The bird was not only submitted to BBRC with the observer/s names withheld, but also the location of the bird was also withheld. Whilst the observer/s are within there rights to withhold their names, presumably to avoid backlash, I find it hard to understand why the site name has been withheld. Withholding the site name is disappointing, if at a later date, one wants to review certain records. If it was withheld because it would give away the names of the observer/s, then fair enough, but being a bit more precise, for example, saying in was seen in inland Dorset or coastal Dorset would be nice to know. If the site was private, or sensitive, the latter due to health & safety considerations, then why withhold anything, as nobody is gonna complain about that. If the information was withheld to stop birders visiting the site in increasing numbers, well the birds been and gone, so pretty pointless to do that, to be honest.
In the BBRC work in progress file it states the bird was there for 2 days. So, a suppressed rarity this autumn. Was it suppressed for a good reason? I hope that is the case and I'm sure it was. If it was, nobody is gonna have a problem with that. I'm sure we Dorset birders won't have long to wait for another Paddyfield Warbler.