The Metropolitan Police have put out a statement that the Panorama programme which sought to undermine their Operation Midland Investigation into Dolphin Square might prevent other victims from coming forwards, and undermine their existing investigation. I gave an interview this morning to BBC London in which I said some of the following but not all because there wasn’t time:-
Interference with Police Prosecution
- It was inappropriate to seek to undermine a police investigation which hasn’t reached a conclusion, and about which, for tactical reasons they cannot comment.
- We saw 3 witnesses being interviewed last night. For all we know, the police have spoken to many other witnesses who give supportive testimony. Here at Simpson Millar, we have dealt with many police investigations over the last 20 years. Usually the witnesses the police use in a career paedophile type prosecution are the tip of the iceberg. The programme was thus biased because it didn’t show ALL the evidence.
- Viewers could easily be led to believe that abuse did not happen at Elms Guest House, or Dolphin Square at all. Other stories in the media lead one to the conclusion that quite the reverse is true.
- The programme was angled against the Police and the victims, and by inference the media outlet Exaro News. In order to inject some balance, there were some witnesses talking about genuine experiences of abuse and how the system had helped them, but their inclusion was only really tokenism to bias rather than a genuine attempt to represent the views of the abused victim. The programme never mentioned surprisingly that they do not know how strong the evidence they have not seen, which Operation Midland has amassed.
- It is said that 27 officers have been working on Operation Midland, so clearly they have been busy searching for evidence for quite some time.
The Court not the Media
- The correct forum for an examination of the evidence against any individual is a Crown Court where there are rules of evidence which prevent bias, and ensure fairness to both sides, not just the accused, but in particular the victim/complainants.
- We saw in this programme an interview clearly designed to persuade the victim “Dave”, that he was mistaken in his evidence. Because of the way it was edited, it was difficult to ascertain what he was saying. I didn’t think he denying that he was abused, quite the contrary, but that he was not the victim of Leon Brittan. The fact that he was the victim of serious abuse seems to have been omitted, which meant that the programme was distorted and clearly edited to prove a point, or at least imply one.
Effect on Victims
- Following my interview on the Victoria Darbyshire Programme yesterday, in which I said that I was concerned that the broadcast of this programme would discourage other victims from coming forward, I received an email from a victim who said he agreed, and that the media coverage even before broadcast had made him feel like giving up. He had been trying to persuade the police for several years to take his allegations seriously, and was finally getting somewhere.
- It no doubt takes great courage to give evidence of abuse against powerful public figures. Any courage victims did have, will no doubt, after this programme, disappear, which means that the abusers, if indeed the allegations are true, have won.
Is there any motivation for the BBC to broadcast a programme attacking allegations against celebrities when they themselves are under the spotlight for alleged failings when dealing with the victims of abuse by Jimmy Savile?
I have seen the pendulum swing to and fro in the last 20 years. The last time it swung against the victims was in 2003 after a Home Office Select Committee enquiry. The police, following that enquiry, lost interest in non-recent abuse prosecutions, and were terrified of “trawling” for evidence. This eventually led to their eventual criticism for not taking victims seriously most recently. Let us hope that the same thing does not happen again.
The BBC have a history of not being fair nor impartial independent reporting when it come to victims of historical abuse
I was the subject of such biased and unfounded allegations against me by the BBC in 2003
It took 4 years for the BBC Trust to even acknowledge their failings concerning Secrets or Lies . I have provided Exaronews with fact and evidence relating to the BBC and how they have tried to gag and prevent victims of historical abuse from speaking out about the BBC failings and biased programme making regarding survivors of abuse
This program is an attempt by the BBC to deflect attention away from their own organisation which is mired in abuse allegations Why the constant delay to the Smith Review being published??
Also some BBC reporters just move from supporting those accused and defending their interest . Then when it suits them pretend they have the victims-survivors interests at heart, yet a few years earlier they were attending conferences in support of those allegedly falsely accused . One appeared on the program
The BBC needs to be fully open and transparent when it comes to its complaints processes . Outside independent and impartial oversight of
the BBC is the only answer
David Whelan
Hi Peter,
I personally feel that the Panaroma documentary didn’t give a true account and was heavily stacked on the side of the perpetrators. It appeared to me that words where put in Daves mouth and he appeared to me to be extremely vulnerable, and the end game and purpose was to discredit survivors which I think they succeeded in. I find this as a Survivor unpalatable. It didn’t discourage me personally and won’t stop me speaking the truth. It equipped me with more drive to stand up and be visible as an abused male. I have had difficulty in getting some people to take on my Truth as I feel they are afraid of being sued by the remaining members of my family.
“Viewers could easily be led to believe that abuse did not happen at Elms Guest House, or Dolphin Square at all. Other stories in the media lead one to the conclusion that quite the reverse is true”.
Perhaps I’m missing something, because I’m not a child abuse lawyer or a police investigator. You seem to be saying that media coverage which presents evidence suggesting an abuse allegation might be false constitutes interference in police investigation. But that media coverage which uncritically repeats the allegations of anonymous accusers, victim advocates and whistleblowers claiming various persons are guilty of sex crimes for which they have not be tried in court, does not constitute interference in police investigations? Any media coverage which provokes doubts about the validity of an accusation is irresponsible and perhaps even a violation of the law- but any media coverage which encourages belief that untried persons are guilty is not only acceptable, it is praiseworthy “victim advocacy”? Is this correct?
Why are these very vulnerable victim claimants being paraded in public through the media and encouraged to “tell their stories” prior to any trial taking place, potentially making factually incorrect or self-evidently absurd or blatantly false statements which might cause the public to conclude that their accusations may be false? Why isn’t there a comprehensive publicity ban prior to trial, which would prevent that from happening? And why is there only a concern for the “vulnerable” state of accusers? Isn’t an old man dying of cancer, or an elderly alzheimer’s stricken man just as vulnerable?
Thank you for your comment. To summarise:-
1. Any sort of trial by media is wrong whether it relates to the veracity of allegations for or against anyone, particularly because it can interfere with the criminal process and prevent a trial from taking place.
2. If the judicial process has been exhausted and can reach no further then there is an argument in favour of highlighting the issue in the media.
3. Media coverage which calls for witnesses does not deal with the veracity of the allegations, which is the province of the Courts, and is arguably valid.
4. Media coverage normally highlights part of a case and does not deal with all the evidence, in order to prove a point, whereas any criminal court will look at ALL the evidence.
We need a national voluntary media code – supported by all the leading agencies – across sectors – with buy ins from the main media services. The Goddard Inquiry could fund the code write up by subcontracting to Rape Crisis/TST with legal advice from ACAL.
I wholeheartedly agree Bob – perhaps with input from the Press Association.
Unfortunately the media in my case the BBC Frontline Scotland chose to make a number of allegations in Secrets or Lies 2003 to the detriment of the victims including myself after the Court and Jury had found my abuser guilty.
It left me and my sister no option but to relinquish our anonymity which had been provided by the Courts as this abuse occurred when we were children.
The media as a whole have a powerful position in shaping and informing public opinion while carrying out its role provided that it is balanced, fair, Impartcial, and reports accurately concerning the historical abuse issues concerning all the parties.
Direct quote regarding Secrets or Lies 2003, independent report by Claire Posner
As a consequence serious allegations were made against the complainant (David Whelan) which cannot in my view be justified.
The serious allegations were made despite the BBC programme makers having testimony from a number of sources including my sister, that what was being portrayed about me was not factually accurate.
David Whelan
2003, co-incidentally, was the time of the Home Affairs Select Committee report, and the height of the media “pendulum swing” in favour of the allegedly falsely accused, and against the victims. The mood of the stories now is not good, and the accused are starting to catch hold. I presume you went through the complaints process David, or considered the option and decided not to do so, for no doubt the best of reasons.
Hi Peter,
I Went through the BBC Trust complaints process eventually with the help of my MP and Mike Jempson from Mediawise, until then I was being shunted from pillar to post. It took 4 years of an arduous process to eventually get the BBC organisation to appoint an independent editorial advisor to properly investigate my complaints. Including me taking up the issues with the Culture & Media Secretary, Tessa Jowell. Yes around the time of the Home Affairs Select committee, which was quoted in the programme. Also in the background information documents FACT were involved as my abuser and his wife were members of FACT.
the pendulum had swung to0 far in favour of the other parties and the victims -survivors were excluded from the debate in any real meaningful way. Anyone who spoke for the survivors were denigrated and pilloried.
David