Reporting of Renfrewshire rape - reply from STV news, finally.

[mimithemindfull]

I hope some of you will remember my post about this a few weeks ago. I wrote to complain about the reporter saying the woman was not physically injured. Editors reply below . I am furious at the sheet arrogance of it, the patronising tone and the fact that he is shifting the blame on to the police. I will write back to him but in the mean time I would be interested in your thoughts.

"First of all apologies in the delay in responding to you. I have been off on annual leave. Secondly I would like to emphasise how seriously STV News takes reporting of such crimes.

The piece to which you refer was based on information received directly from the police. The reporter asked officers if the victim had been physically injured and they emphasised she hadn't been and hadn't required treatment in hospital. The police also offered other information regarding the incident which was off the record and I am not at liberty to detail this information further.
The reference to the woman wearing distinctive white earphones was included in the report in case somebody recognised the woman at that time of day which may help find the attacker.
STV News editorial policy means reporting on such cases with accuracy and sensitivity. It is regretful that you have been angered by our report, but I would say that the package was aired in good faith and based on information received by investigating officers. "

Zombie it could be that if people remember seeing her they will realise they were in the area at that time, and so might have noticed something or someone else of interest.

It does seem like a really odd thing to do though, doesn't it?

Could be Temporary

And I need to stop cross posting, makes me look like even more of a miserable bitch than I actually am

Well yeah but the OP didn't say the report said they wanted people to identify her.

The reporter just said near the beginning of the report that she was wearing headphones and later on that she wasn't physically hurt.

Sounds like ill thought out reporting to me. Don't think there's any need to read anything more into it

I think it may be fur the Scottish law of corroboration here
It may be that the news piece was to raise awareness of what happened in case a witness comes forward to corroborate

It may be that in the description of the victim, certain details are withheld from media so that any potential witnesses can be tested on what they saw. This may be why they mentioned the headphones - this may help jog witnesses memory but otter details are deliberately held back to test this memory.

This is all conjecture though - I've no idea, just based on experience from years ago.

DS, there is not just a "bias" in your posts, there's a high level of combativeness in almost all your posts to date. I'm not sure why. Do you think that'll lead to a productive discussion?

"The importance of corroboration is a unique feature of Scots criminal law.[1] A cornerstone of Scots law, the requirement for corroborating evidence means at least two different and independent sources of evidence are required in support of each crucial fact before a defendant can be convicted of a crime."

Wow.

That is an incredibly tough standard.

Not sure how it ties in with the idea that they might choose to get people to come forward if they've seen a victim by a. not telling them that that is what the aim is and b. not mentioning any of the "standard" things like age, race and so on.

So it'd be like trying to get the public to come forward about a crime victim by saying:

"A man was mugged, he was wearing trousers" and not telling anyone that they want them to do anything if they think they might recognise that person

I am no expert on scots law though.

That's all your posts on FWR, not specifically this thread.

Thanks BogQueen, that might go a some way to explain why they wanted someone to identify the victim.

You ask a good question of Vanilla 7Z7 and, whilst not that poster, I feel it could equally be addressed to me - and validly so.

Why challenge the finer points of things that are well-intentioned? What's to be gained?

This is a question I have asked of myself, not wrt to feminism but another issue; I'm relatively left-wing, so why do I spend more time arguing with fellow leftwingers than right-wingers? It does seem rather perverse. But I'd give two answers.

Firstly, and I've made this point elsewhere tonight, I think it's important to debate and challenge within an issue. If not, the consensus of a like-minded group can wander away from their original principles and into a series of attacks and defence defined by the arguments of the opposing side. Debate with external PsOV are important, but also with internal PsOV - I hope that makes sense.

Secondly, there is such a thing as 'too much'. Too much is what you might call the 'baa baa rainbow sheep' element. Clearly this thread is not in that league - I'm just saying that it's valid, I think, to challenge what is a legitimate complaint and what isn't.

Oh wow if you google corroboration it is really interesting.

Interestingly and pertinently I guess there are moves to get rid of it, and those are supported by rape charities in scotland.

But it looks like it's all on hold for now.

It's an interesting read but I don't see how it links to the trying to get people to remember stuff without giving them much info thing.

I think the explanation is much simpler than that, that the reporter put together a quick report and someone had said "she was wearing earphones" and he said "was she hurt" and the police said "no physical injuries" and he just said what he said. Then he went off to film his next quick thing to camera about something else somewhere else.

seven you are probably right.

Blimey.

1. Are you saying that you are here as a feminist, to keep the other feminists on here "challenged" and on the straight and narrow and not go too far to the extreme? And this is why you are the sole voice in hammering on and on about things while pretty much everyone disagrees with you, over more than one thread simultaneously?

Um. Lol?

1. No "relatively left-wing" person would put down in writing the phrase "baa baa rainbow sheep" and use it in an attempt to make a serious point about people going too far

HTH

Yonic, no probably not. Fair observation.

Would they not 7D7? And yet I did...

And yes, what I'm saying isn't what I've written at all. Good heavens, no. It's what you've re-written it as.

HTFH. Lol. Etc etc.

(Too combative Yonic? I mean 7D7 was so polite after all... )

Seven - thanks for so eloquently fighting my corner also Zombie and scallops. Sorry didn't mean to post and run but I have just finished working. Just to clarify - in the original report on STV news the policeman did not link
wearing headphones with identifying the women. He simply stated right at the beginning of his report that she was wearing headphones. Full stop. We could of course assume that the identify bit was edited out. However IMO it really does not matter what was/ was not edited out what really matters is how it came across and the impression it gave. I therefore stand by my original complaint and so do the majority of the posters on this thread it would seem.

What 7D7 wrote was nothing like your "we need a phrase like willy waving that means I'm a bigger feminist than you" or whatever it was on one of your early FWR posts.

And yes, when you are generally combative, when someone comes back on this, specifically to you, calling them impolite is disingenuous.

Yes, the response is rubbish and the editor obviously didn't get what was wrong with the wording. I also suspect that the stuff about off the record info means that there is a lot of doubt over what occurred but they are obliged to put the appeal out. The stuff about physical injury is probably intended to reassure other women...ironically.

And "um, Lol?" is significantly less impolite as a response to someone's point than "chuffing hilarious".

HTH.

Yes Seven I agree that the headphones thing probably wasn't put in context of 'did you see this person' as the OP would likely have noticed that.

Damsilli are you saying that you normally lurk and nod along with FWR discussions but when you see something you totally disagree with that is when you post?

Never mind the fact that regulars on here disagree with each other all the time on what can often be quite fundamental points