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.

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

rlRotherham child rapist has sentence doubledrl

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

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