Yourself and those who appear to side with you that the use of the word 'tanned' was done for some reason (unknown) to confuse, throw people off the scent???
I don't know, having heard people's first initial descriptions of those they have seen , they can vary wildly both in accuracy and detail.
I'm a little confused here - where is the picture that people refer to please?
As far as I can work out, the description from the victim is that the man is 'tanned', so that is the one the police are going with - and that is surely to be expected.
I can see that some people are desperate to have this man described as a Muslim, but it appears that the description does not offer that - unless people want to leap to a conclusion, and it seems that they do.
Mamyalynne
Yourself and those who appear to side with you that the use of the word 'tanned' was done for some reason (unknown) to confuse, throw people off the scent???
It wasn't done to throw anyone off the scent...it was done because the police insist on being absolute cowards as not to upset people's feelings.
Since TALBOT has all the answers, who is the one who described the attacker as being tanned? If the police had a more specific description, what purpose would be served by not using it?
Do you really think the police want a possible rapist to be out and about a day longer than needed?
The AB pedants are usually queuing up...yet today they are happy for the police and media to use 'tanned' for a man that is clearly not tanned but is actually in possession of a skin colouring that is indicative of someone from the Indian subcontinent.
But do carry on showing me to be racist and you to be a wonderful non racist person... because that's what's important.