BBC on David Challenor - well, finally.... [Edited by MNHQ at OP's request]

[sociopathsunited]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-45328860

I wonder if their feet are sore from dragging their heels for so bloody long..

Also please - where was the editorial decision making done on this story? Local level? National level? Do you know who was consulted within the BBC before online publucation?

The story on the bbc has been updated and there is a comment to that effect at the end of the article linked in the OP

Appreciate that you might not know if your were not in court, or might be unable to say, but are there any reporting restrictions or injunctions?

I am also curious to know why this wasn't on the court list, although I will admit to knowing nothing about the process with this stuff.

He got 22 years didn't he? Isn't that an unusually long sentence? Weren't there things which made this case stick out, at least at local level?

I complained to the BBC about the BBC not covering it.

I got back a response from someone who clearly didn't even read my email. And didn't even google David Challenor.

I just got a standard message back saying sometimes stories lack editorial merit.

I complained again and got a "we'll investigate your complaint, but it will take us four weeks to get back to you". Hard to see the value of this when it is a news story and is unlikely to be news in four weeks time.

The article when it finally did come out was woeful. It was of the Rising Green Star Affected By Father's Regrettable Crimes angle and was factually inaccurate. It stated:

"In a statement Ms Challenor, a transgender activist, apologised and said she did not know about his crimes".

That is simply not true.

AC in the statement said that AC did not know the "full details of the crimes my father has been found guilty of until very recently."

That is very clearly not the same as "did not know about his crimes". Any decent journalist would know that.

Also, having missed the story, the BBC was clearly aware that other news outlets were covering it. And chose still not to cover the story.

It was a week after his sentencing that the BBC ran the (rubbish) story. And only in its local news section.

I've worked for the BBC too and used to hold it in respect, and generally still do despite everything. Is there any way you can feed back to your contacts there how this looks to the thoughtful, rational, people who have been forced by conscience to stick their heads above the parapet and risk their careers and reputations to warn everyone that the emperor has no clothes because no one in power will do so? Remember, this is all in the context of things like seeing Jenni Murray disciplined for perfectly reasonable, rational comments.

I appreciate that people perceive the BBC to have institutional biases and positions but again, we try very hard to be fair and trustworthy and to offer the most balanced and accurate version of any story. I'm happy to answer any qus anyone has.

This directly contradicts the experiences of other BBC journalists and the output of coverage of the issues.

Here's how the conversation seems to go.

1. Let's cover specific issue affecting women/girls/safeguarding
2. Solid and clearly concerning case studies provided
3. Errrrrm
4. We've decided to focus on the silencing of women instead
5. Speakers and clearly disturbing examples provided.
6. Errrrm

The weirdest thing about this is that the Greens pride themselves on being 'anti-establishment' and only have one MP. For years they were sold to us as the counter cultural option. What this makes abundantly clear is that the Green Party is an integral cog in the establishment machine. To quote the Simpsons "It doesn't matter which one of us you vote for - either way your planet is doomed!"

The BBC 'factcheck' on trans prisoners was a total embarrassment.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/is-the-bbc-scared-of-the-transgender-debate/amp/

Squirmy - why did the BBC report that AC knew nothing of his father's crimes when a quick check with the court would reveal that he testified in his father's defence?

This made it difficult for us to do the story immediately because of the way we check material. We absolutely understood the seriousness and horrific nature of the convictions and followed it up as soon as we could - in the event by incorporating it in the story about Aimee Challenor, which had by then developed.

Can you post a link to the actual story about the actual crime?

As in 'man gets 22 years for rape and torture of 10 year old girl'.

I must have missed it. Thanks.

Squirmy - why did the BBC report that AC knew nothing of his father's crimes when a quick check with the court would reveal that he testified in his father's defence?*

This is a great question. That claim was also directly contradicted by Aimee's statement which was quoted in the article the BBC published itself.

I'm sorry but either the BBC has suddenly become extremely and worryingly sloppy in its reporting or there is a serious bias issue relating to the safeguarding issues and negative impact of trans lobby org and TRA demands.

Either way it is a big reputational risk. People are noticing and the silencing itself is becoming a story.

The BBC either needs to genuinely cover the story and fairly - or it is going to become part of the story.

squirmy thank you for your post. I've read that the trial lasted 11 days so I'm really surprised no-one at the BBC noticed it. Coventry must be a very eventful place.

Anyway now that you have caught up, can I repeat Charlie's question? Can we take it that reporters are investigating what the Green Party knew about the charges against David Challenor?I assume it has been noted that in her Guardian article, Caroline Lucas did not repeat their earlier statement that the Green Party were unaware?

Curiosity has got to be one of the main qualities needed for a journalist so I'm sure you're all itching to the bottom of this?

And this lack of coverage comes hot on the heels of the minimising garbage that was Reality Check, which was an exercise in obfuscation about the number of transgender prisoners who are sex offenders.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42221629

This "oops, we missed a story" has to be seen in the wider context.

Yeah, I'm not buying it. You have the facts, Ms BBC. You've decided to dilute them. Message received, loud and clear. Have a penis = you matter. Have a vagina = you don't matter.

Prove me wrong.

NobodyToVoteForNow

That's the first I've heard that Aimee was a defence witness for David!! That's very significant. Can you link to a source?

I'm sorry but either the BBC has suddenly become extremely and worryingly sloppy in its reporting or there is a serious bias issue relating to the safeguarding issues and negative impact of trans lobby org and TRA demands.

Either way it is a big reputational risk. People are noticing and the silencing itself is becoming a story.

current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3296433-BBC-Bias-Collecting-Examples-here

Squirmy
Stop making excuses.
You know about what is going on.
The BBC does nothing and is as biased as they come on this issue.
Consistently.
If the Times hadn't broken the Challenor story, would you even have covered it?
Look at the thread documenting of all of the misrepresentations the BBC has made in covering anything remotely connected to "trans."
If you let this Green Party/Challenor story go without any further investigation in order to shield key people's reputations instead of addressing the very real safeguarding concerns this story raises and holding people to account for ignoring the fact that a child rapist was allowed to have political influence... Then I will personally consider you to be no better than an outright propaganda outlet for trans activists.
I don't care if your feelings get hurt by accusations of bias.
Because in this case they are 100% true.
What are you going to do about it?

Roman found some materials tha5 should be put to squirmy I think.

Rowwan.

My iPad denies the tree with red berries.
It is literally erasing rowans.

@NobodyToVoteForNow Really interested to find out where you heard that Aimee testified in David's defence. That would be dynamite if it's true, given that Aimee claims to have not known what was going on.

squirmyworm
Are you aware that Aimee Challenor was interviewed on R4's Woman Hour on July 30th 2018.

It was a curious interview as despite Aimee Challenor having significant political and media influence she was introduced and interviewed as a 'trans teenager".

I found this fact and therefore some of the assertions that Aimee made rather surprising. Aimee's close involveent with the charity Mermaids is a matter of record. Was the other person (a parent) interviewed in the segment also involved with this charity? To what degree? How were these guests selected & might others with different insights and perspectives be interviewed also?
(You will see from the thread above listed re BBC bias that there are concerns about the degree to which Mermaids have a platform afforded by the corporation. Some of the reasons for concern were raised by James Kirkup in the Spectator article, blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/why-are-some-mps-trying-to-shut-down-the-transgender-debate/

thread discussing the Womans Hour interview with link to program:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3321567-Jane-Garvey-interviews-a-parent-of-a-transgender-child-Aimee-Challener-on-Womans-Hour

Also, Aimee Challenor was interviewed at some length for a BBC World Service program along with Miranda Yardley. This followed a BBC article about the way women were being silenced by Twitter and specifically that Miranda Yardley (a transexual) had been permanently banned.
Aimee took public issue with BBC's reporting in an Independent article (resulting in the BBC article being edited)

World Service program:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3286600-BBC-World-Service-programme-about-Miranda-Yardley-and-Aimee-Challenor

BBC article:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3262965-Good-article-today-BBC-on-the-twitter-ban-on-womens-free-speech-on-trans-issues

I am interested to know to what degree Aimee Challenor had editorial control over both radio programs (if any) and also if this is the case, to what degree and with what consequence?

They are good faith questions and I would hope that journalists would be keen to look in some depth with open minds at what may have happened.

Presumably the World Service program had more material than was used? It may be interesting to consider how the program was constructed and edited.

speakingwoman Your ipad's attempt to deny the Mountain Ash will not erase me. Rowans are real and valid!

I think Squirmy is getting a bit of a rinsing at BBC HQ

I wonder if Squirmy is in one of those meetings like in that sitcom, W1A....

"Yes....no..... very strong.... yes"