From the report: "The woman, whose identity is protected by law, said: "I couldn't believe they'd closed my case. I felt let down again and totally trapped."

Now can you suggest, given the fact that it was her father that was convicted, could possibly have her identity protected by law, if her birth father's identity is published? His ethnicity and/or religion are immaterial to any public interest, save for the purposes of demonising a religion/ethnic group or satisfying some form of weird voyeurism.

I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse or are just plain thick

Why would he only do four years?

Just because it says that and the law says that doesn't make it a fact.

Section 1 of [url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/34/contentsthis act that is still in force[/url

Good enough for you, troll?

What happened to challenging facts? He's letting the side down.

Scotland's bigger than Rotherham

Cos that would be around when you'll start seeing him out and about on home leave. And possibly the rest of the time in an open prison.

Given the nature of the offence, I seriously doubt he'd be looking at home leave until he's at least served his 50% tariff

Which report?
Are the perpetrators in Rotherham being demonised?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't have alerts set up to let me know when you post an answer.
There is nothing anywhere that references this Act in relation to this story.

He's winding me up ain't he?

Dunno. Maybe [url=http://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/trolling-age-old-problem-thats-not-getting-betterthis one?[/url


Dunno. Though I'm not that sure what could be done to "demonise" a child abuser or rapist. Don't they by their actions kind of "self-demonise"?

And so what if the perpetrators were being demonised anyway? I'd suggest they'd brought it on their own horns.

someone fiddles with kids or commits a sexual offence, kind of deserve everything they get, someone turns a blind eye to someone doing the same is almost a worse offence!