The BBC just disgraced itself over prince Andrew
BBC News‘s coverage of prince Andrew Windsor buying his way out of child sexual assault allegations has provoked uproar. It’s because of the reporting of royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell. People have branded him and the BBC a “disgrace“. And when you see Witchell’s report, it’s of little wonder.
Andrew Windsor: gaslighting survivors?
PA reported that on Tuesday 15 February a US court said Windsor and child sexual assault survivor Virginia Giuffre had settled out of court. Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies wrote jointly with Windsor’s lawyers to say that the parties had “reached a settlement in principle”.
Court documents show, PA said, that Windsor will make a “substantial donation to Giuffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights”. He has also pledged to “demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein” by supporting the “fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims”.
In other words, Windsor has paid-off Giuffre to make the allegations go away. And his comments about ‘fighting the evils of sex trafficking’ have essentially gaslighted survivors. Because as journalist Mark Acheson pointed out, Windsor should have been doing this “from the very start” – if he’s innocent, of course. But then the BBC got involved – and made the situation even more disgraceful.
BBC: disgraceful reporting
Royal correspondent Witchell gave his assessment of the story. He posed the question no-one was asking:
Could there be a route back to public life for Andrew?
In most people’s eyes, Windsor – who didn’t initially apologise to survivors for his friendship with child rapist Jeffery Epstein – shouldn’t have a way back into public life; in fact, many would argue that prison may be a better place for him. But Witchell posed the question anyway. He continued regarding Windsor’s return to public life:
It is… very hard to see that. I mean, let’s be honest about it: he’s been shown to have very poor judgement, he’s… a liability, and frankly what charity would want him?
Giuffre has not withdrawn her allegations that Windsor is a perpetrator of child sexual assault. So, “poor judgement” is quite the understatement from Witchell.
Twitter reacted accordingly to Witchell’s deeply unpleasant reporting:
Would anyone want someone who has been called a "sweaty nonce" to represent their charity that fights sex trafficking? Only a couple of blokes completely closed off from reality would ask this out loud. https://t.co/u19vjAmuay
— Edie Wyatt (@msediewyatt) February 16, 2022
If this is the only route back, there is no route back. Pretty offensive suggestion frankly… https://t.co/WB52fQRERy
— Sean Dromgoole – Hands! Face! Cake! (@SeanDromgoole) February 16, 2022
What planet are these bootlickers living on? https://t.co/Rq3W8hn45P
— Ed Westby (@Ed_Westby) February 16, 2022
This sycophantic royal reporting by the BBC is nothing new. But even by its low standards, Witchell’s appalling take disrespected child sexual abuse survivors everywhere.
Featured image via BBC iPlayer – screengrabs
We know everyone is suffering under the Tories - but the Canary is a vital weapon in our fight back, and we need your support
The Canary Workers’ Co-op knows life is hard. The Tories are waging a class war against us we’re all having to fight. But like trade unions and community organising, truly independent working-class media is a vital weapon in our armoury.
The Canary doesn’t have the budget of the corporate media. In fact, our income is over 1,000 times less than the Guardian’s. What we do have is a radical agenda that disrupts power and amplifies marginalised communities. But we can only do this with our readers’ support.
So please, help us continue to spread messages of resistance and hope. Even the smallest donation would mean the world to us.
Leave a ReplyYou must be logged in to leave a comment.Join the conversation
Please read our comment moderation policy here.