Green Party statement

[Destinysdaughter]

Sorry it’s so tiny, I screenshotted it on my phone from Twitter! It’s a bit mealy mouthed...

Shame on you Mumsnet for the deletions. You're no better than The Green Party at this point in time.

So, to take stock. We now have in our political establishment:

The anti-Semitic Party
The Islamophobic Party
The Paedophile’s Party

Such is the democracy we live in, that we have to make a choice between these.

Had a response from the BBC about no coverage at all of David Challenor.

Total brush off, as follows:

"I understand you felt there was insufficient coverage of the conviction of David Challenor.

We know that not everyone will agree with our choices on which stories to cover, or the order in which they appear. Our news editors make these complex decisions, based on the editorial merit of all the stories at hand. We accept that not everyone will agree with each decision – various factors are at play and there’s often debate in the newsroom too.

A range of factors affect how we put together our news bulletins. Is it breaking news, or a dated story? Does it follow on from a recent event, or change our understanding of things? Is it unusual, or attracting national interest? We consider these things and also put great importance on verifying events and building up a clear picture - before reporting in a reliable and trustworthy way.

Editorial decisions are more of a judgement call, than an exact science – so you’ll even find variety from one BBC programme to the next. Time constraints, the expected audience profile and the style of each bulletin or current affairs programme can all play a part.

Nevertheless, we appreciate the feedback that our viewers and listeners give us when they feel a story has been overlooked or marginalised."

I will complain vehemently about that response.

We know that not everyone will agree with our choices on which stories to cover, or the order in which they appear

I couldn't find it on their news website at all

popchyk

I've received no reply yet

So the BBC don’t think it worth mentioning that the Deputy Leadership candidate for a political party that has representation in Parliament knowingly used the address of a paedophile’s torture den for the Party’s regional HQ, and employed said paedophile (alleged at time) as their election agent, and campaigned with said paedophile (alleged at time) to loosen safeguarding? Or to mention that the Party is standing by the candidate. And that the Party couldn’t bring itself to name the crime in its statement, or express sympathy and concern directly to the victim?

I think we can see how the BBC allowed Jimmy Saville to run amok.

So what more newsworthy things are the BBC focusing on today? Did a cat get stuck up a tree? Possibly Megan Markle wore something interesting?

Then I showed them the screenshots and the archived pages to prove how various web pages and searches have been redacted and scrubbed over the past few days.

Adobe Spark Page is a free app

I've made a complaint about that response.

And reiterated my original question.

Has anyone tweeted Janice from the Times or anyone from the Speccie to get them to cover this? And any response from Scouts? They must be held accountable, and if it helps others get their heads out of their arses too, even better.

AAK,

I made the point that on the Coventry and Warwickshire news site, they have items on how the friend of a Leicester City footballer has been cleared of GBH and how recruiting paramedics from the local area is a good idea.

But the horrible rape and torture of a 10 year old girl has no "editorial merit".

Has Kirkup weighed in on this yet?

Has anyone tweeted Janice from the Times or anyone from the Speccie to get them to cover this?

Janice is aware.

But the horrible rape and torture of a 10 year old girl has no "editorial merit".

I know this will go down like a cup of cold sick. But there needs to be A LOT of people sending a summary, links, screenshots, hashtags to people like Shapiro, Crowder, Peterson et al.

Until this explodes outside of national boarders, there is nothing to galvanise national media to change their tune.

Like Cologne, the light needs to be shone by those free of national restrictions and connections - international commentators and analysts.

Or those who should be held to account, will not be.

And the majority of the country will never understand the significance of a horrible story they skimmed over, with no connections ever being made.

There are lots of possible angles here.

Local politics as a 'family business' and the risks of that, the hollowed out nature of all party politics sustained by a few volunteers apiece, how to handle people who are under investigation/charged with crimes when they hold a public role, social services investigations, safeguarding, the vulnerability of disabled people to abusive partners...

That's before you even touch on the whole concept of transition as a response to trauma, and the current political issue of the gra consultation.

popchyk

I've received no reply yet but if I get the same reply you did I will complain about that too.

Popchyk that BBC response is unbelievable.

What a load of absolute garbage. This is a huge news story for so many reasons. Again, the BBC are showing where their allegiance lies.

It's a sad day when the national broadcaster has to be shamed into doing the right thing and actually covering important domestic political news, but you're not wrong.

I presume the BBC just sent the standard brush-off reply.

I'm guessing that the person who replied had never heard of David Challenor and didn't even look him up before giving me the brush-off.

It is not good enough to send out standard replies without actually considering someone's complaint.

I'll update when I get a response. I presume that I'll have to wait longer for the second reply. They might actually have to read my complaint and think about it.

I won't let it drop though. Not a chance.

Popchyk

Yes. It looks pretty standard.

Out of interest, who did 'sensitivity' training for the BBC?

Is it breaking news, or a dated story? Breaking news

Does it follow on from a recent event, or change our understanding of things? recent event following the sentencing

Is it unusual ffs sake - does that need an answer?

or attracting national interest? yes, despite the BBC 's efforts to hide it.

We consider these things and also put great importance on verifying events and building up a clear picture - before reporting in a reliable and trustworthy way

Again ffs - it is the public decision of an English court- how much more verification do they need?

Editorial decisions are more of a judgement call, than an exact science – so you’ll even find variety from one BBC programme to the next. Time constraints, the expected audience profile

How many millions of the UK population are the parents of girls? Half the population is or was a girl.

and the style of each bulletin or current affairs programme can all play a part again ffs - this is a major news story.

That was the same sort of boilerplate response that got Michael the mod into trouble earlier on this thread.

In 2010, the BBC challenged a judgement not to release the name of a council that took children into care, the judgment was overturned and the court was ordered to pay substantial costs to the family. The BBC argued naming the council was in the public interest and the court agreed.

Their stance about public interest appears to have changed markedly in recent years.

So the torture and rape of a 10 year old is not newsworthy, let alone the link to a political party in the UK?

Right.

Course not.

The utter arrogance of AC not to stand down is frankly staggering.

Sharing this far and wide on FB, lets see how long until I’m banned