CITY’S heaviest home defeat for 50 years has been reduced to a footnote. It’s been that sort of week.

The humiliation of being gubbed 6-0 at home by Bristol City has not disappeared.

But in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t seem to matter so much right now.

Talk of a possible takeover – and Phil Parkinson’s comments yesterday that he has been kept up to date for the last “six to eight weeks” – has proved that the national spotlight from the FA Cup heroics has attracted potentially serious interest of a buy-out in BD8.

Whether Gianni Paladini does prove to be that man – and depending who you talk to, there appears to be very genuine credence to his claims – Bradford City have been put on the map once again.

But not all publicity is good publicity, whatever the saying may suggest.

The Guardian’s extracts from Martin Fletcher’s book on the fire have made for extremely disturbing reading.

One man’s mission for closure has succeeded in opening old and very painful wounds around the city.

As I’ve said before, I can’t possibly begin to imagine the demons that must stalk the author since that awful afternoon.

Having lost so much – far too much – I can understand his all-consuming goal to uncover his own version of what he believes is the “truth”, even if it runs contrary to the official finding of previous legal inquiries and investigations.

He wants a definitive reason for what went on; somewhere to point a finger and say “that was why this horror unfolded”.

But there are other victims who are suffering from these freshly-published claims; others already sensitive to the timing of such a book on the eve of another anniversary.

I have spoken with people who still see the images of that day whenever they shut their eyes at night. They don’t want to see them on the front page of their newspapers or used as a “catch all” backdrop in television studios.

They don’t want reminding.

That is very different from shunning the truth; the Telegraph & Argus stance this week has not been to cover up or block any new line of inquiry but to visit the events with sensitivity and, where possible, through the eyes of their readers.

We are not trying to shield anyone from what happened. Should a new investigation spring up from what Martin Fletcher has had to say, we will cover it as thoroughly as any media outlet.

But it’s the sideshow that leaves a terrible taste.

The shameful “bandwagoning” from MPs – oh look, there’s an election coming up – has just stirred up the outside view that there must be something to hide.

I had a chat a few months ago with one fire survivor who admitted he was dreading the approaching anniversary. In his eyes, a disaster that has traditionally been remembered quietly and privately by the local community would be turned into some kind of national show of public mourning for “the other Hillsborough”.

This book, however meticulously researched, has accelerated that process. Just look at the reaction from beyond West Yorkshire.

I’d like to know whether Martin Fletcher had any say in the timing of its appearance and whether he feels this personal cathartic process is worth the pain it will undoubtedly cause others.

Unfortunately, he has so far declined the invitation to talk to this newspaper.