That's odd, almost not worth bothering in a sense.
Not really. I only became aware of the article yesterday, and even then only found it on the site as the original article apeared last week. I have never denied being centrally involved with the site, however it isn't 'my site', and there are others involved who are indeed 'local' - or at least, a lot more local than I in a geographic sense - however, given the context within which
I think that's probably pretty much down to media fudge more than anything else.
You can say that for every single story covered in the media. 'Those in the know', or, those who have first hand experience of any circumstances which are eventually reported will always say that the report was not totally correct. This is the way it goes, I'm afraid. A fair, unbiased and correct press sadly I fear, wouldn't be popular amongst the people who consume it.
Again, 'seemed to know about' tends to suggest covert mutterings in smokey pub bars - again, one simple telephone call is all it takes to extract information in the public domain. No secrets broken, no backhanders, no collusion, not in any way 'dodgy'.
Or you could say that it's in the direct interests of public safety to allow the press to make locals aware of a direct risk to the wellbeing of their community? Especially so when the offender concerned has pleaded guilty.
Now - there follows a huge question about this leading to vigilante action - which I do not agree with in the slightest.
I am personally quite happy though, that Luckwill is getting a little taste of his own medicine. I also have a few 'issues' to take up with the University of Wales at Lampeter. They do appear to be very 'accommodating' in other respects, so this should be swiftly resolved.