I did at the time, admittedly. But it is not the point he is making here, Jim; to which you can only ever respond by digging out that piece of history which he has since withdrawn and explained ~~ (but I honestly haven't the energy to dig that out).

My point is, Jim, that when faced with facts which do not suit your notions, you fall back on that bit of ad hominem ancient history against Keith, instead of responding to the points currently being made. Honestly, now: do you not regard S Yorks police failures in these particulars thoroughly reprehensible; or deny tham to have been, at least prima facie [we had better see what the Chief Con says to the Select Committee] caused by the counter-productive fear of appearing racist which paralysed them from taking the necessary action? ~ and which seems to me, I am afraid, not a million miles from your own customary knee-jerk responses as described in my last post,

~M~