Sweet Bobby: A Case for Ethical Storytelling and Accountability

When does Storytelling Become Exploitation? Personal Statement: Amrit S Maan OBE JP FRSA

Amrit has asked me to use my platform to distribute his concerns regarding the way Kirat Assi has been treated and portrayed in the Netflix documentary, Sweet Bobby

---

Amrit Maan

I was blessed to find myself in a position to offer support to Harkirat K Assi's battle for her justice, her voice and her truth.

Ms. Assi is a survivor of coercive control. My pro bono legal involvement took many forms. It included representation at various Police stations, reaching out to victims and collecting evidence. I helped support the police investigations and the civil proceedings. I was even granted permission by the perpetrator to read the confidential signed private apology letter. Finally, I modestly contributed to the Tortoise Media's Sweet Bobby podcast.

My work and involvement have largely been in the shadows, a space I chose out of necessity. However, I can no longer remain silent. Today, I must step forward and release this public statement to call out the injustice I have witnessed.

I interviewed Kirat for the Observer in 2022

Tortoise Media

Unlike the Netflix UK documentary, the podcast successfully shed light on Ms. Assi’s appalling experience of coercive control. As verified by journalist Alexi Mostrous, Ms. Assi's civil witness statement had been leaked to Tortoise Media without her knowledge or consent. She agreed to contribute to the Podcast and did not receive any monetary compensation from Tortoise. She was adamant that she would not sell her story at the first instance. Money has never been her motivation. Her pursuit has always been for justice, manifested in the form of a public apology from her perpetrator - an apology that has yet to come.

During the production, I saw first hand the outstanding professionalism of Journalist Alexi Mostrous, Executive Producer Basia Cummings and Producer Gary Marshall. They allowed Ms. Assi to collaborate, corroborate facts and add missing context. She was articulate and fully involved. At the same time, I witnessed how Ms. Assi allowed Alexi Mostrous to retain full journalistic integrity. Where many would have interfered, she refused to influence any of the contributors, including myself.

I was in the Room

Netflix UK was desperate to sign Ms. Assi directly. She had already been flooded with various offers from other production companies from the success of the Podcast. Many people have wrongly accused Ms. Assi of participating in Netflix’s Sweet Bobby purely for financial gain. These accusations are completely unfounded, but also ignore her real reason. Ms. Assi wanted to speak her truth to a wider audience following the positive response from the Tortoise Media podcast that showed a need for change in society.

Netflix UK and Raw TV made bold promises: support, collaboration, and a commitment to telling her story with dignity. How do I know? I was present!

I was in the room when Netflix UK Managers for Original Documentaries, Ms. Reva Sharma and Mr. Jonny Taylor (now Creative Director at Raw TV), pitched the documentary.

I was also in the room when Executive Producer Ms. Rebecca North from Raw TV and Director Ms. Lyttanya Shannon first met Ms. Assi. I remember every detail, and what I saw and heard in those meetings speaks volumes.

Ms. Assi constantly relayed her concerns and hesitations. As a contributor, she did not want to be exploited. In her discussions, she shared examples of other contributors who had been exploited in their documentaries. She made it explicitly clear what issues she wanted the documentary to address.

First, social media and internet regulation, including the dangers of internet weaponization. Second, the failures of the criminal justice system. Third, the prevalence & impact of coercive control. Fourth, the experiences, challenges and stigma faced by victims in minority communities. Specifically, she wanted to address the community silence, stigma and reluctance to call out the perpetrator within her community. Victim shaming was a recurring theme that intersected with all four areas.

She wanted to bring something original, creative and visual to the production that had not been previously raised in the successful Tortoise Media podcast.

She informed both Netflix UK and Raw TV that much of her work was in impactful circles in the South Asian community. She reminded them that every person of South Asian descent would watch the documentary. This would be the case even if they had not heard the Tortoise Media podcast.

Betrayal

The Sweet Bobby documentary raises serious ethical concerns about Netflix UK and Raw TV’s failure to meet the most basic standards outlined by Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code.

The documentary betrayed trust and has retraumatized a survivor. It reflects a troubling disregard for fairness, accuracy, and accountability in the pursuit of sensationalism.

Sweet Bobby presents itself as a documentary designed to raise awareness about online deception, but it does the opposite. Many close friends and family of Ms. Assi strongly believe that the production is an unbalanced and exploitative portrayal that prioritizes profit over the well-being of a victim.

So much crucial information and context is missing. It completely fails to consider the perpetrator’s role, motive and how she should be accountable. This is not a female story or a typical romance fraud at all. The psychological abuse and manipulation was deliberate, calculated and sadistic. Any framing that suggests otherwise does a disservice to Ms. Assi and others who have endured coercive control.

Documentaries that deal with sensitive subjects must prioritize ethical editing practices. Practices should ensure that the final portrayal acknowledges the complexity whilst remaining truthful to the survivor’s story. Netflix UK and Raw TV betrayed Ms. Assi to fulfil their own obligations.

Instead of fostering understanding and empathy, the production has turned Ms. Assi’s personal tragedy into public fodder. The documentary has subjected her to widespread victim-blaming, relentless ridicule and catastrophic reputational damage, both online and offline. Ms. Assi’s identity has been reduced to a caricature, portraying her as “naive” and desperate to marry due to South Asian cultural pressures.

To be clear, the documentary is not Ms. Assi’s account, it is the product of Raw TV funded by Netflix UK. Sweet Bobby should have been a careful and respectful exploration. The reality is that it is a rushed, incomplete and reductive 82-minute documentary. It is a deeply flawed rehash of the successful Tortoise Media podcast.

Victim Shaming

This documentary has triggered a flood of negative comments online, with many questioning how Ms. Assi could have fallen victim to such an extended catfishing deception.

Here are some examples of the comments I observed:

“she must think we're stupid to believe her” “Netflix made you a lot of money”

“I would not employ her, let’s put it like that” “you need a psychiatrist “

“she needs sectioning”

“can tell she is two sandwiches short of a picnic”

“56 minutes into this doc + it’s the first brain cell bitch has used” “Ridiculous ending "

“plain dumb” “

“what a complete and utter mug”

“she’s on another planet”

“she’s stupid”

“no sympathy”

“the dumbest and most gullible woman ever?”

“Kirat let this farce go on for a decade is just ludicrous and farfetched” “the doc does not do Kirat enough justice and makes her look like a doormat”

The tone of these comments reflects the widespread misunderstanding and harsh judgement of Ms. Assi with some responses bordering on cruelty.

Calls For Accountability

Our stories deserve truth, respect and authenticity. Our community deserves to be seen in all its complexity with the dignity they demand, with no misrepresentation or lazy narratives.

It is baffling how such an incomplete and irresponsible documentary was greenlit for release. The exploitation of survivors is never acceptable, and the consequences must be severe.

Together, with close friends and family of Ms. Assi, I am demanding:

1. An independent external investigation into the allegations of manipulation, coercion and breach of ethics during the production of Netflix UK and Raw TV‘s Sweet Bobby.

2. The flawed documentary be immediately removed from the Netflix platform.

3. A Public apology from both Netflix UK and Raw TV.

Anything less is an endorsement of the exploitation and disrespect shown to a survivor and her story of abuse. If these claims are substantiated, the Raw TV filmmakers and Netflix UK executives responsible must be held accountable.

Historical Context

Important historical context was either glossed over or entirely omitted. The filmmakers reduced the story to a sensationalized narrative that prioritizes entertainment over truth. They commodified trauma to such a degree that it raises serious questions about their moral compass and their commitment to ethical filmmaking. The filmmakers used dated South Asian stereotypes which is far from treating a survivor’s story with care and integrity. Ms. Assi is far from a stereotype. The production fundamentally ignored the broader psychological and cultural factors that made her vulnerable to such prolonged manipulation.

Allegations of Coercion During Production

Ms. Assi’s family and close friends allege that there was coercion/manipulation during the production process. They also claim that the filmmakers sidelined Ms. Assi’s grave concerns.

These allegations raise serious questions about the ethical practices employed and the exploitative methods used to manipulate vulnerable contributors.

Constant Fight for Justice

Ms. Assi fought for justice against all odds, against intimidation, against stigma, against sexism, against discrimination, against victim shaming.

Ms. Assi initiated civil proceedings after the first police investigation failed her. It was not for money nor fame but for a public apology. After 18 months of civil proceedings, she secured an out of court settlement and a private apology from her perpetrator. Her complaint to the independent office of police conduct (IOPC) was rightly upheld, forcing a fresh police investigation, which remains ongoing despite frustrating delays.

Incredibly, her courage has also empowered other victims to come forward. Each with their own harrowing and similar experiences. This is the price Ms. Assi has had to endure: facing immense personal trauma, public exposure, and relentless scrutiny and criticism.

What the perpetrator did was utterly appalling. Not only did she manipulate and control an innocent victim, but she also fabricated multiple false online identities, all supposedly tied to the real Bobby Jandu’s family, (who are all victims). It took seven years for the perpetrator to infiltrate Ms. Assi’s life and then subject her to two years of abusive coercive control.

Relationship: J Jandu and the Perpetrator

Most glaringly, the documentary failed to address the relationship between Bobby’s brother, J Jandu, and the perpetrator. There is no explanation of the relationship regarding duration, scope, intensity, ending and potential toxic aftermath. This lack of investigation into this crucial detail is both negligent and incompetent. The filmmakers did not explain why J Jandu, now based in Kenya, has been reluctant to come forward to speak to the Police, despite reportedly having vital information about the perpetrator’s behavior, state of mind and potential motives.

Small Tight-Knit Community

The production failed to provide substance and insight into the Kenyan Punjabi Sikh community. It is a wonderful, entrepreneurial, musical and artistic community. However, the documentary did not call out the unyielding omerta of silence that exists among the community. This silence sadly perpetuates sexism and misogyny. The burden appears to have fallen squarely on an innocent female victim, Ms. Assi, to fight alone for her truth while other male victims stay silent.

Fake Profiles & Victim Shaming

The documentary overlooked the perpetrator’s deeply unhealthy obsession with the Jandu family. This fascination lasted years and was a critical factor in the calculated abuse and deception against Ms. Assi. The fixation manifested through taking photos and images from public social media pages, fabricated identities and manipulations tied to the family’s name.

The documentary failed to highlight that multiple fake social media profiles existed with real ones. It failed to show that mutual family and friends of Ms. Assi were already following these fake profiles well before the perpetrator first approached Ms. Assi.

By sidestepping many aspects, Netflix UK and Raw TV left viewers without any important understanding of why this entire family, including distant relatives, became the focus of the perpetrator’s elaborate schemes.

Viewers should be outraged by all these omissions rather than putting blame on the victim.

Lack of Coercive Control Experts

The filmmakers neglected to include experts on coercive control. This decision left the documentary lacking in depth, educational value and credibility.

What should have been a platform to amplify a survivor’s voice and raise awareness has become a weak narrative, riddled with gaps and questionable storytelling choices.

Profit Over Ethics

Adding to the ethical concerns, the most damning failure is the decision to release the documentary before the ongoing police investigation concluded. This release raises serious questions about whether profit and speed were prioritized over ethics.

The decision was reckless, irresponsible and unforgivable. It runs counter to the public interest test and the principles of responsible documentary filmmaking as outlined in Ofcom’s broadcasting standards.

Duty of Care

What concrete measures were taken to safeguard Harkirat’s well-being, both during and after production?

Are specialist trauma support services offered to her now ?

Editorial Integrity

The sensationalised framing of Sweet Bobby highlights the harm caused when victims/ survivors are excluded from the production and editorial process?

Why were critical facts omitted, and why was her story framed in a way that fostered public ridicule rather than understanding?

Who decided to make the decision to allocate 82 minutes?

Today, I have written to Netflix UK, Raw TV, OFCOM, BFI, BAFTA the Secretary of State for Culture, Media, and Sport, The Rt Hon Lisa Nandy MP, The Minister for Victims Alex Davies-Jones MP, the Dutch media regulator for Netflix UK, Chair All Party Parliamentary Group for British Sikhs Ms Preet K Gill, the Film and TV Charity, Documentary Film Council, Ruth Cadbury MP and my own local MP, The Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer calling for an independent investigation into these serious allegations.

These include ethical violations and failures in editorial integrity, which have resulted in a damaging critique of an identifiable individual. Such actions demonstrate a troubling level of iniquity, incompetence, and negligence.

If you or someone you know has been affected by any of the issues raised, please know help is available.

Amrit S. Maan OBE JP FRSA

Covent Garden, London, UK

Thursday 19th December 2024