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..

Yep true true

Leaving these here, in case anyone is still wondering why I am particularly angry about the BBC being so reluctant to report on a significant case of child rape/torture with real safeguarding implications:

www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/29/bbc-savile-expose-newsnight-meirion-jones

www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/jimmy-savile-newsnight-journalists-attack-bbc-over-anti-victim-panorama-investigation-a6685456.html

January 2017 Coventry Pride / BBC
'Transgender Kids: Who knows best – An Ally’s Response.'
(article concludes)
"I came away from this TV show angry, appalled, outraged and deeply concerned for my trans+ family who I knew would be feeling this worse than me as aside from some crossfire regarding questionable statistics around young males who initially presented as trans allegedly turned out to be gay instead it wasn’t an attack on my identity, it was a full broadside to my trans+ family, thankfully they seem to be holding up ok, but as I type calls to trans charities and helplines have increased, some of my more prominent trans friends are dealing with an increased volume of social media abuse all for the crime of proudly owning who they are as trans. More insidiously this program followed an awful piece on

More insidiously this program followed an awful piece on Newsnight on the 11th and many articles and opinion pieces attacking trans individuals, trans charities and parents who support their trans kids. This all feeds into an “othering” of the trans community by the media and in society, in general. Many of my trans friends have been opposing this, within the Pride committee which I am chairperson of it is a running joke that I am like momma bear protecting her cubs there’s more truth than joke to that if you are a friend of mine or a part of my community you are mine and I am protective of you, if I have to put myself in harms way to keep you safe I will, the BBC just took a swipe at my family this will not stand, while as an ally it will never be appropriate for me to lead your fight, it is more than appropriate for me to use my voice to amplify yours and to walk with you side by side, to hold you up when you are tired, and that is what I will do.
In Solidarity
Paul Desson-Baxter
Coventry Pride."
www.coventrypride.org.uk/2017/01/13/transgender-kids-who-knows-best-an-allys-response/

Nasty, legally fraught story involving litigious people, over sensitive local party, obnoxious bullying dominating man, litigious campaign group, hot on the heels of cliff Richard - I reckon it was sent upwards and they were still umming and aahing for days after it broke

But it wasn't legally fraught. Reporting what the defence and prosecution counsel and the judge said in court, the sentence and the sentencing comments cannot be defamatory of even the most litigious of litigants.

The papers who did report it didn't mention AC.

it is more than appropriate for me to use my voice to amplify yours and to walk with you side by side, to hold you up when you are tired

Yeah, fuck off Paul.

That.

I am chairperson of it is a running joke that I am like momma bear protecting her cubs...

There's a turn of phrase that hasn't really aged very well in the Challenor context.

My thoughts exactly on reading that!

from carceralfeminist link:
July 2015 Guardian: 'BBC forced out team behind Savile exposé, says ex-Newsnight journalist
Meirion Jones claims corporation bosses viewed as ‘traitors’ those who sought to expose the presenter’s crimes or criticised its mistakes'

(extract)
"BBC journalists will be afraid of speaking out about the next big BBC scandal after seeing how those who tried to expose Jimmy Savile were forced out, according to the former head of investigations at Newsnight.

Merion Jones said the way he and other journalists who complained about the way the BBC handled the scandal were pressured to leave.

He said: “We were told at the time that you won’t be sacked, but over a year or two years you’ll realise you are being treated as an outsider, that you will never be trusted because you blew the whistle, and you will find yourself leaving,” he said. “I didn’t believe that, but I started watching what was going around me.

“I think journalists will be afraid of speaking out. This isn’t ancient history, I left in February. It looks like no lessons have been learnt.” (continues)

you won’t be sacked, but over a year or two years you’ll realise you are being treated as an outsider, that you will never be trusted because you blew the whistle, and you will find yourself leaving

I've had a reply from the BBC. Palmed off as I expected. 'We have reported the case... here' Yep, you did about 4 days after everyone else and in the barest possible terms.

This is the rest of it.

As the father and election agent of Aimee Challenor, a Green Party member who was campaigning to be deputy leader of the party, this story had political implications as it led to her ending her bid for the deputy leadership. This was reflected in our reporting of this story. The Green Party won 1.6% of the UK share of the vote in the 2017 General Election. Several factors would be taken into account when determining the level of coverage we give to a story relating to any political party, but this would include the significance of the given party in the political landscape.

The news stories that we choose to report are decided impartially, and wouldn’t be influenced by any outside agenda. Our editors choose the stories which they deem to be the most newsworthy, but we appreciate that not everyone will agree with all our decisions.

Okaaay, so to paraphrase the Green Party is tiny so it can be linked to pretty much any scandal and no-one really cares. And we're not influenced by any agenda, particularly not yours, you nasty fascist woman.

The Green Party being not very newsworthy is a fair point.

Saying we wouldn't be biased is obviously just silly and offers no useful evidence or argument.

Challenor has had lots of influence over self-id policies and law though. As evidenced by the BBC giving them coverage time elsewhere on exactly these issues. This is where they should equally have been critiquing AC's lack of judgement in relation to serious safeguarding concerns around an area the BBC themselves got AC on as an 'expert' on FFS

LatinForTelly

I received the exact same response, but I complained before there was any coverage on the BBC. I also complained about the fact that a man found guilty of extreme sex offences was not given any coverage, I didn't mention anything about his membership of the green party. So the voter share of the green party was of no relevance to my complaint.

I didn't mention Aimee or the Green Party either. Just asked why they didn't cover the conviction of David Challenor. Got a quick reply basically saying some stories don't have editorial merit. Complained again about the reply.

Just received the following:

"We're sorry to hear you found the earlier reply didn't address matters properly - we appreciate that particular aspects of this case weren't addressed clearly. We always aim to address the specific points raised by our audience and regret any cases where we’ve failed to do this. We certainly weren't suggesting that the circumstances of the court case lacked editorial merit.

We'd like to reassure you that BBC News has reported (on TV, online and BBC Red Button) the conviction of David Challenor for child sexual abuse. You can see an example of the coverage below:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-45373833

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

BBC Midlands Today reported on his conviction on Aug 25, with details from the trial. The news stories that we choose to report are decided impartially, and wouldn’t be influenced by any outside agenda.

Our editors choose the stories which they deem to be the most newsworthy, but we appreciate that not everyone will agree with all our decisions."

I didn't see the BBC Midlands report (presumably on TV) on August 25th. But Challenor was sentenced on 21st August. 4 days beforehand. And the other reports didn't appear until 7 days later.

It is supposed to be news as it happens. Writing a half-arsed account a week later is just bonkers.

The Green Party being not very newsworthy is a fair point

But irrelevant as why the crime was not reported. A crime of that magnitude should have been reported.

That was exactly my point, Lass.

The Green Party/transgender angle should not have been a factor in them covering the initial story.

The initial story was "horrible man rapes and tortures 10 year old girl. Gets a very long sentence in unusually cruel crime". That should have been it and the BBC should have covered it as such.

The Green Party angle only became an angle after the GP made a statement about it (4 days later). And the transgender angle only became an angle when Aimee Challenor then made a statement in response to the initial GP statement.

It is the BBC's failure to cover the initial story that pissed me off. Particularly when they tried to fob me (and others) off with the standard "not newsworthy" defence which is clearly untrue.

And the BBC are now effectively saying it only became newsworthy when it turned out that David Challenor was a member of a political party that the BBC don't usually consider newsworthy is clearly bollocks also.

But irrelevant as why the crime was not reported. A crime of that magnitude should have been reported.

Absolutely agree.

And in fact a similar local crime was reported straight away about a week after Challenor's wasn't.

And the BBC are now effectively saying it only became newsworthy when it turned out that David Challenor was a member of a political party that the BBC don't usually consider newsworthy is clearly bollocks also.

Good point.

I haven't even had the standard brush off reply to my complaint.

Dear BBC,

Only 18% of the country agree with self-ID, but it's being imposed from the top down. People need to be educated on all points of views in order to make an informed decision on actual changes to the law. That's called the democratic process.

100% of all decent people in the country care about a kid getting raped. The crime itself was so brutal that it was newsworthy. Factor in the fact that this individual was influential in the community, with politics, and in youth groups, and it was DEFINITELY something we should know about. That's called safeguarding.

0% of people are trying to blame Aimee Challenor with the crimes of the father. But Aimee should be held fully responsible for continuing to be heavily involved with David Challenor, when he had been arrested for something so heinous. One is allowed to question the judgment of such a politician. Any policy that David had influence on should be scrutinized. That's holding public figures to account for their own actions (...also safeguarding).

Please get your priorities straight.

Thank you.

I've had a reply - I put complaint and the full response here.

Interesting they're saying they covered it on 25th August. It must have been a blink and you'll miss it report on local news only. The reason for the delay between sentencing (Monday 20th I believe) and the first news reports (Thursday 24th) must surely have been to do with reporting restrictions. That would also explain why there was no reporting during the trial. I'm not sure if the reporting restrictions were to protect the identity of the victim or whether the Challenors were trying to prevent reporting of the case at all. I've seen claims it was the latter but have not seen any proof.

Can't get your link to work, Tiger.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3296433-BBC-Bias-Collecting-Examples-here?msgid=80777451#80777451 Sorry, I think this will work.