The Guardian 21/9/2015

Pulitzer prize-winning Guardian, may I offer you some lessons in investigative journalism with regard to todays article http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/21/westminster-child-abuse-inquiry-police-split-credibility-witness

The article baldly states that Scotland Yard’s high-profile inquiry into an alleged Westminster paedophile ring faces external criticism of its conduct”.

Of course it does – did anyone seriously expect there not to be criticism when allegations of abuse and cover ups are levelled at senior politicians and top establishment figures? Why does the Guardian repeat this without analysing the likely reasons for such “external criticism”?

Re the evidence of witness ‘Nick’, we are told that some, unnamed, police officers in Operation Midland “believe his claims are without foundation”.
How do we know this? Are the police talking to the press? Isn’t this a disciplinary matter? Aren’t ongoing police investigations confidential? Shouldn’t the Guardian be questioning these leaks from within an ongoing police investigation, particularly when they concern possible abuse and corruption by senior establishment figures?

Apparently the conduct of the investigative news website Exaro, which first broke stories about Nick, has been the subject of complaints to two senior Home Office officials”
Quel surprise! For the reasons already stated, if the home office itself is under investigation for abuse and corruption, well, they won’t like independent online news site Exaro threatening to expose them, will they?
Why is the Guardian simply parroting this rubbish?

the investigation has failed to turn up any firm corroborating evidence, it is understood, and officers are split over whether they believe Nick is credible”. Says who? The investigation is ongoing, and has actually recently been stepped up. Why would the number of police on the team be increased, if the investigation is being wound down? Where is the Guardian getting its information?

“Suffolk Police said they were winding down their investigation into allegations made by another of Exaro’s alleged abuse victims, known as “Darren”, after his claims were found to be unsubstantiated.”
Why no mention of the real reason the Suffolk investigation was dropped – because ‘Darren’ withdrew cooperation after the police referred his baby son to social services as “at risk of future harm”? ‘Darren’ took this as witness intimidation and it worked, he withdrew, though social services found no grounds for the referral and did not act upon it.

The Guardian article offers the merest nod to objectivity, with a few words from one or two sources who disagree with the party line that its all a big fantasy cooked up by unbalanced survivors – or “fantasists” – encouraged by publicity hungry Exaro. But the rest of the article is about as objective as Maoist propaganda.

Shame on you Guardian. On top of the abysmal reporting on Corbyn, this disgraceful establishment toadying really sets the seal on your reputation as the voice of the liberal left.

Pulitzer prize winning newspaper – my arse.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Child sex abuse denial and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.