The BBC at its victim blaming best.

Would you like me to contact them on your behalf? If I get blacklisted so be it. It's disgusting that they have done this to you even though it's proven that Saville was a vile predator. I am sorry that he victimised you. 💐

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I remember this case from the time it happened. The police did at least charge the two men , so they obviously believed the girl, so did the the CPS. There were I think some shenanigans with the interpreter, thé orignal interpréter who interpreted the brothers’ statements which were very incriminating was replaced with a guy who delivered protestations of innocence.

Of course, these blokes were part of Cameron’s much praised scheme to host specifically chosen and vetted families , so it would have been annoying if it was demonstrated not to be the magic bullet they thought.

Completely an example of the reporter and BBC's implicit bias.

I'm disappointed that this was approved by the Newsnight editors.

'During a voiceover segment, the reporter also claimed: 'The Syrian men in many ways appeared less sexually experienced than the girls they were supposed to have attacked.''

How the fuck is that reporting the facts, BBC? You gross fuckers.

Not challenging what he said is one thing. Including it in the documentary and allowing the suggesting that teenage boys seemed sexually more innocent than a 13 year old girl should never have made the final cut.

Anyone who knows anything about rape (and the BBC bloody well ought to) knows it’s notoriously difficult to prove, hence the low numbers coming to trial. Any rape that has enough evidence to actually go to trial probably has a high chance of being true. Most likely it didn’t quite meet the high bar of “beyond all reasonable doubt”.

And yes, I accept the legal ideal of “innocent until proven guilty” in that, without a conviction, there shouldn’t be punishment (including via negative publicity) however it’s beyond naive to assume that “not guilty” actually means innocent. Perhaps that phrase needs to be reworded for the new, literal crowd to “not found guilty until proven guilty”. The accused should equally not be allowed to place negative publicity on the person accusing them.

It's plausible that it created the perception of a culture of impunity and immunity. I speculate that the aura of innocence associated with the boys/young men was a particular advantage for them, especially when combined with the allegations about the girl and the implicit bias of adultification.

Caveat: a PP has noted that a "not guilty" verdict doesn't, despite the public perception, mean that anybody lied. I accept this. Plus, in the reporter's position, at that time and after a NG verdict, I'm not sure what would have been permissible to challenge.

I’m surprised they aren’t blaming the sexually experienced 13 year old for being responsible for their future rapes.

Bloody hell!

So glad I cancelled my licence.

JFC. Will no one think of the poor, innocent rapists?

I am sick to death of the BBC. To say it has an agenda is an understatement. In fact, it is so biased it’s almost laughable. They don’t even bother to try and hide it any more. It really is just a propaganda unit for sneering Oxbridge liberals. To me it’s virtually indistinguishable from The Guardian.

Bastard broadcasting corporation

User19792 · Today 10:44

I am a victim of Savile but am listed as a vexatious complainant by teh BBC (due to my complaints about Savile) and banned from contacting them in any way.

God, that's absolutely awful. Have you even been given compensation? How can it be legal for them to brand you vexatious and ban you from contacting them?

Documentary on YT. Link available through this. I've included the link but they don't reliably show up, depending on the order, whether or not the video can be embedded etc..

https://thecritic.co.uk/newsnight-and-the-rapist/

I’d have to watch the documentary to check whether the DM reported on this correctly though, they are notorious for lying and not correcting. Anyone found a link to it?

That’s a further scandal in & of itself - is someone able to contact the BBC on your behalf (well, on behalf of all the woman they’ve doubtless shitlisted like that) to request they lift the ban, it having been demonstrated you’re not vexatious complainants.

I mean, if there’s anyone who resorted to sending them threats/white powder/faeces/[used] sharps or similar due to their extreme trauma & distress (it happens, though I’m not saying it did here & I’m certainly not suggesting you did anything of the sort!!!) it would need to be with a “this is your last chance” attached; but i. they’re vanishingly unlikely to go down that road again (if anyone ever did); & ii. your access should never have been cut off in the first place. Utterly disproportionate. If they thought the Saville complaints were vexatious recourse = no longer accepting those^. Not a blanket ban.

^Am not saying that would have been right; but it would have been proportionate, iyswim?

•••••••••••••••••••••
Edit:
Got distracted from OP by ⬆️ (not blaming poster was replying to, to be clear, but my stupid brain 🙄).
Absolutely shocking editorial decision not to offer some balance against narrative of “sexually experienced 13yo girl”. Not least because if that’s true, that 13yo is a vulnerable abuse victim; & the fact society as a whole still hasn’t got it through their heads this is the case both baffles & infuriates me in roughly even measure. (More the latter than the former).

Anyone else wondering if getting away with it the first time, and having the backing of the BBC, was what made them feel so invulnerable that they decided not to bother changing their ways and went on to abuse more victims?

Oh how depressingly predictable and what's the betting we won't be able to deport these fuckers coz it's their yuman rites innit 😡

The BBC didn't just report the facts at the time: they editorialised to suggest the complainant lied because she was anti-migrant. A not guilty verdict (even a correct not guilty verdict) doesn't mean anyone lied, let alone tell us why.

I can see why they felt the court case was a fly in the ointment of the refugee documentary that they already had mostly in the can. But slandering the girl doesn't seem like quite the right response (not mentioning the court case at all could also have been criticised).

iirc, for Black and/or working class girls, this is described as adultification. They are treated as if they

• less nurturing
• need less protection
• need to be supported less
• are more independent
• know more about adult topics
• know more about sex

We can see how the notion of innocence (by age or development) can afford children legal protection as perpetrators but although this was extended to the youngish men in this case, this was not afforded to this young female victim.

The BBC needs to work on its implicit biases.

I am a victim of Savile but am listed as a vexatious complainant by teh BBC (due to my complaints about Savile) and banned from contacting them in any way. But I still have to pay them if I want to watch tv. The BBC hates women, it has been obvious for a long time.

It was from the pov that the girl was lying and sexually experienced and racist. BBC should have been neutral or at least challenged that narrative as they did not know whether she was or not.
looks like it was a piece where they were defending the brothers narrative and that turns out to be wrong.
could have even contributed to their subsequent actions as they had the BBC “ on their side”

This is typical. The worst examples of rape myth apologists come from woke progressives and progressive media when they don’t like the victim and the perpetrator is from a protected class.

See Oct 7 commentary from the left.

Al-Soaimi, 21, was convicted of three counts of sexual assault and assault by penetration. He was sentenced to two years suspended for two years with 180 hours unpaid work.
This is appalling; a suspended sentence for crimes against 13/14 yr old girls.