From a recent Times TV review (as quoted by Broadcast):
Naturally, even before Accused: The Fake Grooming Scandal aired, there were people on Twitter/X accusing C4 of focusing on this rare and terrible case of a young woman who fabricated abuse claims rather than the victims of the many very real crimes in Rochdale, Oldham and elsewhere. You can understand the thinking, but the truth is this three-part documentary was executed with professionalism and skill, and demonstrated the virtues of closely examining the whole story, while also showing the real danger of online vigilantism.
The three-part documentary, made for Channel 4 by Expectation TV, can be watched in the UK here. It concerns the high-profile case of Ellie Williams, a resident of Barrow-on-Furness whose conviction for perverting the course of justice at the start of 2023 was based on overwhelming evidence.
On Twitter/X, prominent denunciations came from Dan Wootton, who said that it “tells you everything you need to know about the UK’s corrupt state-owned broadcast media” and from GB News panellist Adam Brooks, who described Channel 4 as “filth” in a post pitched at Elon Musk. Brooks said that the documentary ought to have been pulled “for now”, doubtless referring to the current climate, but it’s unclear when he thinks there would be a more appropriate time. Given the lack of any actual critique, the objections were simply calls for censorship and for the victims of false accusations to be kept off-air for some supposed greater good.
Meanwhile, the Daily Express ran an article headlined “Channel 4 sparks Ofcom fury over ‘offensive’ grooming gang series after inquiry” – one might interpret “Ofcom fury” to mean that the broadcast regulator had issued some kind of censure, but the text clarifies that the phrase refers to public compaints to Ofcom rather than any Ofcom finding:
Channel 4’s latest documentary, Accused: The Fake Grooming Gang Scandal, has sparked 66 complaints to Ofcom following its broadcast on January 7.
…Ofcom confirmed viewers were left infuriated by the program’s timing and as they claimed the content were offensive to victims of genuine grooming gangs.
However, the paper did not go so far as to endorse the objections, instead quoting the positive Times review and noting that “the inclusion of a harrowing interview with Rochdale abuse survivor Nathalie underscored the seriousness of genuine crimes”.
Objections that the documentary is disproportionate attention compared to real grooming gangs is also poorly grounded: as with Carl Beech, it is natural that high-profile false allegations should receive a correspondingly high-profile media reaction when they fall apart.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Leave a Reply