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.'

I am sick to death of the BBC. To say it has an agenda is an understatement. In fact, it is so biased it’s almost laughable. They don’t even bother to try and hide it any more. It really is just a propaganda unit for sneering Oxbridge liberals. To me it’s virtually indistinguishable from The Guardian.

JFC. Will no one think of the poor, innocent rapists?

Bloody hell!

So glad I cancelled my licence.

I’m surprised they aren’t blaming the sexually experienced 13 year old for being responsible for their future rapes.

It's plausible that it created the perception of a culture of impunity and immunity. I speculate that the aura of innocence associated with the boys/young men was a particular advantage for them, especially when combined with the allegations about the girl and the implicit bias of adultification.

Caveat: a PP has noted that a "not guilty" verdict doesn't, despite the public perception, mean that anybody lied. I accept this. Plus, in the reporter's position, at that time and after a NG verdict, I'm not sure what would have been permissible to challenge.

Not challenging what he said is one thing. Including it in the documentary and allowing the suggesting that teenage boys seemed sexually more innocent than a 13 year old girl should never have made the final cut.

Anyone who knows anything about rape (and the BBC bloody well ought to) knows it’s notoriously difficult to prove, hence the low numbers coming to trial. Any rape that has enough evidence to actually go to trial probably has a high chance of being true. Most likely it didn’t quite meet the high bar of “beyond all reasonable doubt”.

And yes, I accept the legal ideal of “innocent until proven guilty” in that, without a conviction, there shouldn’t be punishment (including via negative publicity) however it’s beyond naive to assume that “not guilty” actually means innocent. Perhaps that phrase needs to be reworded for the new, literal crowd to “not found guilty until proven guilty”. The accused should equally not be allowed to place negative publicity on the person accusing 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.''

How the fuck is that reporting the facts, BBC? You gross fuckers.

Completely an example of the reporter and BBC's implicit bias.

I'm disappointed that this was approved by the Newsnight editors.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I remember this case from the time it happened. The police did at least charge the two men , so they obviously believed the girl, so did the the CPS. There were I think some shenanigans with the interpreter, thé orignal interpréter who interpreted the brothers’ statements which were very incriminating was replaced with a guy who delivered protestations of innocence.

Of course, these blokes were part of Cameron’s much praised scheme to host specifically chosen and vetted families , so it would have been annoying if it was demonstrated not to be the magic bullet they thought.

Would you like me to contact them on your behalf? If I get blacklisted so be it. It's disgusting that they have done this to you even though it's proven that Saville was a vile predator. I am sorry that he victimised you. 💐