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

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-29251006Rotherham child rapist has sentence doubled[/url

Up from 6 years to 12. Might do 4 now.

Because you say it doesn't make it fact.

No it doesn't. But the fact that it is actually a fact makes it a fact.

^ this

Anything to support this being a fact in this case?