Our thanks to John from HEqual for sending me the following. It takes up the remainder of this post, and the emphases (in bold text) are his:
There was a piece in The Guardian yesterday by Julie Bindel about the Economou case, and the number of omissions in it are quite incredible.
It fails to mention that Economou was clearly treated terribly by much of the media (particularly the BBC and The Guardian) and falsely smeared as a rapist even when his innocence was clear. Just two such examples are here and here.
However, the most obvious omission from the article is the legal case that took place immediately before the libel trial, in which Economou was bullied by the state with bogus harassment charges simply for clearing his name and correcting the smears of those associated with his accuser. The full verdict from that case makes for very interesting reading, you can view it in full here.
Now, back to Bindel’s article and one of the key sentences from it is actually the following:
Her father, David de Freitas, was referred by the charity Inquest to a lawyer with expertise in rape investigations and in holding the state to account.
Now, reading the verdict I posted above, we see that lawyer Bindel uses the article to praise so much is named Harriet Wistrich, and the phrasing in question is quite strange in how it fails to identify her.
Perhaps it’s becasue Bindel is in a lesbian relationship with Wistrich and therefore the entire article represents a massive breach of basic journalism ethics, given that she’s completely failed to name her involvement / relationship with one side of the story and the lawyer she’s promoting. Bindel’s Wikipedia page is here.