The BBC at its victim blaming best.

[Signalbox]

This story and the BBC response to it is sickening... It makes me think that nothing has been learned from Saville or the grooming gangs. Why did the BBC feel the need to smear a young girl in such a way?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13178507/Syrian-refugee-BBC-documentary-rape-13-year-old.html

Journalist Katie Razzall interviewed the Badreddin family following the trial, to which Omar said: 'I felt she [the accuser] didn't want foreigners in this country and that is why she made up the whole story.'

Razzall did not appear to challenge this, and added that Omar believed that claim to be 'at the heart of the case against them'.

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.'

'Two years afterwards, in 2018 and 2019, Omar Badreddin and his brother Mohamed committed multiple counts of rape. They were found guilty and were jailed last week. The BBC reported this.

'In any situation, the BBC can only report on the facts as they stand at the time, which is what we did in 2016. The Badreddins' subsequent crimes are appalling, and we express our sincere sympathies to their victim.'

Absolutely disgusting. The bbc is so blinded by their agenda that they completely lack critical thinking. Also women and girls are always at the bottom of the pile because misogyny

Yeah that is grim ‘less sexually experienced’ than they young girls. we all know that young teen girls are the empowered provocateurs driving the sexual coercion of older males. Ffs

Oh my fucking god thats awful

The facts as they stood at the time wa that it has not been proven beyond doubt that he was a rapist. Why do journalists so often treat a not guilty verdict as if the complainant has been proven to be lying?

Sorry typos...

And we pay for this remember

It's ridiculous.

What has sexual experience have to do with rape anyway? If it did then will they say that a sex worker cannot be raped?

That comment (if true) on sexual experience is completely grim, but I don’t see how we can blame the BBC for making a documentary on a 15 year old who then went on to commit horrible crimes. While as a feminist I definitely believe that a lot of those found not guilty of sexual offences are guilty as sin, what actually seems to have happened in 2016 was that the boy was found not guilty and as such (and as they weren’t investigating the allegations) they could hardly say in the documentary that they reckoned he was guilty after all could they. I know the daily mail commentators would be the first to be outraged if a male found not guilty of sexual offences was then treated as an offender. “Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?” “Typical feminist agenda” etc.

Yes that is all very grim indeed and an apology is due to the 13 year old girl who quite possibly was raped as she said.

So yes shit commentary and I like to think those comments would never be made in 2024 (and should never have been made then) but I don’t see how they did something wrong making the documentary in the first place

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.

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.

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”

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.

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

This drives a perception of less innocence and they are treated more punitively by authority figures even when they are victims (Rotherham).

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.

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).

The article says he was 18 at the time the documentary was made. And they could have made a perfectly decent documentary about the plight of immigrants without smearing a young woman as a liar and a racist in the process. We wonder why women and girls aren’t brave enough to come forward when they are raped. This is why.

That’s shocking. I bet you aren’t the only one either.

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 😡

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?

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).

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?

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/

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?

Bastard broadcasting corporation