Let's pick one. Why is the BBC trash?
Their entire political reporting side is headlined by Laura Kuenssberg who is on her best day mediocre and on her worst actively participatory on the decline of democratic principles in the UK. Her "mistakes" such as giving her questions to Boris Johnson ahead of time, would be fireable offenses in any other high stakes job. But despite repeated mistakes all somehow helping the more radical, anti democratic, side of the conservative spectrum her position has never been in danger. She also hosts far right parties 500% more time than their current seats in parliment and is directly responsible for the cleaning of image of repudiable characters such as Nigel Farage.
So if becoming a slightly less abrasive Daily Mail while being paid with public money is not worthy of being called Trash, then idk what is. Its becoming the New York Post but without slurs
yeah so the story about that... its mostly a right wing hoax.
The real story is as follows, many police departments refused to help working class people specially women. This was repeatedly reported and demanded to eb reformed multiple times.
A woman finally got the story through in the early 2010s. Which led to a big trial.
Due to reporting laws in the UK, newspapers couldn't report on it. Names are sealed until the trail and a bunch of other protections.
However Facebook and Twitter were blooming. And a man by the name of Yaxley, now Tommy Robinson, decided to make the case about race before any news could report on it. He spent years calling the case "Asian Grooming gangs" without any news reporting due to trail muzzle laws in the UK.
By the time the case was out in the open, the name had made the rounds and newspapers like the Sun and Daily Mail used it from day one.
Most cases found had white perpetrators, but the ones with Asian men got all the headlines due to the Tommy Robinson years of shit stirring.
The most famous case found that the police had been investigated twice over their lack of helping vulnerable girls. A judge had ignored a video of a girl being taken advantage of, saying "this girls like it". No prior investigation found race to be a reason why they weren't helped.
In 2016, the chief of police was fired because he was found to be responsible in part for the 17 years of abuse this girls suffered as something he actively ignored.
After he was fired, he repeated a twitter talking point "we didnt help because we were scared of being accused of being racist". This was repeated by other fired member in the 2020 report, but somehow didnt show up in the 2011 report, the 2007 report or the 2001 report. All of which highlighted ignoring girls for being poor, drug users, sex workers, or coming from foster homes and nothing about the race of the abusers.
So its funny how right wing people complain about the bbc not reporting about the gangs, when its a conspiracy made up by a neo nazi felon, in active contradiction to every police investigation from before twitter narratives and which is now a talking point in most far right circles.
So I dont think it averages out, making up shit to be angry about when police reform is something they have opposed for decades is not warranty to keep an incompetent far right spokesperson in the most important political journalistic office in the country.
Between 1997 and 2013, girls were abused by grooming gangs of predominantly Pakistani men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit...
However they also got a fraction of the news coverage.
The Rotherdam police had been investigated 3 times before 2013, and they failed all the inspections.
The Sarah Everatt investigation found serious deficiencies in UK policing.
The last 300 page comprehensive report on UK police found systemic mysoginy, classicism and racism at all levels across the ranks and had very direct improvement plans all of which have not even began to be implemented.
EDIT no, wikipedia says plural "gangs" also. I have zero idea what a rape gang even is, an organized crime group providing access to foster home girls?
1) is that the main predictor is race
2) that the cases were uninvestigated because of race
Neither is true. Dozens of cases all found commonalities, and they were working class victims and police lack of professionalism.
> I have zero idea what a rape gang even is, an organized crime group providing access to foster home girls?
Its an umbrella term for multiple men, having a system to take advantage of women. In some cases its offering access to drugs, in other cases is giving them gifts, sometimes its using an attractive man as bait.
A famous case happened recently in france where a man was basically drugging his wife and when she was passed out allowing men to come to his house.
Every case its a different type of horrific nightmare. People who try to make it about race instead of finding proactive solutions (like investigating how a judge in Rotherdam with video evidence in front of him ignored it) give 0 fucks about the victims.
And its unsurprising that in protests against this cases, 70% of the men attending had domestic abuse cases. Because protecting women is not their cause, hating brown people is.
Many of the girls are underage, and cannot consent, coercing them to do it will always be ra pe
Possibly you mean David Clementi who was appointed in 2017 as Chair of the BBC, but he was a financier, with no background in journalism tabloids or otherwise, so not sure what you are talking about.
Laura Kuenssberg hasn’t been political editor since spring 2022. The political editor is Chris Mason.
I’m going to take the rest of your comments with a pinch salt.
i don't agree that I should do all the work to prove something while the person (GP) whose naked opinion I was responding to is not asked the same about his opinion. This leads me to believe on the basis of evidence that you are selective and share his bias.
so yeah, let's pick one, you: How are you not biased?
Asking "are you a dumb conservative bigot" is offensive and shuts down dialogue even when the person wasn't. Better to ask for the fellow to expand on their comment
If the report exonerated them, and showed they even have a Israeli bias, why would they spend 50k in lawyer fees (disclosed so far, real number is probably higher) to hide that report?
There is obvious distrust on western sources of the conflict and the UK active participation in the creation of the 2 state solution, as well as its alliance with America all taint the possible impartiality or accuracy of the BBC. But the accusations against them for antisemitism and anti israeli bias go back decades
The covererage of the Genocide in Palestine (and I'm betraying my view just by calling it that) just brings this into incredibly sharp relief as there are, to a first approximation, no real centrists in that discussion. And yet you still get the same 5 minutes of interview for a doctor on the ground in Palestine and for Ben Gvir, presented as if there's some kind of happy middle ground that everyone can broadly agree on.