Iain Robertson, former River City actor, found guilty of raping woman 12%

By Nick Forbes7%

7/23/2026, 12:57:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 69.5% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 396 faulty-reasoning hits from 118 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.1% and a BS Rank of 12% (18,637 of 21,174 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.00% of the article peer group.

Actor Iain Robertson has been found guilty of rape following a trial at the High Court in Glasgow. 
Robertson, aged 45, was convicted of a total of five offences committed against a number of women. 
The offences took place over a 15-year period, specifically between 2004 and 2019, with the rape occurring between 2018 and 2019. 
During the trial, a woman testified that Robertson had sex with her despite her making clear she was not consenting, while Robertson denied any wrongdoing. 
He is scheduled to be sentenced at the High Court in Edinburgh on 23 July. 
Former River City star Iain Robertson jailed for rape and assault 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.2%Nick Forbes: 7.1%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias21.2%This article: 17.8%Nick Forbes: 5.9%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias17.8%This article: 29.7%Nick Forbes: 9.9%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic29.7%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 17.8%Nick Forbes: 5.9%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias17.8%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 39.8%Nick Forbes: 13.3%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect39.8%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 69.5%Nick Forbes: 23.2%The Independent: 12.1%Negativity Bias69.5%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.3%Nick Forbes: 3.1%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 9.3%Nick Forbes: 3.1%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma9.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 4.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 21.2%Nick Forbes: 7.1%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof21.2%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.4%Nick Forbes: 4.8%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal14.4%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 21.2%Nick Forbes: 7.1%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.2%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 21.2%Nick Forbes: 7.1%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote21.2%This article: 9.3%Nick Forbes: 3.1%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection9.3%This article: 33.9%Nick Forbes: 11.3%The Independent: 7.9%Biased Writer Voice33.9%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Forbes: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

118 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.