Nafissatou Diallo and Anna Ardin – Why Opposite BBC Policies? 284

The BBC repeatedly named Nafissatou Diallo, the alleged rape victim of Dominique Strauss Kahn, while the criminal investigation into the alleged rape was still in progress. Yet they have a policy that Anna Ardin, the accuser of Julian Assange, must not be named – or investigated.

Why the contradiction?

Nafissatou Diallo and Anna Ardin had both gone public and given statements to the media in support of their allegations.

From the New York Times, 25 August 2010:

Anna Ardin, 31, has told the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that the complaints were “not orchestrated by the Pentagon” but prompted by “a man who has a twisted attitude toward women and a problem taking no for an answer.”

There was no legal barrier to my mentioniong Anna Ardin last night; the case is no longer sub judice in the UK and there is no expectation of any legal proceedings here. Those are precisely the grounds on which the BBC mentioned Diallo very often. I did not see Oliver Kamm, Charles Crawford, Harry Cole, Charles Murray or any of the other far right commenters trolling about my “disgrace” last night, make a single protest at the naming of Diallo on scores of occasions by the BBC. Why their sudden new-found concern in the case of Assange?

Why the difference? Why is Ardin protected from scrutiny in the entire British mainstream media when Diallo was not, in precisely the same legal circumstances? Has Ardin been D-noticed in the UK when she is reported widely everywhere else in the world?

Anybody who still believes that the Assange allegations are a genuine criminal proceeding following due process, should think very hard indeed.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

284 thoughts on “Nafissatou Diallo and Anna Ardin – Why Opposite BBC Policies?

1 7 8 9 10
  • DUNO

    “I was disappointed when he suddenly decided to release the entire files without the intended anonymizations”

    “The media didn’t cover the reasons for that well at all,”

    Agree, I was going to post a similar view. It was really not that simple imo.

    I don’t know about unorthodox, it seems more false to say many supporters are seeing Assange as some kind of saint, it does not reflect the kind of support I have seen. Or have myself.

    @Jonangus Mackay Yes I noticed that, swing to the left, I imagine another 5 or 6 articles like this and it may begin to show some balance on this particular issue. The mainstream press are still the mainstream press though…

    But back to the topic. Why where we concerned about the BBC being run like Fox, they clearly are. The thing there most in touch with is the government line. They have become more consecrated spokes persons and attack dogs for that power, I think it’s crumbling now though.

    There need to control the narrative so tightly (in this case rape) shows there weakness. They need to keep people focused on emotional issues, but the narrative must get simpler and simpler to block out all the other stuff and it can’t. So as this process takes place it looks more and more stupid imo..

    We saw how they both launched at Craig given the slightest opportunity, I don’t know if they even thought about it. One suggested and the other thought yes this is our dagger, then they go home to there nice pay cheque knowing there job is safe. The bottom line is the BBC support the government, that’s it.

    It’s all very well when you have power and control but when you don’t it’s disaster. This ‘opposing policy’ is one such example, there going very right wing, reactionary and contradictory.

    Gavin seemed to endorse at one point the suggestion people should research on the net, then they show so much concern about people knowing names? within a very short time period. IMO it’s simply how these people operate, and there increasingly isolated.

    And who’d have thought going to the NEWS to get names and information was so bad. Actual information. lol, perish the thought…

    I also wanted to say with regard to this interview that I’m also a bit more positive. It is good enough to be just taking out a brick now and again. Adding however small an alternative idea, and that’s not hard atm.

    These are clear signs there is substantial structural weakness, another brick out of the wall.

  • Jives

    “You just have to read Craig’s two books to know what a “deeply troubling attitude” he has towards women. Akin, Assange, Galloway. What a crew to be associated with. Let’s face it, Assange could admit to paedophilia and the usual suspects would still be defending him, including Gorgeous George and Craig Murray.

    And as for those right wing tools of Zionism, Owen Jones and Penny Red..”

    Night shift again eh Alan? Doesn’t the shame get to you after a while,surely?

  • Jonangus Mackay

    The madness of crowds: Glenn Greenwald, in response to Seumas Milne, says that when it comes to Assange the UK media is now ‘unhinged’—like a pack of ‘groupthink wolves.’ Craig Murray’s experience on BBC Newsnight & the preposterous inconsistencies he outlines above indicate this isn’t really hyperbole.

  • Steve de Dalus

    JA ought to sue those horrible Swedish slags for raping HIM. I wouldn’t touch them with Alan Campbell’s dick. Seriously though, if JA was Bronzed Bondi Beach Bruce the feminazis would be billing and cooing. They howl hatred only because he isn’t Crocodile Dundee. Seriously though, Esler is a dirty old man and disgusting pussy-licker,
    who has sold his brain for a sniff of snatch. Seriously though, the anti-freedom rage is a good example of deliberate cognitive dissonance – ignoring facts – the SOP of regressives. Scroungers on benefits spend £hundreds a day on smokes and booze! Cripples in wheelchairs are frauds! That’s not Obama’s birth certificate! [and from some moron here] JA has ‘skipped bail’! Swedish chief prosecutor Eva Pinne said in Aug 2010 that ‘NO CRIME TOOK PLACE’. Even if the minor crime considered actually had taken place, the penalty would merely be a $750 fine. So let JA plead virtually guilty to a misdemeanour of which he is not accused and which never took place, and send the Swedish government a cheque for $750! Simples. Seriously though, the muslims are right when they equate one man’s testimony with the testimony of two women, although it should be 20 women. No matter how rational they pretend to be, feminists will vote for Armaggedon if it gives them a chance to kick a guy in the nuts. Btw this will destroy UK’s credibility in Latin America. Goodbye forever to the Iles Malouines, suckers.

  • Jonangus Mackay

    @Alan Campbell:
    Sure you’re playing your cards right? Contrary to what you suggest, both Owen Jones & Penny Red are vociferously advocating, as it happens, that Brother Julian should turn himself in. Pronto.

  • ron blessington

    The solution to this impasse is obvious. Let Assange be tried at
    the International Criminal Court in the Hague. He will be in the cells alongside Congolese warlords, Rwandan genocidaires, and Serbs accused of being Serbian, all monsters whose crimes are nevertheless dwarfed by his. He had sex with two women without getting the correct police permits and computerized authorization! When convicted, he can serve his sentence in some neutral country, like the USA.

  • boniface goncourt

    Most of the hatred of the courageous whistle-blower Assange, from otherwise progressive women, translates as ‘Sex with HIM? URRGH! How COULD they??’ If Assange was the traditional Aussie surfer god-hunk, they would be all simpers, on his side. There is a moral there, probably not very pro-feminist.

  • Mary

    The bigger picture by Seumas Milne. We are in a Alice in Wonderland place when this crops up in the Guardian considering its ‘previous’ from David Leigh et al.
    Don’t lose sight of why the US is out to get Julian Assange
    Ecuador is pressing for a deal that offers justice to Assange’s accusers – and essential protection for whistleblowers

    Seumas Milne, Tuesday 21 August 2012

  • Mary

    I don’t think that this has been posted before. Israel Shamir’s name crops up in it.

    Amongst other things it points up the hypocrisy of the Swedish foreign minister and ?Ambassador to Britain who insist all power in this is down to the ‘prosecuting authorities’.

    Given that a lot of the hounding is coming from the Zionists and their echoes in the BBC I conclude that Wikileaks has some very potent material up its sleeve on the lawless pro-Zionist activities of the US/UK/Israel axis.


    I hope that Craig is withstanding the onslaught of vitriol in the media and elsewhere. Yet again, he stands up for justice which we catch sight of very rarely now in this country.

    I noticed little Chloe Smith piping up yesterday attempting to defend her masters who are all away as the economy sinks lower and lower.

  • Mary

    The Torygraph like good little boys are giving it large on Craig. Five photos of him no less.

    Julian Assange: Swedish prosecutors censure sex case naming diplomat
    Swedish prosecutors have warned people against naming the women at the centre of the Julian Assange sexual assault case, after a WikiLeaks supporter identified one live on television.

  • Jonangus Mackay

    “The twelve most terrifying words in the English language? ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help with your vagina.'”
    —Isobel Hadley-Kamptz, Sweden.

  • boniface goncourt

    Will K complains of ‘the usual tedious moral supremacist guff about the crimes of USA’. Yeah, I remember serial killer Fred West saying ‘spare me your tedious moral supremacist guff’ before he hanged himself. Good conservative, Fred.

  • Michael

    Morning all,

    discussion seems to have been busy tonight. couple of quick points before I get to the train station:

    1) no, I’ve only posted as ‘Michael’, once here and once on an earlier Assange thread couple of posts back. I don’t do multiple nicknames, I find people who use that strategy fairly annoying myself.

    2) Jon, thanks for your detailed comment re anonymity. I had heard bits and pieces of this before but never in such a coherent way. I accept now that Assange really isn’t at fault for this – still regrettable that the full names did get public but I see why he chose to do it and he is not to blame.

    3) re the ABC documentary: no, will watch it when I’m back at my laptop again. ca. how much time does it take?

    4) arsalan and others: calling me a Nazi is almost funny except that one of my grandmothers was a Jew in 1930s Germany, calling me a Zionist might now sound logical to you but believe me, I’ve read enough of the Angry Arab blog to have a fairly negative view of the State of Israel and Zionism – I’d be the first to welcome a ICC trial for some Israeli leaders (and no, that doesn’t make me anti-Semite). To someone who called me a ‘Zionist Nazi’…look, the Nazis were actually against the Jews. Do you use ‘(adjective) Nazi’ for everything bad? would you call someone a ‘Anti-Racism Nazi’? Just asking

    5) fedup: no, you don’t get it. It requires consensus from both. If the girl is into SM and the man isn’t, he has the right to say no and walk away. If the man is into unprotected and the girl isn’t, she has the right to walk away and both is true vice versa. Yes, men can get STDs as well, so yes, they shouldn’t be forced into unprotected sex either, happy to confirm that if it wasn’t obvious. It’s fairly simple: either both of you are happy with what’s going on or one person is unhappy – then they can walk away and the music stops. but they can’t force the other one to do/not do

    6) more on-topic questions: I’ll respond when I’m away from my smartphone (apols for typing mistakes BTW) and have facts as back up.

  • Michael

    DUNO, sorry I forgot to respond to your point re ‘unorthodox’ / ‘seeing A. as a saint’.

    Yes, sorry, that was a bit provocative of me as well. I’m
    sure most of you here have more sophisticated views than that. I just get the feeling that there are some people here and elsewhere who would always instinctively defend Assange no matter what he was accused of. That’s the problem in these cases – once you see the potential of a CIA operation, everything ‘bad’ (even non-criminal) that the person concerned does, leaves this aftertaste of ‘Oh, that could have been another set-up to discredit him’. And some (some!) people proceed
    from this and never ever question anymore whether he may have actually made a mistake or not. I know that because it’s happened to me with people I liked, i.e. I just couldn’t face that they actually did something wrong

  • Michael

    last point for now:
    I have quite a lot of understanding for those who think that Assange might be extradited by the Swedish govt and the Swedish judiciary won’t/can’t prevent it. Several people here posted on Swedish renditions etc. and I do believe this. But again, the UK has been just as complicit in the US ‘wars on terror’ etc. Personally, I think if the US starts believing that it’s unlikely that Assange will ever get to Sweden, they’ll just file an extradition request in London. Now, no matter what we think about the justification for it, we’ve all seen how far the UK goes, at least in threats, to attempt compliance with a Sweden extradition request. What do you think they’d do with a UK extradition request? I’m much more inclined to think that in THAT case, Cameron et al. won’t care about British judges and British public opinion and will just ‘deliver’ Assange. More inclined to think that of the Brits than the Swedes actually.

    I have very little patience with those alleging that Sweden is a place where no one should be sent for trial. Seriously, if you think Sweden is bad, you would at the same time need to say ‘we can’t try anyone in Britain anymore either’ nor can you extradite anyone else.

    Also, if random French guy Jean Dupont had been accused of rape in Sweden and then fled to the UK, would you guys be calling loudly for non-extradition because of failures in the Swedish justice system? Really?

  • arsalan

    Boo Hoo , that doesn’t work on me. Especially today when Zionists Jews march Hand in hand with the Nazis of the EDL. Zionists and Nazis have always worked hand in hand. Zionists funded Nazis, and helped them win the election. And Nazis helped Zionists by expelling Jews.

    The Nazi Ideology is a copy of the Zionist one. Word for word. They just did to the Jews what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinians.

    So yes, you are a Zionist Nazi. And boo hoo, bringing up WW2 wont shut me up. Loads of people suffered as a result of that, and none more then the Palestinians.

  • Michael

    1) You’re barking up the wrong tree – I support the Palestinian cause, you’ll just have to take my word for that.
    2) the rest of your post is confused. No, the Zionists did not want to help the Nazis exterminate all Jews in Europe by putting them into concentration camps. That’s just bullshit.

    3) I take your point about EDL members and Zionists both participating in anti-Islamism. There is indeed a certain unexpected alliance, mainly because the modern far right changed its main target from Jews to Muslims.

    4) How did we get here from discussing Assange?

  • arsalan

    Whether he was drunk or not. When you have consensual sex and your condom splits, it doesn’t mean you are guilty of rape!
    It just means the condom has split. Blame the company that makes them instead of the guy that wears them.

  • OldMark

    Sandi Dunn- good luck with your complaint against the Beeb- they are, however, past masters at bureaucratic foot dragging and being protective of their favourites, like Esler.

    ‘Akin, Assange, Galloway. What a crew to be associated with.’

    WTF is Akin’s ‘association’ with Craig, AC ?- other than that existing within your head.

    Those lambasting Craig since Monday night include-

    Oliver Kamm
    Louise Mensch
    Janice Turner
    Jenni Murray
    Sunny Hundal

    As Terry-Thomas would say- ‘absolute shower!’

  • Steve

    I haven’t posted for a while but I thought I would add my pennies worth.

    I have been involved in the investigations of many sexual offences. Things are obviously very different in Sweden but the fundamentals of any successful prosecution are the same.
    They boil down to.
    Initial complaint.
    This was flawed as appears to be given to friend who also made a complaint about the same person so key evidence could get lost by claims of collusion to get the best evidence that fits.

    Forensics makes up a large part of any investigation. In this case I am not sure if swabs were taken from the victims within 72hrs or if JA had any taken. Even when the sex starts out with consent forensics actually puts both parties at the scene. In this case with no forensics from JA and a time lag for any from the victims any evidence would be lost.

    Witnesses and credibility.

    Much can be gained from how credible the victims and witnesses are. Juries don’t tend to believe victims if they have an agenda or they withdraw consent half way through consented sex for no good reason as an example. It is also very hard to argue who consented to what and when. One persons word against another is impossible to prove. The fact that one victim supposedly refused to sign a statement and the other has connections with the prosecutor foamy bode well.

    All told if this happened in the UK and what he did was an offence here the possibility of a charge would be nil. And the police would probably criticized for even arresting him probably offering him a caution plus three at the station.

  • Komodo

    I’m working on a little scenario which justifies the view that the US would prefer to have Assange in Sweden rather than the UK. Timing and opportunity being the key factors, rather than the sheer ease of having him away (which would favour the UK, certainly). Not there yet, but I will present a hypothesis as and when I am satisfied it is plausible.
    Here’s an interesting lead:,01.shtml
    Now the I-word has come up, and we are uncertain what it has to do with Assange, there is a connection, in a sense. The Swedish Social Democrats’ “Christian Brotherhood” faction, to which Ardin and Wilen belong, has attracted the attention of the hasbara crew; many of the references to it on the web mention that it invites antisemitic speakers. The basis for these charges, as usual, seems to be that it is critical of Israeli policy. Nevertheless, there is a possibility (only) that it is/has been under investigation by Israeli interests, and could have been infiltrated. There is the curious case of Anna Ardin to consider in this context. Sometime around December 2010 she was reported to have moved to Yanoun, Israel as part of a Christian outreach group, and not very long afterwards, to have moved back/never to have moved. Details are sparse.
    There is more background on Ardin here:

    In which we learn that Anna has an alias: Bernardin…

  • Komodo

    Steve –
    No forensics. Ardin or Wilen (check!) produced a condom which they claimed had been worn by Assange for DNA analysis. In some accounts, it was a new one; in any event, no DNA from anyone other than the complainant was found. Whether or not swabs were taken (Wilen wanted an HIV check) they would only demonstrate that unprotected sex had taken place, which Assange is not denying.
    And when it comes down to it, it’s the complainants’ word against Assange’s. How fortunate that the two complainants knew each other and could support each others’ testimony!

  • Komodo

    ‘The virulence of British media hostility towards the Wikileaks founder is now unrelenting.’
    The alleged newspaper the Daily mail has to be seen to be believed. Foaming at the masthead and barking…however, some of the comments tell an entirely different story. Not all Mail readers are fools.
    BTW, JohnAngus, does the mention of Loch Maree mean anything to you? If you’re SNP it might…

  • Michael


    okay. So then Assange has a reasonable chance, maybe even more than 50:50 of being acquitted in a Swedish trial, even if only “in dubio pro reo”.

    The prosecution and the judge have very different tests which they need to apply when making decisions:
    A judge, if he is unsure about someone’s guilt, must acquit him. He must be sure he is guilty to convict him.
    A prosecutor, if he is unsure about someone’s guilt must prosecute him. He must be sure that NO crime has been committed in order to stop an investigation – otherwise, the prosecutor would be taking over the judge’s job.

    And to counter some immediate objections: Yes, there is a difference between common law and civil law systems. The British CPS works (AFAIK) on the idea that they’ll only prosecute cases where there is a reasonable chance of conviction, so if they’re not really sure themselves, they won’t bring it to a court. Continental legal systems are slightly more “victim-friendly” in this respect: if there is doubt about the evidence, they’ll bring it to a court so that there can be a proper trial.

  • Komodo

    It will be my contention that the Swedish case is intended to be thrown out. And that pressure of some sort was required to reactivate it after it was initially dropped.

  • technicolour

    And otherwise what’s happening in the world? The ‘Big Brother’ internet bill is about to go through.

    Meanwhile the debates about what Assange did or didn’t do have made me never want to have sex again. ‘Liberal lefty’ men have been demonised everywhere, including, surprise, the Guardian – it’s right wing authoritarians who are the charmers, now. And, according to the Daily Mash, there’s now a support group for women who heard George Galloway say the word ‘insertion’.

    I got an email from Stop the War telling me how the Assange case could be resolved. It didn’t. I think it would be helpful if anyone interviewed, including Mr Assange, could say what they wanted to happen now? The view across the web seems to be that Assange should be interviewed here, in the UK, by the Swedish prosecutors. That seems pretty plain?

1 7 8 9 10