Inaccurate BBC story - Trans identified male

Reduxx have a bit, perhaps a bit too much, about this man.

https://reduxx.info/exclusive-details-uk-trans-activist-charged-with-murder-being-held-in-womens-prison/

As it says at the end of the article men with male genitalia or convicted of sexual or violent crimes wouldn't be housed in women's prisons.

I can see only three possibilities, the justice/prison service didn't care for that and have gone back to doing what they wished, hoping or knowing(?) Labour wouldn't care. Labour scrapped the new guidance and are housing tw where they wish to be housed. The guidance doesn't apply because he hasn't been convicted.

And if the bloody BBC wasn’t so captured, the larger public would become aware that this is happening. Increasingly so. The #nodebate and #noaccuratereporting was initiated for a very good reason. In plain sight.

Housed in the women's estate... ffs! 😡

Rowland-Stuart was in court again on Wednesday.

https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2024/07/24/brighton-woman-70-appears-before-court-charged-with-murdering-husband/

This article calls him a woman and uses female pronouns, but also mentions that Rowland-Stuart was formerly known as John Stuart.

He appeared by video link again, but this time from Downview prison, which is a women's prison. Why has this violent man been transferred to a women's prison? He was previously held in HMP Lewes, which is a men's prison.

I wrote to the BBC again about this. Got this response:

'Thank you for getting in touch again about our article reporting that Joanna Rowland-Stuart has been arrested and charged with murder.

We note your further comments, although at this stage we have nothing further to add so this concludes Stage 1 of our complaints process. That means we can’t correspond with you further here. If you remain unhappy, you can now contact the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU). The ECU is Stage 2 of the BBC’s complaints process. You’ll need to explain why you think there’s a potential breach of standards, or if the issue is significant and should still be investigated. Please do so within 20 working days of this reply.'

So, stonewalling/passing the buck/hoping people will give up.

My response from the bbc

Thank you for getting in touch about our article reporting that Joanna Rowland-Stuart has been arrested and charged with murder.

We have published two articles about the case, both of which have accurately reported the information put into the public domain by the authorities during court proceedings, and will continue to report on the case as it develops.

All feedback from readers is appreciated and shared with senior editors so that they are aware of audience concerns, so thank you again for contacting us to make your views known.

Lame pathetic generic nothing-meaning platitudes
👏👏👏

I noticed this article this morning and it reminded me of this thread

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr4ln2x4d7o

The police can't tell a man from a woman but they can ID a Boa constrictor from a Boa imperator! I'm simultaneously impressed and angry.

No, not me.

I think @unclebarry is being very clear and consistent and their posts have given me useful information.

Beyond that they are not obliged to go into battle for anyone and I'm genuinely surprised at the expectation from some posters that they should do.

I have only read about half the posts but enough, I think, to make a few observations:

1. @RoyalCorgi is correct that the bigger problem in this case is false (or misleading) information from the police. Does anyone know how to make a formal complaint to the relevant police body?
2. a related problem is, as always, how to define people. If laws say “transwomen are women” then police and reporters might have to follow. Surely, though, the correct definitions are and should be “man”, “woman”, “transman” and “transwoman”, with equal rights to live with dignity, etc but without obscuring biological truths that are relevant to all sorts of statistics and policies
3. Barry is correct to highlight the problem with PR overtaking journalism. A recent FT Magazine story highlighted the fact that in the U.S. there are at least eight times as many PR people as reporters (I think I am remembering the statistic correctly — certainly a large multiple). Worryingly, much of what we read is not “reporting” but just re-printing PR
4. the OP and others are correct that we should push for reliable reporting by the BBC and others. In the process, we should push for true “reporting”Brother than reprinting PR reports”.
5. one way to push back against the infiltration of PR is, as Barry says, to buy newspapers. Every time we try to access “free” news, we contribute to the demise of journalism. If we are not willing to pay for news, then we accept a diet of PR without any critical assessment.

I was replying to @ThreeWordHarpy for explaining what the reference was. Not sure why my gratitude has riled you up 😅

Oh God. This is why I never do this. I think I’ve adequately established my bona fides or do you want to see my NUJ card? Have a great summer everybody.

I presume it was the one in the Daily Mail. The article you claim to have written, according to the Daily Mail, was written by someone called Matthew Cox.

Thank you for explaining.

Felix is/was a regular thread derailer. Claimed to work for an unspecified police force in the U.K. Would pop up any time the police were discussed (particularly in relation to Caroline Farrow’s situation) to divert the discussion away from the topic in hand to how “we just don’t know” what the police knew. Repeated himself a lot.

Would you mind explaining this reference or point me in the right direction for more info, please? (I’ve been lurking for a while but have not come across this ref before and am curious. Did a search but couldn’t find anything relevant)
Thank you

Yes.

@unclebarry I see you have responded to Ereshkigalangcleg while I was replying.

Great. I think you'll find it's worthwhile. Don't be shocked if someone else picks it up before you.

No why on earth would I? (Rhetorical question)

I'm perfectly happy for this public discussion to continue with input from a variety of other posters who all have important information they could share with you, as well as (I'm sure) much better and more articulate points to make.

Want to respond to @Ereshkigalangcleg 's post at 2.25? Or engage in good faith with the rest of the posters about the wider story, or any of the stories available to you here on FWR? Had a look at the advanced search yet?

Want to just respond to any of this in good faith at this point?

I’m not a journalist. I’ll look into the story you suggested. If it’s something I can get involved in, I’ll come back to you.

Do you want to talk privately about this?

But the first quote is obviously not true when so many posters have been pointing you towards a very big story that you have shown zero interest in.

So it's now
Always keen to hear from anybody who has a story to tell - except the one you all have been telling me about the police no longer being a credible, trustworthy source or that the media are knowingly misrepresenting important information to the public, misinformation which is to everyone's detriment (and all of the other stuff that has been discussed on here that ties into all of this that would be too much to fit in here)

and

"If anybody on this forum has first hand knowledge of the case, please contact me."

Lovely, so much diligence. And super helpful to the public at large.

Edit: Missing words for clarity.

Several people (including me) have highlighted the rich ground that FWR provides for a journalist who wants to report on a highly topical issue. I have already mentioned a specific potential story for you @unclebarry

Both are true and not mutually exclusive.

So it's not so much
"Always keen to hear from anybody who has a story to tell"
as
"If anybody on this forum has first hand knowledge of the case, please contact me."

Goal posts have moved a bit there haven't they.