Saturday, 28 March 2009

Selective anonymity

Kirk Reid, unheard of before his conviction

In a widely covered news story, which made headlines in many of the tabloids this week, a jury of four men and seven women, at Winchester crown court, took only 45 minutes to acquit a young chef, Peter Bacon, of raping an unnamed female lawyer in her 40's. Earlier in court, the lawyer had claimed that, although she had taken the young man to her bed and actively undressed him before they had sex, as she was drunk at the time, she was unable to consent to what she was doing, and, as a result the young man should be sent to prison for many years.

Various politicians and feminist groups frequently bemoan the low conviction rate in rape cases. However, whilst the Crown Prosecution Service continue to bring ludicrous cases such as this to court, it is inevitable that fair minded jurors will continue to acquit the real victims of these travesties.

The insistence that all rape allegations must be treated as equal, whatever the circumstances, is another of the crazy symptoms of the politically correct madness which has gripped the mindset of those within the establishment who have the power to destroy lives. Inevitably such a view travels in tandem with the equally crazy, and highly offensive, belief that no woman, or indeed anyone other that a white male, should be be required to accept some degree of responsibility for their own actions.

False allegations, which occur far more frequently than the sisters will admit, apart, the demand that the courts treat all rape allegations, no matter how frivolous, as equal, will continue to result in cases like the one above, where a mature and professional woman who got drunk on her own booze and then regrets the outcome is viewed by the law as no less a victim than a young girl pounced on by a hooded stranger and then attacked at knife-point in a dark alleyway.

Such an attitude is an insult to genuine rape victims, and also offensive to any self respecting woman, and it is hardly surprising that juries, including majority female ones continue to treat such prosecutions with the contempt they deserve.

However, by that point, it is a little late for the men, who have already had their lives turned upside down, whilst their actions, habits, sexual tastes and sometimes physical attributes are examined under a very public spotlight. Acquitted or not, very few innocent men escape from a rape or sexual assault trial unharmed, the allegation will follow them for life, it will impact on their careers and future relationships, and most will suffer emotional damage to some degree. All of this made so much worse by the fact that, from the day they were charged, they and their family were named and their ordeal was carried out in public. Well, at least that is what usually happens.

As many newspapers were saying, what happened to the unfortunate Peter Bacon is a very strong argument for for extending the anonymity granted to the accuser in rape trials to the accused prior to any conviction, an argument which I believe has considerable merit.

However, in Britain today, some men on trial for rape are already effectively granted anonymity unless they are eventually convicted. In the same week as Peter Bacon's 45 minute acquittal, yet another chef, serial attacker Kirk Reid, was convicted of two rapes and 24 sexual assaults, (although the police believe he is responsible for up to 71 attacks against women). The trial has been going on for weeks and 27 different women gave evidence relating to attacks which date back over six years to 2002, however, did anybody read anything about it in the media before Thursday when Reid was convicted? I certainly didn't.

Whereas our newspapers fed us daily updates about Peter Bacon and the inebriated lawyer, as far as the Reid trial was concerned, before he was convicted and they had no option other than to report the story, the media remained silent, despite the fact that the Reid trial was by far the more serious and indeed sensational.

What is the difference between the two cases? Firstly there is the race of the defendants. Admittedly a close look at Peter Bacon suggests that he may be of mixed racial origin, however, he is by no means as obviously a black man as Kirk Reid so clearly is. Also the cases are very different. The single allegation against Peter Bacon was made by a witness with a serious credibility problem, his acquittal was very much on the cards, meaning that he could be presented as the genuine victim he appears to be. In any event, whatever the outcome, a one-off event involving two people fumbling with each other whilst in an alcoholic stupor is hardly threatening to the general public, the case could safely be reported without fear that it might undermine the multi-racial paradise the press like to pretend we live in.

Not so the case of the sinister and violent, serial offender Kirk Reid, which presses all the button as raises all the issues the media seek to play down in relation to black males. (Hence the censorship)

A better comparison to the Reid case is the conviction, also in March, of white taxi driver John Worboys, who was convicted of sexual attacks on twelve different women. Like Kirk Reid, Worboys is suspected of a much larger number of crimes than those of which he was convicted . The cases are very similar and raise similar issues about police failings. However, the media coverage could hardly have been more different.

BBC Links

Look, for instance at the BBC news site, and the links to related news stories regarding the two cases. On the news story relating to Kirk Reid the only connected news stories are the dated March 26, following his conviction and focus on the police handling of the case. However, in respect of John Worboys, there are a series of links to various news stories about the case, dating back over a month to the outset of the trial and provide full details of the offences of which Warboys was accused.

Indeed, anyone watching the BBC news over the last couple of months will be familiar with Warboys' mugshot and will have seen reports from the progress of his trial on both the local and national news, whereas Kirk Reid's name and face were unknown prior to his conviction.

So what was it that made the trial against the white Mr.Warboys so newsworthy whilst that against the black Mr, Reid remained unreported?. Why was black Mr. Reid granted press anonymity prior to conviction, whilst white Mr. Warboys' name and image were widely reported throughout his trial? Do I really need to ask?.

Now that the press have had to name Reid, it is interesting to note that, whenever he is mentioned his name is linked to Warboys, in a attempt to imply that both races are equally guilty of committing serial rape. In doing this the media are cynically depending on the fact that most of the public don't think, and will not realise that, given population demographics, this would only be true if there were between seven to eight of John Warboys for each Kirk Reid, which there aren't.

Kirk Reid is not the only one who benefited from pre-conviction anonymity, once again the media are being very selective in their reporting of the paedophile rings currently operating in various northern cities, details of the latest of which can be read on Lee Barnes blog here and here.

In respect of the latest case, the press refuse to mention the fact that the accused are Muslims of Asian origin, and that the alleged victims are white English children. Now why would that be, does anyone believe they would show similar reticence had the races been reversed?

There can be little doubt that, if and when these latest allegations come to court, if they are reported at all, the identity and ethnicity of the accused will be withheld unless, or until they are convicted, and even then, the ethnicity of the victims will be suppressed. Otherwise the media might have to admit that their cherished multicultural society has become a dysfunctional nightmare, and they would never admit that.

It seems that although all of us may still be just equal in the eyes of the law, that equality does not extend to press coverage.


Dr.D said...

Well, Sarah, there can only be one simple economic explanation for not printing pictures of the black rapists, killers, etc. It takes more ink to print the picture of a black man than to print the picture of a white man, so the papers hold off in order to save money. Its just that simple. No prejudice, political correctness, no none of that, just simple economics (and anti-white racism!).

Very glad to see you back, Sarah.

Edwin Greenwood said...

On the subject of MSM reticence, this post may be of interest.

I am always ready to be proved wrong in asserting that the MSM has been unwilling to cover the arson attack on an East End Sikh temple because the perpetrator is believed to be Black. After all, it's pretty hard to prove a non-occurrence. But I await developments with interest.

Durotrigan said...

An excellent piece. Until reading this I hadn't even heard of the Reid case, but even though I watch next to no television, I've not been able to escape the reporting on John Worboys, which has featured heavily on Radio 4.

Like you, I find it offensive that cases such as that brought by the unnamed female lawyer against Bacon even make it to court, and the fact that the accuser remains anonymous whilst the identity of the accused is made public, is utterly unforgivable. The latter should only be revealed after conviction. If there is no conviction, details should not be released.