BBC News does not inform readers cat killer and murderer Scarlett Blake is transgender in this article. I intend to complain to ofcom. These are not our crimes.

[Heylo]

Has anyone seen this recent article on the transgender (trans woman) Scarlett Blake who was sentenced to 24 years today for murdering a man. Blake also killed a cat. Pls see this recent article from bbc news. BBC news puts nowhere in article that Blake is transgender. Uses pronouns ‘she’ and refers to Blake as a woman.

bbc article here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-68401335

These are not our crimes. I am reporting the omission of the fact Blake is transgender to Ofcom. I wonder if anyone is thinking the same (about reporting to ofcom, here is the link: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/complaints )

The comments currently on the independent piece... wonder if they'll be permitted to stay?

She was brilliant!

Worth replaying, or will I risk my molars from the resultant teeth-grinding?

Yes listen. Kathie the ex police officer was outstanding and Jeremy did defend why people believe the truth matters imo.

Definitely worth replaying, the messages in from the listeners he read at the end were very much ‘this has been misleading’. And Caroline Cheetham (apologies if misspelled) is a journalism lecturer (and she hosts the Trial podcast too) said the same. It’s blatantly misleading.

Have emailed the beeb with concerns-
don’t know if it’ll do any good
Felt better for sending it though 🤔

Yes, the Police Officer was wonderful!
The trans identified male seemed more concerned about the cat and not the human murdered.
It absolutely matters that these heinous crimes committed by XY are logged as biologically male.

Well Jayne had a very XY set of vocal chords .

Here's your real point. You are clearly male. You do not like the slogan "not our crimes" because you feel indignant as if somehow you personally are being blamed for all crimes committed by males.

I base this on the fact that you said "it implies that the crimes of an individual are the responsibility of or ‘owned by’ people who share a characteristic with that individual".

No, it does not imply any 'responsibility' in that way. No more than I am 'responsible' for Lucy Letby's crimes because she's female and so am I. But I accept 100% that she belongs to the same sex class as me. I don't feel personally blamed by that fact.

Male violence is a big problem in society. Men need to step up and address it. Not get personally butt-hurt because they feel they're being got at. As the 10th rule of misogyny says, "the worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad".

So we will keep on using our supposed "shit slogan that actually is pretty nasty", thanks. It's actually proved to be very effective over the past few days because it's highlighted the problem of language manipulation in the media. And if some men don't like it, well they need to deal with that.

This. It's a pithy hashtag that makes an important point. JK Rowling did not coin it, it's been used for a long time by women.

So-called 'puberty blockers' are actually hormone blockers that work on adults as well as adolescents going through puberty. They reduce the production of sex hormones, so males who want to be women are given them to reduce their testosterone. Once they've been castrated they don't need to take them any more.

In the Times today they report on JKRs statement and are allowing comments atm.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-trans-murderer-scarlet-blake-is-not-a-woman-t9p82sfc8

It's a little bit vexing how that article dismisses this as a "row over pronouns" when it's really about journalistic integrity and asking that readers be truthfully informed.

Lazy / activist journalists being lazy / expressing their activism again. It’s a self-sustaining loop 🧐

It also annoys me how often any sort of discussion about women’s boundaries and safe spaces is categorised as a “trans rights” issue and how seldom it’s accurately describes as what it is… Women’s rights to safe spaces.

Whatever happened to WHO WHAT WHERE WHEN WHY HOW?
When I was taught about the fundamentals of writing a press release (1970s) and later on how to write news (newsletter training for third sector, but taught at The Guardian in 1990s), these were the questions I was told that any reporter needed to try to answer. I was also told that these things need to be answered at the start because readers often do not read beyond the start.

For so many of the mainstream media titles reporting this case - including the BBC - to feel that the 'who' in the Scarlett Blake case is answered by the word 'woman' rather than 'transwoman' or 'man' is very concerning. Particularly as the name in this case (in common with cases involving transgender participants) has been changed to reflect a woman's name and is not indicative of biological sex.

Its not always necessary to know the biological sex of the people being reported on, any more than its necessary to know their age, body size, employment and home ownership status or sex life. (Although these often are reported on as though of public interest). Had Scarlett Blake been reported on as being a victim or witness of a crime then there would most likely be no reason to mention trans status or biological sex, unless it was thought to be a material factor in answering the why/how questions. (See Andrew Miller case for why it might). This is decent restraint connected to privacy.

HOWEVER Brianna Ghey was reported widely as a being transwoman in mainstream media from the earliest stage. This was because this was thought to be the reason for that murder. It was also likely that this was because it was thought to be of interest in a clickbait sense. Was Brianna's trans status material? It was a reasonable assumption given the claims about violence and abuse directed at LGBTQ+ people. In the end it was proven in court that this was not the main factor in selecting Brianna as victim (and it may not have been a factor at all), but the trans focus remained within this story.

Hypothesis: if the victim is trans then MSM are likely to report this in as a key factor, if the accused is trans then they feel there is no reason to mention this (even if - see Miller - there have been cases where the transID made the victim more willing to go along with the accused). From reading the reporting of the Scarlett Blake trial in more detail (which most people will not do, but journalists/researchers should have) part of Scarlett's defence was that although biologically male they were not possessed of normal male strength (the 'unfit female' defence), as they did not build muscle inconsistent with their trans ID. So transID was not absent from the case/defence.

For so many news sources to have NOT mentioned that the accused was biologically male suggests either there has been a material shift from the who, what, where, when, why, or that even where there is no GRC TWAW, no question. Unless the trans person was a victim in which case this needs to be fully flagged up.

No-one appears to have mentioned in this thread that the BBC is funded by taxpayers. It's audience is everyone - not only subscribers who self-select.
I would love to see some research about what people of all backgrounds (the BBC audience) understand by 'transwoman' or 'trans woman'. Crowdfunding that research would be very worthwhile. As well as losing sight of the Who, What, Where, When, How and Why main stream media seem to have thrown Plain English under the bus.

Indeed.

1. It's not just pronouns, more importantly perhaps it's nouns - print, broadcast and internet media all describing the murderer as a woman - a noun, for the grammatically challenged scribblers in these media.

2. How come it's now "just pronouns"? I though not using the desired pronouns was literal violence, genocide, annihilation.

Tbf Miller was reported as male, with the addenda that he dressed as a woman, also used a female name, etc. But it was at his discretion. He decided to use his male id when charged*. If he'd gone with his feminine alter-ego the press would have gone along with it, as would the police and the courts.

*there's speculation he's saving the female one as a pristine id to use when he's released.

There's also an angle of the court telling people not to lie but also, simultaneously, lying and telling people to lie about sex. It's a really Orwellian and concerning state of affairs in our justice system - there is a massive story right there quite aside from this one case.

The judge used wrong sex pronouns for Blake. This is institutional bias towards accommodating the desires of the accused over evidence based reality. It heaps harms upon the victims family. Why should they care about the murderer's pronouns or identity? Blake destroyed Jorge's life - not caring about his identity or wishes, and the press have just assumed Jorge's pronouns. He's not alive to say what he'd prefer.

If you watch the video of Blake it's clear he's male. I find it quite troubling and upsetting to see Judges lying about material reality which is extremely relevant when it comes to violent crime such as murder.

And with absolutely no consideration of the impact of their lies about sex on the victim's family, who are the most vulnerable in this situation.

Where's the impact assessment considering impact on victims?

Great posts.
This needs some investigative journalism that sets out for the public the excessive levels of deception practiced by the judiciary, the CPS, the MoJ and the police. All working together to deceive the public about the reality of countless sex offenders, paedophiles and abusive men.
All of which negatively impacts on the safety of the public - especially children and women.

I'm sure that if the powers that be decided to label all female crime as trans crime there would be a fuss.

Ooh, Emma Barnett asking Yvette Cooper on WH right now about how this crime will be recorded.

Yvette Cooper waffling on about difference between biological sex and gender. Also said something like 'I believe there was a gender recognition process in this case'. Several direct and indirect references to the GRA.

ITV This Morning talking about this - calling him a she and (unless I missed it as didn't see the beginning) not mention of transgender?

Well they've inadvertently proved us right, that wrong sex pronouns are not just common courtesy. They have the power to stop even really intelligent journalists from being able to clearly understand issues.

Emma Barnett will be a sad loss to WH but I'm glad she will be able to expose this shit show to a much wider audience when she joins the Today programme.

There are a few threads about Blake, so I wasn't sure where to post this. Anyway

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2024/02/28/gender-injustice/

https://archive.ph/dmMJB

I'll spare the Telegraph's blushes...🤔...no I won't. The Telegraph was a bad as any other news platform and, I notice, they're careful in this Comment piece not to use any pronouns about Blake unless quoting another source. I also don't agree with the conclusion. No paperwork can make a man a woman, even if he has had all the surgeries. Also, the draconian secrecy clause in the GRA makes it impossible to know who has a GRC and dangerous to even speculate.