Jeremy Vine’s justification for calling a rapist “Karen”

[speakingwoman]

Vine said this:

“As a broadcaster I have to call this person “she” or there would be complaints under the Broadcasting Code and they would be upheld against me.”

I would be grateful for any information about whether this is true. What is this “Broadcasting Code” and what is its force. If it is true, it seems to me to have serious implications.

Doesn't explain the matey calling of a rapist by thrir first name though, does it? Usually such a convicted offender is referred to by their surname.

Good point.

Since when, in our 'civilised' society, do we address convicted rapists by their first names? Since when do we afford respect and consideration to convicted predators who hurt women?

This man deserves no decency.

Ian White also referred to Wood as”Karen” on BBC (Yorkshire).
Has any rapist ever been referred to as Matt, or Pete or Edgar on the BBC?

This is really confusing.

Nobody refers to Myra Hindley as just ‘Myra’.

I’ve never actually thought about it but your absolutely right.

‘Sir Jimmy’ became ‘Savile’ overnight after his crimes emerged.

Exactly. Yet two BBC broadcasters did this within 24 hrs of each other?
Is this something their bosses instructed them to do? Are we entitled to find out?

Mostly, they use a surname usually.

There was a reference from Mr Wright (formerly of the Wright Stuff) on his radio broadcast to an Ofcom Guide which I haven't found.

And “Sir Jimmy” had not been convicted of anything....whereas Stephen Wood had.
What is going on?

It's clear the aim is to highlight that this person is "female". A surname alone won't do that.

it's a warped sense of being respectful to the person's new gender and it's sick.

I don’t think Ian Huntley is ever referred to as Ian either.

The only British criminal commonly referred to by a forename is Jack the Ripper.

Well, I'd be ok with Vine referring to Karen White as 'Karen the rapist'.

www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/

I’d be interested to know where broadcasting guidance says that you need to call any rapist and child abusers by their first name?

Also it’s been reported in other media today that this child abuser and woman rapist has no GRC. Assuming this is correct... he is still legally a man. No need to call him anything else?

It's clear the aim is to highlight that this person is "female". A surname alone won't do that

Is It?

Or is it the only way they have of highlighting the absurdity if the situation?

Because that alone is going to peak a few people who hadn't given it much thought at all...

I heard it, and, yes, I thought it was to point out the absurdity. It was also noticeable that Becky's voice jarred with the name, and while Becky's chromosomes are unknown to me, I would assume, and all other listeners could perceive, there is likely to be a y in there.

I think the tide is turning, slowly, and debate is opening up.

I don't see it as matey. I see it as the only way they have of highlighting the absurdity.

Referring to this male rapist by only the feminine first name they chose for themselves sends the message that JV does not consider them to be female, as he does not report on women in that way.

The way we use first name only, surname only, or both, including or dropping titles, sends strong messages regarding status and respect.

I was listening to Jeremy on the radio and he was saying she. I think a lady said he but Jeremy corrected her and said she needs to be called she, but it does sound as if Jeremy was really struggling. At the end he did slip up and say he and apologised quickly correcting it to she. I don't think my brain would cope with using the wrong pronouns. Too confusing.

I also find it difficult to read about the case because my brain wants to read he when i see the pictures and know the subject matter, and I am trying to read she. It's like when they do that trick and the coloured words are written as the wrong colour, so say they write blue but it is in red font. The brain knows what it wants to see.

There is so much double speak that it's so incredibly difficult to see the truth and to see those that are pushing the truth.

rememberatime Fri 12-Oct-18 20:54:59

It's clear the aim is to highlight that this person is "female". A surname alone won't do that.

We could hope* that what JV and IW are doing is drawing attention to the nonsense of having to refer to a male rapist as 'she'.

*I'm an optimist

The BBC writes: ' And it is a standard of our journalism to refer to a subject by their preferred pronoun.'

PPs, you are spot on when you say that 'White' won't show the BBC's commitment to honouring White's claim of womanhood. If they say "Karen" enough times they hope it just might come true.

And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

It's clear the aim is to highlight that this person is "female". A surname alone won't do that

The public don't seem to be agreeing do they, in fact more and more of the public goodwill is disappearing.

Mumsnet is a bubble of well-informed women capable of critical thinking. Sadly, the world at large invariably isn't the same and many, many people have no idea of the legal definition of rape. They will hear Karen and rapist and believe that a woman has raped someone. The finer points will be lost on them.

I don't think they will this time Truck pleanty of newspapers have published Karen Picture.

And mentioned her penis, Even jeremy Vine.

I hope you're right Captain but sadly, I reckon a large sway of the population aren't aware that only men can rape. I believe many people are very blurred on this issue.