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?

Do you mean [url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11475337.Council_agrees___160_000_payout_for_failing_to_protect_girl_who_gave_birth_to_rapist_dad_s_child/?ref=var_0this story[/url, 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?

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.

I suppose he could've linked to [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-29206727This Story[/url 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

Agree in principle but taking Rotherham alone 1400 is an extraordinary number and suggests a series of interlocking social phenomena over and above a predisposition within a community, a tacit silence within that community plus a murky explicit/implicit conspiracy between community 'leaders' councillors, social services and police, overlaid with huge dollops of incompetence.



This looks like 2 sides of a perfect storm. A huge group of white working class girls, uniformly classed as 'vulnerable'.



A breathtakingly large group of predominantly Pakistani Muslim men disposed to 'groom' them and in a significant number of cases, sold them, threatened to kill them, beat them, raped them and then taken them to other towns where other men had sex with them.



There are huge research questions here over and above the conduct of the police and social services. We have stumbled across a disturbing subcultural phenomena whereby girls are behaving in an extraordinary way, despite many of them almost certainly having prior knowledge of the behaviour of these men. Rotherham isn't that big. I heard white boys calling white girls 'w*g meat' as early as 2000.



This isn't merely about failing apparatchiks or certainly isn't victim blaming. Something deeply profound in respect of the identity of these girls has mutated. Simply saying they are vulnerable to somebody paying them attention and buying them a kebab is hopeless. 13 year old working class girls are bright, feisty, complicated and in some cases very difficult. This is reckless, oppositional behaviour and must be seen as a statement of some sorts be it to parents or whoever.



In my experience 'vulnerable' invariably means very very very angry. What's happened to them before they meet these men is as important as the cultural coda of Pakistani Muslim men, and any predisposition to regards certain females as utterly disposable.



It is deeply, deeply disturbing.

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?

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)

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.

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?

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?

It really isn't. Do some research.

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?

I'm sure he can answer for himself.

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?

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

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

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

Laugh it up fuzzball.

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

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.

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