Andrew Miller child abduction: Remarkably clear reporting

It's quite telling that he wished to be referred to by he/him and have his male name used. It allows him to transition into his new identity without having all the articles attached to it.

I was hopeful, but this is why:

”At the time of his arrest, he was presenting as Amy George but confirmed he wished to be addressed as Andrew Miller using "he" pronouns for simplicity.”

Oh, if he'd demanded to be described as a woman and referred to by grammatically feminine pronouns in media releases and reports, that's what would have happened.

There are various theories as to why he didn't - a PP posted one above.

Indeed. But the only reason this article seems in any way clear is because the criminal requested that he is referred to as a man. Perhaps he doesn’t want to taint his fantasy persona with the crime. I doubt it is because he cares about clarity for anyone else’s sake.

It's the IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) tying media outlets' hands on what pronouns they can and can't use.

“Bryson was initially placed in a female prison after being convicted of raping two women while she was known as a man called Adam Graham.”

This sentence lets the article down.

The offence according to the legislation is committed by a "person". And if I recall correctly, the wording of charges is "That you did..." so using a second person pronoun not third person pronouns.

Then in a court, the defendant is addressed directly "You are charged" before being asked "How do you plead". So again second person pronouns.

So it may be that it is only in reporting about charges that reference is made to "man" or "woman". And of course the advice that in court preferred pronouns should be used during the proceedings in descriptions and cross-examination, but these are not charges.

I was quoting from the Crown Prosecution Service guidance, which I presume they follow themselves. They clearly believe that the definition of penis in the act refers only to a real one. Faced with the need to charge a man with rape, but one who is claiming to be transgender, it would contradict their own advice to regard him/her as a woman. If as a rule they refer to men claiming to be transgender as women, this would give them a dilemma. They would have to make an exception to the general rule in the case of rape. So there may be a different policy over respecting preferred pronouns for rape, and any other crimes that only a man can commit (other than women acting as an accomplice to a man).

Thinking is he did that so he would be convicted under his current name. Then if he changes it to a female name after it won't show up on DBS checks. Usually if you have changed your name it's flagged, but not if you say you're trans.

If you read the article ait says that Andrew Miller wanted to be referred to as he and his original name, so they are using his preferred pronouns. And respecting the accused wishes. Nothing to do with women’s rights here at all.

I imagine that she was convicted under the joint enterprise part of the law, where a secondary offender is deemed just as guilty as the main offender if they encouraged and/or assisted the main offender to commit the offence.

I can't find an account that confirms that in this case, however.

It would appear to be impossible to charge a person with rape while calling them a woman.

Well, I don't know. This case has always confused me Woman convicted of rape. Yes, there was a man involved too, but she was convicted of rape, not of aiding and abetting a rape.

Given the Equal Treatment Bench Book advice to judges and the stated belief of many politicians that women can have penises, and that even obtaining a GRC thus becoming "legally" a woman doesn't necessarily involve genital surgery...

The 2003 legislation doesn't actually specify anything about the sex of the penis owner, using the word "person".

Incidentally, the legislation in Scotland specifically notes, under the offence of rape, that "“penis” includes a surgically constructed penis if it forms part of A, having been created in the course of surgical treatment".

In terms of legislation, I don't think it's clear that you can't call a person charged with rape a woman.

Which is why a lot of legislation in this area needs to be repealed, amended or modified.

There have been a few other news stories where the BBC has taken this approach. I think they must have changed their editorial guidelines.
There was a recent news story in which the BBC spoke of 'two women' who attacked and sexually assaulted a boy (and who may or may not have been women - they hadn't been indentified or caught) but in that case they were just following the police release of details, which (for whatever reason) just described them as women

It would appear to be impossible to charge a person with rape while calling them a woman.

Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice.

Rape and Sexual Offences - Chapter 7: Key Legislation and ...
Crown Prosecution Service
https://www.cps.gov.uk › legal-guidance › rape-and-sex...

The girl told the court that she accepted the lift because Miller was "a lady" - probably made the mistake because he was obscured in the car and not easy to see make out the reality at first glance.

Yet the TRAs constantly tell us that the trans ideology isn't used for nefarious reasons and we are slandering them by implying it can be. How long can this ideology's disciples maintain this lie I wonder?

I don’t want to depress you, but all that this reflects is the defendant’s decision to be tried as a man. I expect his counsel suggested he do so to minimise media coverage.

Court reporting is very constrained by what happens in court that day. Which is why court reporting on days the defence is taking place will only be about the defence, and at the bottom it will just say “the case continues”.

If he had said he’s being tried as a man, it will be reported he’s a man in court. Had he said he was a woman, it would have been written up differently.

But his decision just shows how much clearer the journalism is if you’re not constrained by pronouns.

I don’t think it’s well done BBC sadly. Rather that this individual chose male pronouns. If he’d chosen female ones the BBC would have gone along with it.

I'm thinking he chose that name so when released could go by the other one.

I wonder if one reason for him using his male name etc is that he isn't interested in accessing women's prison, as his interest is in girl children, rather than adult women.

At least the BBC are reporting that he also dressed as a woman, and was transitioning. I’d have made a bet a few months ago that they would have missed out that piece of information.

We are getting there bit by bit.

Hopefully no chance of this vile, depraved man ending up in a women's prison then?

I suspect he didn't give any name but Andrew Miller to the police, that he signed any documents with that name, and that he didn't demand to be called by the female name or by female pronouns

I very much doubt there was any refusal by the court