Trial by television: the jury of The Verdict. Photograph: RDF.
Day three and it is still appalling, useless rubbish. The Verdict was not quite as painful on day two, as we saw far less of the jury, and more of the evidence and questioning in court. But again, we have had far more giggling and preening than you would on a non-celebrity jury.
Of course, some viewers are arguing that The Verdict is useful in that it show us the "reality" of how a rape trial is conducted. In my experience of viewing such cases and interviewing victims, this is where the defence is tenacious and well-resourced, but the prosecution is less experienced/able and less prepared. Yes, of course we see this, but is the hideousness of the process criticised or challenged, either by the jury or the judge? Not one bit.
Apologists have also argued that the public needs to see the awful reality of rape trials in order to campaign for change. How will this happen though as a result of this shoddy little programme?
Over the last three days I have spoken to rape survivors about The Verdict. These are women whom I have interviewed and/or befriended over the years during which I have campaigned to stop men getting away with sexual assault. These women are united in their opinion; that whilst C4's excellent drama-doc Consent was truly educational and responsible, The Verdict is cheap, nasty TV with an aim only to entertain and create shock value. These women are strong. After all, they are all involved in campaigning to get a better deal for the hundreds of thousands of women in the UK who have never see their rapist convicted.
They do not require smelling salts or hand-holding to look into the lion's mouth - they have already seen its teeth. Make no mistake; these women are not saying they find the reality of the programme too distressing to watch, and are therefore taking the easy route of criticizing something which they know will upset them because it "brings it all back". They live with what happened to them every day, for the simple reason that their attacker escaped justice.
What is wrong with The Verdict, even though, in some sequences, it reflects what happens in court? What is wrong is that the jury is, in their eyes, not behaving like a real jury. The whole process, as BBC2 has directed it, is a discussion and ruck between celebrities. The fact that Sara Payne is involved in it all is sick. In the most voyeuristic manner, the cameras follow her whenever graphic detail of sexual activity is being discussed. Would it not be great TV if she breaks down?
As one rape victim said to me this evening, "I think The Verdict is the lowest of the low. Celebrities taking part in a programme like this have no idea of what it is like to deliberate on a real case, and this will not teach them anything." Enough said.
