Little bit concerned about the way this story has been reported so uncritically, especially when several aspects of it make no logical sense. Perhaps this would have been better left until after the investigation shows which elements are true and which are fabrication.
"However, Rachel continued to live in fear. In July 2020, things took an even stranger turn. Rachel’s son George confided in her that he had witnessed Steve dispose of a gun, bullets, and knives at a local park. When Rachel passed this information to police, she says a male police officer laughed at her over the phone and asked if it was deposited in a bin. George was eventually interviewed by two police officers at his local school without a consenting adult in the room, after which police incorrectly stated George raised no concerns. In a follow-up interview with a Birmingham Women’s Aid worker, her son showed them a photo of the weapons. George even claimed Steve had made him throw the gun clip into a lake."
This passage is particularly egregious. For what purpose did Steve have guns, bullets and knives? Did he use or threaten to use them against Rachel? Did anyone else witness Steve's possession and handling of illegal weapons other than George? Why would the police not investigate that if there was a serious chance that it was true? Why was the child then interviewed at school without either of his parents present? Could it be because the police were concerned that the child was being manipulated by both parents? The line "police incorrectly stated" makes it sound as if The Dispatch is making that judgement rather than Rachel. Do you have evidence that it is incorrect?
I'm not suggesting that Rachel did not experience abuse from her partner, but I am certain that is not the whole story and there is clearly a lot going on here. My main concern is the manner in which The Dispatch seems to have presented a potentially unreliable testimony as fact.
Hi Becky, thanks for engaging. We deliberated a lot over what to include in this story and anything that is presented as fact - ie "police incorrectly stated" - we have seen evidence to back it up and the police have received a right of reply. This story was checked by our lawyer so we are confident that it is legally sound but I appreciate that with such stories, when we are bound by legal restrictions, it isn't always that easy to parse. We have chosen to remove the paragraph quoted here for clarity.
Little bit concerned about the way this story has been reported so uncritically, especially when several aspects of it make no logical sense. Perhaps this would have been better left until after the investigation shows which elements are true and which are fabrication.
I'm unsure what you mean - can you explain?
"However, Rachel continued to live in fear. In July 2020, things took an even stranger turn. Rachel’s son George confided in her that he had witnessed Steve dispose of a gun, bullets, and knives at a local park. When Rachel passed this information to police, she says a male police officer laughed at her over the phone and asked if it was deposited in a bin. George was eventually interviewed by two police officers at his local school without a consenting adult in the room, after which police incorrectly stated George raised no concerns. In a follow-up interview with a Birmingham Women’s Aid worker, her son showed them a photo of the weapons. George even claimed Steve had made him throw the gun clip into a lake."
This passage is particularly egregious. For what purpose did Steve have guns, bullets and knives? Did he use or threaten to use them against Rachel? Did anyone else witness Steve's possession and handling of illegal weapons other than George? Why would the police not investigate that if there was a serious chance that it was true? Why was the child then interviewed at school without either of his parents present? Could it be because the police were concerned that the child was being manipulated by both parents? The line "police incorrectly stated" makes it sound as if The Dispatch is making that judgement rather than Rachel. Do you have evidence that it is incorrect?
I'm not suggesting that Rachel did not experience abuse from her partner, but I am certain that is not the whole story and there is clearly a lot going on here. My main concern is the manner in which The Dispatch seems to have presented a potentially unreliable testimony as fact.
Hi Becky, thanks for engaging. We deliberated a lot over what to include in this story and anything that is presented as fact - ie "police incorrectly stated" - we have seen evidence to back it up and the police have received a right of reply. This story was checked by our lawyer so we are confident that it is legally sound but I appreciate that with such stories, when we are bound by legal restrictions, it isn't always that easy to parse. We have chosen to remove the paragraph quoted here for clarity.