up to 300 victims now in Saville investigation

2»

Comments

  • jamesco
    jamesco Posts: 687
    First Aspect wrote:
    I've heard testamonials on the radio ranging from people who were "abused" on live TV by a lingering hand, to a fully blown account of a man allegedly stumbling across him at it with a 13 year old in his dressing room, wearing a shell suit and with his cigar, helpfully giving directions to the person who had walked in on him.

    The BBC journalism standards are variable, and I'm sorry, but the first does not meet any criminal standard (though creepy) and the latter is about as likely as Harry Potter and simply should not be aired.
    An American football coach in the US has just been convicted on 45 counts of child abuse. The scenario you described above happened: in 2001, the child-molester - Jerry Sandusky - was interrupted while raping a boy in the shower-room and the witness didn't intervene and didn't report it to the police. Sandusky continued molesting boys for another decade.

    This stuff does happen and when the perpetrators are in a position of power they often get away with it. Dismissing the victims' accounts just makes it more likely to happen again.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,461
    The concern I have is that the BBC is reporting things in a very different manner at the moment to what they would do if the allegation was about someone still alive. The anonymous account was aired on a 5-live phone in, reported as though this was a factual account, and there is no accompanying/corroborating account of from a victim.

    I have absolutely no doubt that this guy was a multiple child molestor and a multiple rapist and I have no concern about his legacy or anything like that. However, there are real victims out there and each of them has to take a personal decision. Airing a true story about a victim who doesn't want come forward is bad for that victim. Airing a made up or embellished story (to the point of the gold shell suit and cigar) is bad for all victims.

    It should not have been aired. It is gossip, not journalism.

    I have heard about that coach in the US. Was that particular incident part of his trial, or was it something reported after the point at which there was very much risk of being sued for libel? Who brought the story to light, the victim or the person who supposedly saw it? These things make a difference in my view.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,461
    jamesco wrote:
    Dismissing the victims' accounts just makes it more likely to happen again.
    There is no causality here, thank you. I would strongly argue that an indulgent and unfiltered morkish orgy of reporting now only compounds the problem of not having dealt with it while it was happening.

    I agree with the OP. I also believe that the issue is being dealt with at the moment with a certain hysteria, resulting in a lack of appropriate sensitivity. So I hope you have just misunderstood my concerns.
  • jamesco
    jamesco Posts: 687
    First Aspect wrote:
    There is no causality here, thank you. I would strongly argue that an indulgent and unfiltered morkish orgy of reporting now only compounds the problem of not having dealt with it while it was happening.
    Turn off the talkback radio and you won't have to hear the mawkish orgy; there're too many good news outlets to listen to the rubbish ones. If they hook you into listening by being stupid and annoying you, then it's a victory for them :)

    I have no doubt that you find child-abuse appalling, but I do think that you're dismissing the reports in this case too quickly and too generally as "embellished". As the Sandusky case shows, acts that can seem outlandish and unbelievable - like someone stumbling upon a rape scene and doing nothing - happen.

    It's a cliche, but don't blame the victim. Being molested is awful enough, but to be treated with hostility for reporting it just makes the situation worse. Let the system do its work of evaluating the accusations - that's what it's there for.

    If you want to learn more about the Sandusky case, try Wikipedia or the NY Times. Libel laws in the UK and the US differ - hence the jurisdiction-shopping that brings cases to the UK when they have only a tenuous connection - so let's not get side-tracked on that.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,461
    jamesco wrote:
    Turn off the talkback radio and you won't have to hear the mawkish orgy; there're too many good news outlets to listen to the rubbish ones. If they hook you into listening by being stupid and annoying you, then it's a victory for them :)
    I think you may have a point there.....
    jamesco wrote:
    It's a cliche, but don't blame the victim. Being molested is awful enough, but to be treated with hostility for reporting it just makes the situation worse. Let the system do its work of evaluating the accusations - that's what it's there for.
    It is true that people shouldn't be discouraged from coming forward, but there is a balance. The police are issuing statistics such as the 300 lines of enquiry, so as to let people know that its safe to come forward. The BBC and other outlets are not quite doing that.

    The account that troubled me most was not a victim, but a bloke who had seen something and "heard it all on the radio" and "thought he might mention it" and "had mentioned it to his wife 20 years ago". It might be true, but if in any way true, and if he was motivated by a conscience after 20 years, what was he doing on a radio show rather than talking to the police? The host didn't even ask if he had reported it to the police or if he was going to. Like I say, its not journalism and surely I'm not the only one troubled by this?

Categories