…day 1
Even less women will be inclined to report rape/sexual assault after seeing the women blaming beliefs and attitudes on display from the most vocal on the ‘celebrity’ jury.
*For those who live outside the UK, The Verdict is a BBC television programme that takes place in a real courtroom with a real judge and real counsel. The case being tried is that of a well known footballer and his mate who are accused of rape. The accused and all the witnesses are played by actors. Day 1 saw the prosecution open the case with the woman who made the complaint, her cross-examination, second prosecution witness and her cross-examination.
34 responses so far ↓
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // February 12, 2007 at 12:55 am |
Forgot it was on, sorry.
sparklematrix // February 12, 2007 at 1:51 am |
Why am I not shocked?
stormy // February 12, 2007 at 8:17 am |
There has already been one ’set up’ in the programme, and I am suspicious that there will be more to come. I really hope that my worst fears are NOT realised, I really hope I am wrong on this.
But it’s not looking good so far…
Laura // February 12, 2007 at 4:06 pm |
I couldn’t bring myself to watch it; I would’ve broken things, namely the TV set.
fannyblood // February 12, 2007 at 5:52 pm |
sick. just sick.
x
simplywondered // February 12, 2007 at 5:58 pm |
ya know – i’m not going to watch it and i’ not going to talk about it. whether it is or isn’t a nasty shitty piece of anti-people crap i don’t know – i’m not going to be like the person who said long ago a certain book should be banned and when asked if they had read it answered ‘certainly not! it’s disgusting’. but it sure as hell is lousy tv, just from the brief and made to pander to our worst voyeuristic instincts. (like [channel]5, really)
therealUK // February 12, 2007 at 6:03 pm |
Didn’t watch, but read a good write-up in the indy:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2261521.ece
Pippa // February 13, 2007 at 11:00 am |
I didn’t watch. I have low expectations of anything like this. It just makes me mad and I don’t need that!
fannyblood // February 13, 2007 at 2:36 pm |
“DEGRADING, VOYEURISTIC. WHAT A WAY TO TREAT A DEALDLY SERIOUS LIKE RAPE … ” DAILY MAIL’S AMANDA PLATELL FULL PAGE COMMENTRY ON THE BBC’S SICK ‘THE VERDICT’
“Former Eastenders actress Patsy Palmer rather gave the game away in the first few minutes of the TV programme ‘if I ear someone say she got raped, i only ever ‘alf believe her’ she announced.
“If the Corporation had hoped this docudrama would highlight the harrowing circumstances surrounding sexual assault, they failed. Instead they have produced one of the most degrading and voyeuristic pieces of TV I have ever had the misfortune to witness.
Using a mixture of actors, real life experts and a jury of 12 celebrities, it is attempting to reconstruct an actual rape case, involving the fictional 19 year old Anna Crane.
During the course of the trial we are told that Anna and her friend Claire had gone to London’s West-end to celebrate her birthday. They visited a boutique hotel known to be frequented by celebrities and spotting two footballers, approached them and joined them for drinks. The girls followed the men back to their hotel suite after closing time and it is the nature of what happened next that lies at the heart of the case.
Anna claims she was repeatedly raped by the two men and a third who joined them later. But the defendants say that while they did have sex with the girl, it was consensual. Furthermore, they claim Anna & Clare have cooked up the story to sell to a Sunday newspaper.
Yes, this is the world of ‘roasting’ where millionaire footballers get their kicks sexually abusing young women intoxicated by celebrity and Cristal champagne.
I have no doubt that such men and women exist in real life. And I am equally certain the confused sexual climate they inhabit leads to a great deal of distress and regret. It may also lead to genuine sexual assault.
But the question remains whether this ‘case’ and this series are addressing the serious issues surrounding our judicial process, or are merely wallowing in the seedy landscape of sex, crime and celebrity for its own sake – like a cross between John Deed and Footballers’ Wives.
Let us be charitable for a moment. I would like to think that at some stage The Verdict was intended to be a serious attempt to expose the strengths and weaknesses of rape trails. In particular the judicial system lets down genuine rape victims badly, with fewer than 1 in 20 trials resulting in conviction. There are many reasons for this, and the Verdict showed one of them: the brutality of the trial process in which a woman is stripped of any shred of dignity or decency by defence barristers in an attempt to prove she’s a liar.
This is the justification the BBC would give for the language used in the show, which at times has been obscene although through all of its graphic content The Verdict tells us nothing new except how low the BBC is prepared to go in the race for ratings.
The line up of jurors is as depressing as it is predictable: a low-rent mix of has-beens wannabes and neverweres. Jeffrey Archer an ex con who has lied his way through his career and marriage with a legendary contempt for women matched only by the size of his ego. Listening to the case unfold he was like a dirty old man at the school gates, drooling over every detail of the alleged rapes.
And then disgraced former premiership footballer Stan Collymore, famous for striking the boot in his then girlfriend Ulrika Jonsson. When he wasn’t beating women up, you may recall Stan liked to go ‘dogging’ – the sexual practise in which people park in public places to have sex with strangers while other strangers watch. Yes, Collymore was always going to provide a unique insight into the machinations of football players and their groupies.
As if this wasn’t bad enough we have Michael Portillo, a man whose career was distinguished by a total lack of judgement or moral courage and whose overweening vanity has driven him to ever demeaning pastures of late night TV in the quest for fame and public approval. Integrity? He wouldn’t know the meaning of the word.
Short of announcing the alleged victim was ‘asking for it’ he could barely have displayed more disdain for the young girl at the centre of the case. This trio of merry misogynists was enough to ensure no woman would get a fair trial, even in a mock TV drama.
Alas the women were no better. Jacqueline Gold is the boss of sex shop Ann Summers. Quite what someone who has made her millions out of selling sex toys and crotchelss knickers to impressionable young women was doing in a rape trial is beyond me. But hey, that’s showbiz for you.
She was joined by Patsy Palmer & former Brookside babe Jennifer Ellison who were clearly only there to kick start their flagging careers.
That wasn’t the worst of it. Whose bright idea was it to invite Sara Payne to take part – a woman whose little girl was brutally raped and murdered by a paedophile, resulting in one of the most disturbing court cases of the last 20 years?
This was casting by calculation and cruelty and resulted in a jury that bore no relation whatsoever to reality and therein lay The Verdicts greatest flaw.
The whole point of the jury system is that it picks people at random, from all backgrounds and is thus broadly representative of the nation as a whole.
In no way could these 12 men and women be described as normal representatives. As such they have cheapened the whole concept of the programme.
What a perfect topic this would have been for Panorama to investigate instead – a programme which has hit the ground running with Jeremy Vine exposing serious scandals such as the care of the elderly in nursing homes, rogue IVF clinics and the social cost of binge drinking. No, instead we got The Verdict – a programme that reduced a vital debate to the level of a celebrity game show.
This was prurience parading as public service, a travesty injustice and an abuse of the tax payers’ money.
What an insult to the genuine victims of rape whose stories go untold.
fannyblood // February 13, 2007 at 3:21 pm |
sorry for such a long post witchy btw, also the title was meant to say:
“DEGRADING. VOYEURISTIC. WHAT A WAY TO TREAT A DEADLY SERIOUS SUBJECT LIKE RAPE … ” DAILY MAIL’S AMANDA PLATELL FULL PAGE COMMENTRY ON THE BBC’S SICK ‘THE VERDICT’
(please excuse any other typos in previous post if there are any).
simplywondered // February 13, 2007 at 11:45 pm |
hey fb – i personally have no probs with a post that long – it certainly saved me the teeniest chance of watching the bloody thing by mistake.
such absolute bollocks…but again no surprise really.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // February 14, 2007 at 12:09 am |
Hey, I forgot it was on – again – tonight.
simplywondered // February 14, 2007 at 1:38 am |
oops; missed it again; how many more are there to miss?
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // February 14, 2007 at 1:56 am |
too many.
Amy // February 14, 2007 at 2:18 am |
I didn’t watch it, but I know my friend did; she said it made her cry.
But, aye, I don’t believe the BBC has handled the programme at all well. Which is fucked up, considering the sensitivity of rape as an issue.
Gah!
fannyblood // February 14, 2007 at 9:12 am |
hey SW – glad to be of a service. my goodness it really is shocking TV especially patsy palmer squealing “but they seem such nice boys?!”
der.
x
la somnambule // February 14, 2007 at 5:46 pm |
Did anybody see the non-celebrity ‘verdict’ programme on channel 4? I got pretty angry after that one too, although it was interesting because it ended showing what ‘really’ happened – the victim had been raped but the jury found him not guilty. The aspect of this programme that I really dislike is the lack of analysis. A jury trial on a contentious area of law is presented without comment or question and it merely reinforces popular opinion about rape through the repetition of the mindless opinions of the jurors without in any way challenging this. Grr, I stopped watching when I couldn’t sleep after the first episode.
eilidh70 // February 14, 2007 at 10:56 pm |
I’m watching it three days behind, so have only seen the first one so far. Am feeling bullied by Stan Collymore’s conversational style even from the comfort of my own sofa; don’t know how those in the room with him must feel. Tend to watch these things out of a need to remember the extent of the attitudes we’re up against, but I can understand those who would rather avoid it too.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // February 14, 2007 at 11:01 pm |
Eilidh – I know what you mean. Sometimes we need to watch something to witness it and see what is there.
therealUK // February 15, 2007 at 10:19 am |
The aspect of this programme that I really dislike is the lack of analysis.
Yes, and I think this is the only chance for the BBC to redeem themselves – to present some analysis and highlight the myths and bigotry espoused by the jurors and “justice” system here
David // February 15, 2007 at 12:01 pm |
I disagree with the comments here.
This is adult television. As a male I have often wondered why so many women either don’t report rape or feel the system has let them down.
I have no doubt of the accuracy of the way court proceedings go in this type of case as otherwise I can’t conceive of a situation in which barristers(two of whom are women by the way)plus a judge would have agreed to take part.
I have learnt a great deal from this programme. I have never served on a jury but I suspect in the privacy of their deliberations many of the arguments that the “celebrities” are seen having go on in real life.
Yes the Verdict makes for uncomfortable viewing but is that necessarily a bad thing? Is it wrong to show how horrible it is for a woman to have to endure that kind of ordeal in court and if it is what can be done to change it?
I normally have a lot of time for Amanda Platell but in my opinion she has got it wrong on this one.
jo22 // February 15, 2007 at 2:05 pm |
David, which comments do you disagree with? They’re not all the same.
Women do not report rape because there is hardly any chance of seeing a conviction, and they will be put on trial themselves, reliving the experience, all for nothing.
Liz // February 15, 2007 at 4:08 pm |
I really cannot think of any more words to describe the sham of this programme. I’ve complained to the BBC, despite not watching it because I really don’t feel like subjecting myself to a pointless shouting match between myself and the TV.
I’ve read a lot about the programme from various websites and blogs over the past few days and it just confirms everyone’s worst suspicions really. I think its great that there was a protest Sunday (and Monday I think?) – I’ve been ill so couldn’t attend
Why is rape seen as so trivial by certain men and the media?
It’s unbelievable, the amount of men (and also quite a few women too, influenced by media etc) who think rape is just a woman trying to put away an ‘innocent’ man because of some vendetta or whatever. Or that ’she was asking for it’
I wonder when rape myths will stop being believed?
Its implied that you can’t trust women, when clearly its very difficult to even report a rape to the police or tell someone and then have to go thru the trauma of court cases, from what I’ve noticed and observed from websites and women’s accounts.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // February 16, 2007 at 12:16 am |
I “forgot” it was on again and watched the thing on twins instead.
I should be working.
witchywoo // February 16, 2007 at 12:23 am |
The ‘celebrity’ jury reached a majority verdict of not guilty on all counts because many of them felt that, although the woman had been raped, the prosecution had failed to prove it.
The BBC Great British Public internet poll had them both guilty all through the broadcast – 57% for one and 73% for the other on the final day.
My verdict? I think this was a terribly dangerous programme for all sorts of reasons and the BBC were highly irresponsible in broadcasting it.
stormy // February 16, 2007 at 8:55 am |
Witchy, I will second your verdict (the irresponsible beebs), although I have yet to sit down and FORCE myself to view the remaining programmes (which I recorded). Perhaps I’ll just cut to the chase and watch the last instalment of this horror of horrors?
eilidh70 // February 16, 2007 at 11:08 am |
Well, I fast-forwarded through the Wednesday night stuff, stormy, as it was all just replays of the evidence as far as I could see.
Can’t say I am surprised by the “not guilty” verdict, after hearing opinions like, “Well, if we find them innocent then we don’t need to worry about having made the wrong decision”(paraphrased from my memory). Yeah, cause it’s not really harmful for a woman to go through that whole excruciating process and come out branded a liar, is it?
stormy // February 16, 2007 at 12:24 pm |
“Yeah, cause it’s not really harmful for a woman to go through that whole excruciating process and come out branded a liar, is it?”
Spot on.
I think there was something similar in “Consent” (the C4 programme). They (the jury) wimp out with the lesser of two evils, just ‘in case’ they are wrong. But who gives a stuff about the victim? No-one.
What I did like about the C4 programme is that they showed the victim really upset after the ‘not guilty’ verdict.
I might say, that if they erred on the side of guilty, they would be right the majority of the time.
witchywoo // February 16, 2007 at 1:11 pm |
Several of the jury said that they agreed the woman had been raped but they’d had to vote not guilty because the prosecution hadn’t proved it.
I think the way rape trials are approached needs to be seriously reviewed if justice for rape victims features anywhere on the judicial agenda. If it doesn’t, then they might just as well be upfront about it and make rape legal because it just about is anyway.
jo22 // February 16, 2007 at 6:53 pm |
It was interesting that the jury didn’t view the woman’s anal tear as evidence. How many injuries does a woman have to have before it can be considered evidence?
stormy // February 16, 2007 at 11:39 pm |
It was the same on “Consent” Jo22, the jury didn’t think her bruises were ‘evidence of assault’, but that the bruises could be interpreted as ‘her liking it rough’, which is pornified thinking. Plus it’s that whole thing of believing his word against hers, the jury are quite happy to believe HIS BS (which it was shown in the end, lie after lie from him, and truth after truth from her).
Agree Witchy. A complete overhaul is absolutely necessary, esp for rape trials.
I also don’t necessarily agree with the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, as I think the starting point should be one of neutrality (neither guilt nor innocence).
me // April 9, 2007 at 3:27 am |
Well hellsbells, everytime I say they should just make rape legal, everybody jumps on me.
If you’re a man, you’re a potential rapist. Why is that so offensive? If I’m human, I’m a potential murderer, but you don’t see me getting upset at that accusation. Maybe cause the guy knows rape is much more common than murder?
me // April 9, 2007 at 3:32 am |
Hmmm, do men in general accrue any benefit in particular from having most young women randomly terrified?
Is terror ever used as a control mechanism?
As soon as you’re willing to admit to yourself that most men are assholes, then the little lightbulb will go off.
A little feminist brit blog link farm « Mind the Gap // November 1, 2007 at 1:22 pm |
[...] Witchy Woo, Johann Hari, (hat tip Shouty Lucy, and some brave souls at the FWord here and here [...]