More 'unbiased' reporting from the BBC about lgbTq hate crimes

[WTFIsAGleepglorp]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46543874

Although there is a homosexual boy quoted, there's no lesbian and the article is dominated by the trans boy.

Interesting statistics showing that most transphobic hate crimes are committed by young people rather than by the militant middle aged white women we all know are the real villains.

Funny, of all the thousands & thousands of "hate crimes" discussed here, the BBC chose to detail only two. One was a physical assault allegedly committed against a teenage trans male, Alex Jones, who says his attacker hit him. Somehow the BBC counts this as an official "hate crime" when the story states outright that there was not enough evidence for the police to proceed.

The other "hate crime" the BBC chose to detail here was a verbal attack on a gay man in which the assailant insulted him with homophobic slurs, then threatened to beat him up.

In both cases, the assailants were women, & the victims male or IDing as male. I call BS.

BS as well: the BBC's decision to present information on the assailants by age-groups only. Why not also by the assailants' sex? Surely that would be telling.

More BS: look at the misleading way the numbers are presented in the first two bar graphs. The vertical bars in the graphs are sized exactly the same, giving the first-glance impression that hate crimes against transgender people are as common homophobic hate crimes against gays & lesbians. But the bars in the homophobic hate crime graph correspond to the numbers 2500, 5000 & 7500, whereas the "same" bars in the trans hate crime graph correspond to 200, 400 & 600. Talk about false equivalency! The trans graph visually inflates the numbers by more than 10 times in a bald-faced attempt to give the impression that trans hate crime is much, much more prevalent than it is.

Nowhere does the BBC simply give us the aggregate numbers of how many hate crimes against the two groups were committed during the period - 2014- 2017 - that BBC analysts studied. The story does say "In total more than 90,000 hate crimes of all kinds - including race, religion and disability - were recorded by police in the year ending March 2018." But how many of these were anti-LGB & how many were anti-trans? Since those two kinds of hate crime are the focus of the story, why not tell us how many of those occurred?

Maybe because the facts don't support the BBC & MSM narrative about how trans people in the Western world today are the most oppressed, victimized, marginalized, downtrodden, put-upon, discriminated against, abused, violated, unfairly-treated group in human history ever.

Another problem with the first two bar graphs the BBC provides: there's a marked, indeed huge, unexplained discrepancy between the number of hate crime victims & perpetrators. For example, the transgender hate crime graph 2014-17 shows approximately 3300 victims over the four years but fewer than 1000 assailants. This suggests that each perp is attacking multiple trans victims, either all at once or on separate occasions.

This doesn't jibe with what we know historically about homophobic attacks, where it's more likely that pairs or groups of perpetrators (mostly/usually males) will attack gay & lesbian individuals or couples. But the BBC's graphs imply that the most common hate crime scenario today is for LGBT people in groups of three or more to be attacked all at once by lone assailants - or for LGBT individuals to be attacked by a relatively small number of hardcore serial offenders who commit multiple different anti-LGBT attacks on different persons at different times.

And the carefully-chosen anecdotal evidence the BBC provides in the text further implies that in the four years from 2014-17, most of the lone attackers assaulting lesbians, gays & trans people in the UK were women.

Thanks for elucidating it so clearly Vegilante. The bias is appalling.

Do use the complaint form to explain your thinking Vegilante. It is important that we use what power we have to try and address this.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/46453958

The bbc have really been pushing their agenda this week.

McKinnon argues there is "no such thing as a level playing field" anyway.

People can say that cis gender [people whose gender matches that of their birth sex] men are 8-12% stronger than cis gender women, and I'm willing to accept that figure for the sake of argument.

But we have to recognise that the average difference between men and women is far smaller than between the weakest and strongest woman, or the shortest and tallest woman

But this is INSANE!!!!! In what deluded world is there a greater difference in strength between a tall and a short woman and a woman and a man??

Jesus wept.

I tried posting a complaint on the BBC website, but after filling in the box/section where the complaint goes, the site bumped me back to the very first question again, as though I hadn't written/entered anything or answered any of the questions. Everything I wrote vanished & I was back at square one.

This is my first time making a complaint on the BBC website. Is there a trick to it I might've missed?

In both cases, the assailants were women, & the victims male or IDing as male. I call BS

Me too. That seems really really atypical. Unless hate crime has changed out of all recognition, men commit the vast majority of it.

But the BBC now has a specialist trans correspondent. Should they not be getting on top of the stats and be in a position to ensure that there is an overall balance in stories.

But the BBC now has a specialist trans correspondent. Should they not be getting on top of the stats and be in a position to ensure that there is an overall balance in stories

Presumably this story is designed to do exactly that

Presumably they have 52 dedicated specialist women correspondents as well. For balance...

But the BBC's graphs imply that the most common hate crime scenario today is for LGBT people in groups of three or more to be attacked all at once by lone assailants - or for LGBT individuals to be attacked by a relatively small number of hardcore serial offenders

Is this just because a lot of the time the perpetrators are unknown? I can't help wondering if it is because many "hate crimes" occur online, and large groups of people may be harassing individuals, using hate crime reports to the police as a tool. I wish the BBC had explained these statistics better. What a terrible article.

This was the 'if you only read one thing today' story.

It's propaganda.

Did you also spot that the 'expert' blames the debate on Self-ID for inciting hate crime?

"It's possible that changes to society have also contributed to the rise in hate crimes, she added. This year the government launched a consultation on the Gender Recognition Act following calls to make it easier for individuals to change their legal gender.

The event was one of a number that revealed "pervasive hostility" towards the trans population, according to Dr Hardy."

Yeah, yeah.

The bbc have lost all my respect.

Home Star - good point. It occurred to me too, especially as the BBC named the perps "suspects", suggesting they might've been referring to alleged assailants who have been identified & pursued by the police. But if that's the case, they should've clearly stated what they meant.

One of the obvious problems with the article is that it seems to conflate real hate crimes that happen IRL (like physical assault, GBH, vandalism & all the transphobic murders we're always hearing about) with all the "non-crime hate incidents" (like hurty words on the internet, dirty looks from strangers passing by on the street, or being "misgendered" by a shop clerk, the horror the horror) that woke UK police are encouraging people report to authorities nowadays.

When genuine hate crimes against persons occur in the physical, material real world, many victims probably could not name nor give a detailed & accurate physical description of their assailant(s). But they should be able to tell police whether they were attacked by a lone individual, a pair, or a group of three or more. And they should also be able to say whether they were alone, with another person, or in a group of three or more when the attack occurred. This sort of information would be genuinely illuminating & helpful to know for a variety of reasons. Instead, the BBC gives a confusing graph comparing numbers of victims to numbers of assailants/perps/suspects that raises more questions than it answers & can only lead to speculation such as mine that might well be erroneous.

Another problem with the BBC's report & graphs is that "hate crimes" should probably be counted by the number of criminal acts committed, not by the number of "victims". Many hate crimes, such as vandalizing a place of worship or spray-painting swastikas on buildings, are crimes against property, not persons, so it's hard to say exactly who the victims are & how many in each case. When four UK individuals were convicted of hate crimes for leaving bacon sandwiches at the door of a mosque in Bristol in 2016, how would the BBC tally the number of victims? Were all the members of that mosque the victims, or only the ones who saw the sandwiches? Or were all the Muslims in Bristol - or in the UK or on earth, for that matter - the victims in that case? Similarly, when Count Dankula was convicted of a hate crime for teaching a dog to give the Nazi salute to annoy his girlfriend, who was the victim - the GF? Everyone of us who finds the Nazis abhorrent?

Even in the case of bona fide hate crimes against persons, determining who's the victim(s) can be tricky, especially today when so many people are eager to appropriate other people's suffering to claim or enhance their own victim status. If I'm with my 11 friends leaving a restaurant after our NYs celebration & some guy approaches, calls us dykes & kicks one of us, are all 12 of us victims of a hate crime? Or is only the person the perp actually assaulted the victim?

What a can of worms. And the BBC is not fit for purpose.