently I have a 'ridiculous agenda'.