Joined: Oct 19 2003 Posts: 17898 Location: Packed like sardines, in a tin
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?
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?
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
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.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 138 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
