Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:48 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

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'.

I'd say that was a massive leap of faith. Bradford is not Rotherham, so how do you make the link?

Your question suggested there might be a race/religion issue when there is nothing in the report I linked to to indicate this. How did you get to that conclusion?

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:49 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

I'm sure he can answer for himself.

He's already stated a fact, why don't you believe him?

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:52 am  

Chris28 wrote:

I'd say that was a massive leap of faith. Bradford is not Rotherham, so how do you make the link?

Your question suggested there might be a race/religion issue when there is nothing in the report I linked to to indicate this. How did you get to that conclusion?

I asked a question on a child abuse case I read about. What 'ridiculous agenda' do I have?

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:53 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

I asked a question on a child abuse case I read about. What 'ridiculous agenda' do I have?

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:01 am  

Chris28 wrote:

He's already stated a fact, why don't you believe him?

What facts? I read his post and nothing was supported with anything to say it was fact.

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:02 am  

Chris28 wrote:

:lol:

Laugh it up fuzzball.

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:29 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

What facts? I read his post and nothing was supported with anything to say it was fact.

The point about children not being named in legal proceedings is a fact. Like I said, look it up yourself if you don't believe him.

And I am laughing at you, thanks

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:33 am  

Chris28 wrote:

The point about children not being named in legal proceedings is a fact. Like I said, look it up yourself if you don't believe him.

And I am laughing at you, thanks

I don't remember asking why children weren't named. What is my 'ridiculous agenda'?
Star Wars

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:56 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?

I could elaborate, but won't, as I've no doubt at all that Dweeb knows full well about reporting restrictions in child cases, and is just being very silly, to no obvious end.

No change there, then.

Re: Rotherham : Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:07 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

I don't remember asking why children weren't named. What is my 'ridiculous agenda'?
Star Wars

You asked why the perpetrator wasn't named. FA told you. I told you. I'll repeat - it is so the children can't be identified/named.

Already covered that.

I know