I see absolutely nothing wrong in emphasising the fact that children are innocent, though it is of course a given. I think you’re giving too much of a legal interpretation to the word “innocent”. Here it means pure/untainted. The Jewish bit is also necessary – I would say essential – as it puts the killer’s background – Islamist fanatic – into context.

Would you not agree that “Nutter kills child” means just that, while “Islamic fanatic kills innocent Jewish child” is a much more meaningful statement, with very serious implications? I think most people would.

Reminds me of Donald Sutherland in Outbreak exclaiming, “These are not just lives, they are AMERICAN lives!” when reacting to the fire-bombing of an American town to stop the spread of a virus.

[Daphne – Like the US politicians who talk about ‘saving American lives’ because, presumably, the other lives are important, but not so much.]

[Daphne – For heaven’s sake.]

Do we have to pretend political correctness for every flea that farts? Come off it!

[Daphne – Innocent is taken as given with children, Chris. There’s no need to state it. It’s the exceptions which are stated, not the rule – for e.g., if the children were disabled. It’s nothing to do with political correctness. As for the Jewish bit, that should have been carried after the intro – not for reasons of political correctness, but because that’s where the descriptions and adjectives and details go.]

Like there are different sorts of rabbi? Lest we might have thought it could have been a Christian rabbi?