Mass Shooting in Tumbler Ridge Canada

@MyThreeWords I live in Scotland and I've seen similar happening here.
The 'Named Person' scheme (meant to mean one named person in charge of vulnerable children so no 'buck passing' a great idea in theory) but no training given to head teachers who were supposed to do this & parents cut out of information (any one but a parent could be a named person of course).

The 'hate speech' bill. Again, a good impulse but became a 'snitchers charter' and horribly badly thought through. The Trans issue in Schools, in society, in womens prisons - a complete mess up here. 4WomenScotland have done good work. I cannot say about assisted dying as I do not know enough about it.

The parents; he shot his mother and his sister dead at home (according to another thread on MN).

So they lost their lives and his Dad will be dealing with the devastation of events.

How the fucketty fuck (and you know I hardly ever swear) can we be living in a world in which using the wrong pronoun is utter anathema, yet misleading citizens in a context like this is ethical?

Because....

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

And, if you haven't already, read Pronouns are Rohypnol by Barra Kerr - available on FPFW.

I've not RTFT yet, so am sure others have said this, but honestly just wanted to post it again out of helpless anger and frustration. Rant incoming. I read about this in The Guardian this morning, assumed the shooter was male, of course, then saw the line, "A police active shooter alert sent to people in the area described the suspect as 'female in a dress with brown hair'". My first thought: they must mean a man; it's virtually unheard of for a woman to do something like this. My second: stop being so cynical, you're a biased TERF - they'd never risk lives by putting out an inaccurate warning like that, using the word female, of all things... My third thought: But 'in a dress'?! why the heck say, 'in a dress'" My fourth: Stop it, Cattiette. Not every one of these instances will be a trans woman. And yet I did keep wondering - and guess what?

How the fucketty fuck (and you know I hardly ever swear) can we be living in a world in which using the wrong pronoun is utter anathema, yet misleading citizens in a context like this is ethical? In which it's seen as destructively damaging to the mental health of a criminal to use "she", yet stealing every single word women have left with which to name themselves and gifting it to their oppressors, all the while gaslighting women that they're capable of similar violence to those oppressors, is The Right Thing To Do. And the victims' perspective and realities is clearly an irrelevance. Who cares who or what they saw coming for them? Who cares that they died because this was a male, because of male violence? Who cares about their truth? And my right, to read about this and understand the implication, that trans women do show the same patterns of offending as men, and females are safer to me? Other people's - Canadian women's - right to know that, and make decisions about their safety accordingly in Canada's 'trans-inclusive' spaces? Simply our right to read the fucking news and focus on the truth and the tragedy, and not the politics, of it? And also, what about genuinely vulnerable trans people's right not to be associated with mendacity, not to be caught up in this growing tidal wave of suspicion and anxiety about their identities?

It's so, so, so, so upsetting.

So upsetting.

“Female in a dress with brown hair” was definitely channelling the “Welsh Choirboy” euphemism vibes.

Beeb is now using “Presumed attacker”.

Theres pictures of two wildly different individuals circulating. Its fairly obvious. I haven't mentioned what the subreddit being mention for a reason. I've said to lets see where this is going. I suspect we are going to see some incelly shite appearing sooner rather than later though, simply because the pattern of mass shootings across the board is fairly consistent. If its correct, it will blow up fairly rapidly though and is going to look embarassing for authorities.

I get the impression the Mail is definitely gearing up for that as it is.

Even after we knew the offender was a male, the BBC were still saying that they were initially looking for a female in a dress. There was no need for that.

Not wishing to deflect from this, but assisted dying in Canada is terrifying and I believe the authorities, are using it to avoid healthcare costs on very vulnerable people.

As soon as I saw the first reports of this and they said the shooter was a "female in a dress" I thought, it's going to be a male in a dress.

Even when they are actively involved in mass murder their delusions about gender have to be centred in case feelings are hurt. It is insane.

I think many of us posting on this board have already seen the pics of the other man floating around with the correction that it is not him. AIBU don’t seem to have caught up yet.

Whenever I read about how captured Canada is on the issue of trans, I'm reminded of that excellent documentary that Liz Carr made on the issue of assisted dying. She visited Canada and explored how horrifyingly out of hand and perverse their system of assisted dying has become - how an initially humane impulse has been converted into a grotesque parody of compassion.

There was a Canadian official involved in the administration of assisted dying who was interviewed by Carr, and she was positively creepy, genuinely strange.

All of that seems to resonate with how the trans issue has developed there. A kind society that seems to have corrupted what began as kindness into something surreal and frightening.

Please can posters on this thread be sensible with their posts,

The thread in AIBU has a photo posted which is not of the killer.

Interesting sub reddit being mentioned...
... lets see where reporting goes.

I think this seems likely.

However it also looks like they are setting up the authorities for criticism in the way they've worded it too.

I don't doubt they are. Because they're as capable as anyone else of looking on the sites that give a name and details of the shooter.

They're sticking by IPSO rules for now, whilst preparing a rant for when/if the truth comes out in an undeniable form. And the rant wouldn't be unjustified.

Could it be that the BBC have to regurgitate whatever Canadian authorities have said and Canadian authorities are very captured?

Radio 2 news at 10.00, still saying ‘described as a female with brown hair, dress’, followed by ‘name and gender not yet released’.

This is a nonsense. I am no researcher, but early this morning, when unable to sleep, I read about this and thought immediately that won’t be a woman. Within 10 minutes I managed to find photos and reports that confirmed that it was indeed NOT A WOMAN.

What I want to know is why is the BBC still reporting this misinformation? How can they justify this? This doesn’t fit within their impartiality, truth guidelines.
Surely an easy win here would be to cut out the ‘female/dress/brown hair’ and just say that the Canadian authorities have not yet released a name or gender of the shooter.

The damage is done, for years to come people will incorrectly refer to the ‘female’ that killed those poor children in Canada.

As a matter of interest I've looked at the wording being used in the Fail.

It says in the main article:
"The shooter, believed to be a woman, appeared to have died from a self inflicted gunshot wound at the scene"

"The attacker has not yet been named and their motive remains unclear. They were described as a 'female in a dress with brown hair', according to an emergency alert sent to phones.

"He did not confirm if the suspect found dead at the school is the same person described as a woman in a dress with brown hair an [sic - this is what the Mail have written) the active shooter alert sent out on Tuesday"

There are no references to gender. So arguably its actually currently worse than the BBC. However it also looks like they are setting up the authorities for criticism in the way they've worded it too.

Yes but being confused about actual sex when confronted by an individual in a dress just really isn't a thing. Men and older teen boys still look like men or older teen boys, no matter what they wear. Their gait, their muscle structure. Their lower jaw structure. How they move and run. The descriptor given by an eye witness is more likely to be 'male teenager wearing a dress' than an accidental 'woman in a dress, oh, oops'.

(I meant to reply to the post above the quote)

That is EXACTLY what will happen. It will be the fault of evil TERFs: women in general (who are gatekeeping the identity of 'woman' to the exclusion of The Most Marginalised, Vulnerable And Oppressed) and quite probably JKR specifically.

I miss when we felt bad for the actual victims rather than the perpetrator.

This being Canada, it's highly likely to be recorded as a crime committed by a woman.

There will inevitably be a long line apologists lining up with an outpouring of sympathy for this poor, misunderstood woman who was much maligned and rejected by a cruel, heartless proportion of mainstream society, which caused her to need to do this heinous thing. It was clearly a cry for help and an act of desperation against the unfairness of a world that refused to accept her as the authentic woman that she was .

We have all been warned that trans-identified people are at a high risk of suicide so we should hang our heads in shame that we didn't make life easier for her before she felt she had no choice but kill herself while murdering several others. Or some such shit.

Mark my words, tiktok and X and Threads will be full of it.

To be very it was deleted very quickly it disappeared as soon as I'd read it

More on the ball than me!

God, this annoys me. Why is it so hard for media to be honest? This was not a woman, it was a trans-identified man. If nothing else, data matter. These are not the crimes of a woman.