I never once said the reg wasn't accurate in its story - it told the truth, i'm just questionning if it told the whole truth.
Why should I, as a reader, have to conduct further research to get the whole story - that's the job of the reporter writing the story, at least it is where I work (as a journalist).
As it goes, I read the smoking gun story and the police report before commenting - sadly a day job prevented my from reading every local newspaper report. (although the report you linked to actually backed up my point that there was more of an escalation than included by the Reg or SG)
But then in this case I'm the comment writer not the reporter - there is no onus on me to spend a morning researching.
I guess as journalism shifts towards 'the twitter angle?' then "OMG!1! cant blv grl arrested for txting http://tiny...." is always going to win out over an in depth account of what actually happened.
So don't libel me (a journalist, using my real name to comment) as someone who doesn't check his facts - I was commenting on the scant detail in the story and went on to include a flippant (you love that remember!) account of what obviously didn't happen in the classroom.
I am not criticising the Reg reporters - they are doing their job, and probably under massive time pressure on stories and I too love the flippant style of the Reg - but you can't take a flippant story as read, like some of the comments did.
2. I'm not some right wing nutter calling for the return of corporal punishment - I simply wanted to point out that it was extremely unlikely that the arrest was for sending a text message in class, rather than what took place as the situation escalated. Not to mention we have no history on this girls behaviour, previous calls to parents etc.