Page 4 | Inaccurate BBC story - Trans identified male

WineIsMyCarb · 2024-06-01T06:14:30+00:00

Bbc Sussex has described trans identified male murderer as 'woman' throughout story, with no reference at all to his sex or trans identity. [[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp00de3r3qro https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp00de3r3qro]] If you wish to complain about this inaccurate reporting of a male's violent crime, the bbc's complaints link is here: [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints]]

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 00:23

dessyh · 17/07/2024 23:14

The police press release didn't just say woman, it named the culprit, so I'm surprised no journos at the BBC or the DM did a quick copy paste on that fairly unusual name + Brighton. Why would no one gather basic info like accused's job, a pic of them on their socials, previous news reports etc. if only for their own info. The bbc article could have been updated too, which I think is the gist of the thread.

Show quote history

You can’t say culprit. Innocent until proven guilty. The release with the name went out very close to the court date. Either on the day or the night before. It’s not a particularly unusual name and I wouldn’t think a 70-year-old would have a job. Are there any other BBC stories on this case?

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 00:25

OldCrone · 17/07/2024 15:10

The same way the Daily Mail reporter found out.

Show quote history

I’m the reporter who wrote the MailOnline story. We found out by going to court and seeing the accused in the dock.

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 00:30

Ereshkigalangcleg · 17/07/2024 22:00

People are understandably fed up of being lied to on this issue. They aren't interested in excuses why we should blame the police more than journalists. The media need to push back, they have more clout than the women on this site do. It's hardly like the BBC is a tiny, powerless organisation, and we're all aware of their biases on this issue.

I’m sure any BBC reporter would be happy to push back. The issue here isn’t about people being lied to on this issue by the BBC - it’s a question about policy decisions and the influence of the PR industry.

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 00:35

OldCrone · 17/07/2024 22:13

The starting point for this thread is making assumptions about how the BBC operates and how their news gathering works.

The BBC employs journalists. They don't just reproduce press releases with no input. Some of their journalists do real investigative journalism, as Hannah Barnes did when she worked for them..

The BBC had as much opportunity as any other news outlet to find out the facts of the case before reporting on it. They either chose not to, or decided to go with misinformation in full knowledge that they were lying.

Edited

I agree, up to a point. Yes, every news gathering operation makes a decision about which stories to cover. Full knowledge they were lying? How would they know until somebody else finds out if they’ve chosen to go with what a trusted source - Sussex Police.

dessyh · 18/07/2024 00:40

Ok Barry - the accused. Im not writing an article here. You've picked up on that but seem to be suggesting that spending a few seconds googling a name like Joanna Rowland-Stuart plus Brighton isn't an obvious thing for a journalist to do. There was plenty of info from their job, previous jobs, news reports. The press release is dated 31st of May. Don't know if there are any others on the bbc or why that changes what you're saying about this one.

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 00:41

Catiette · 17/07/2024 23:46

I’m conscious I’m not aware how these things work, but…

The idea that reporters may be finding themselves surprised in court does seem to suggest how problematic the current standards & practices for recording & reporting such crimes are, though.

As such, would you (Barry) agree with associated concerns - that the BBC’s remiss in not covering this debate sufficiently thoroughly for many even to be aware of the potential for such confusion? People are reading these articles & forming opinions - whether justified or not - about female & trans women’s crime rates based on a misapprehension.

I do feel this degrades trust & - ironically - risks fomenting an avoidable wariness in readers “in the know” when reading about these issues that’s of no benefit to trans people themselves…

Edited

There was no debate present until we saw the defendant in the dock. Up to that point, we were expecting to see a woman. This story wasn’t part of the debate until then. I’ve no idea if the BBC are covering this debate sufficiently thoroughly. I do know this story didn’t appear to be part of it in the beginning.

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 00:49

dessyh · 18/07/2024 00:40

Ok Barry - the accused. Im not writing an article here. You've picked up on that but seem to be suggesting that spending a few seconds googling a name like Joanna Rowland-Stuart plus Brighton isn't an obvious thing for a journalist to do. There was plenty of info from their job, previous jobs, news reports. The press release is dated 31st of May. Don't know if there are any others on the bbc or why that changes what you're saying about this one.

The press release from the cops went out at 0740 on May 31. The release gave details of the first court appearance - also May 31. Court starts at 1000. The police press release says a woman has been charged with murdering her husband.
I’m really not trying to defend the BBC. The issue here, as I see it, is had nobody gone to court this would still have been reported as woman kills husband.

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 00:53

WearyLady · 17/07/2024 23:58

I agree with all of what was said by @dessyh and I'd also add that this was a very unusual crime, particularly so for a woman to commit. I'm not an investigative journalist but I now question the veracity of any unusual crimes committed by women and will do further research myself. I'd expect someone whose job is to investigate and report to do at least as much as this.

Which is what happened.
You’re right, female murderers are unusual. I think the point here is the suspect in this one isn’t female.

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 01:01

Catiette · 17/07/2024 12:04

I’m unclear what’s “wrong” about wanting the national broadcaster to do due diligence in the same way as (a minority of, in this case) other outlets in order to check & report facts accurately.

If you’re suggesting that the police AND BBC are at fault - the former for misleading press releases & the latter for a lack of appropriate rigour in writing these up - I totally agree.

Edited

Show quote history

Expecting the BBC, or anybody else, to drop the idea of taking a police press releases at face value is a great idea which I fully support. Pay me more money and expenses and I’ll run every single one into the ground.

dessyh · 18/07/2024 01:02

Well, as we're being super factual it went out at 7:50. Still over two hours for any journalist with a computer or a mobile to have the most basic of a nosey at an array of info widely available on the accused due in court that morning. We've already gone over that the police release said 'woman' and I've already pointed out it also said the accused's not common name. I'm sure someone would have put two and two together at some point and tipped someone off but yes it's very good you went to court regardless.

OldCrone · 18/07/2024 05:54

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 00:25

I’m the reporter who wrote the MailOnline story. We found out by going to court and seeing the accused in the dock.

Show quote history

I made the second post on this thread, 20 minutes after the thread was posted. It took me only a few minutes to find the article in the Mail and post the relevant information on here. What prevented the BBC reporter from doing the same? Who took the photo of the defendant outside the court for them?

A quick search of this person's name and they would have had all the other info posted on this thread and they could have corrected their article. I conclude that the reason they didn't do this is because they wanted to mislead the public. What other reason could there be?

Why are you so keen to defend the BBC?

BeethovenNinth · 18/07/2024 05:57

More to the point, is this recorded as a female crime I wonder? Because that is horrific if so.

OldCrone · 18/07/2024 06:32

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 00:49

The press release from the cops went out at 0740 on May 31. The release gave details of the first court appearance - also May 31. Court starts at 1000. The police press release says a woman has been charged with murdering her husband.
I’m really not trying to defend the BBC. The issue here, as I see it, is had nobody gone to court this would still have been reported as woman kills husband.

Show quote history

The issue here, as I see it, is had nobody gone to court this would still have been reported as woman kills husband.

The issue as I see it is that despite you going to court and publishing the correct information about this person's sex, 3 days later, the BBC was still referring to him as a woman in another article (although I notice they have just attributed this article to a news agency, presumably in order to deny responsibility for the misinformation).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nnz2w02pzo

Even without you going to court, there was enough information about this individual online for us to discover the truth. The OP had done their own research before posting this thread. But none of that is enough to stop the constant flow of misinformation from the police and much of the media.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/06/04/stop-lying-about-the-sex-of-suspected-murderers

Stop lying about the sex of suspected murderers

A man alleged to have killed his husband with a samurai sword should not be treated as a woman.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/06/04/stop-lying-about-the-sex-of-suspected-murderers

TemuSpecialBuy · 18/07/2024 06:38

PronounssheRa · 01/06/2024 07:48

The accused worked for the Brighton and Hove LGBT Community Safety Forum and as a Transgender rep with civil service LGBT group Proud.

And then went on to commit murder with a sword... you couldn't make this shit up.

Soontobe60 · 18/07/2024 06:47

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 00:23

You can’t say culprit. Innocent until proven guilty. The release with the name went out very close to the court date. Either on the day or the night before. It’s not a particularly unusual name and I wouldn’t think a 70-year-old would have a job. Are there any other BBC stories on this case?

Show quote history

What IS unusual is for a 70 year old woman to have killed her 70 year old husband.
Unusual enough to spark some interest in a journalist to dig a bit into the names of both defendant and victim. A quick 2 minute google search would have shown the defendant is male.

TemuSpecialBuy · 18/07/2024 06:49

I've complained

WarriorN · 18/07/2024 06:53

Surely we are now at a point where any report of a woman committing an extremely violent or sexualised crime needs to be considered doubtful and cross checked. By all journalists.

News reports are historical sources. They're re writing history by not checking their facts.

The irony of bbc fact check .... 🤨

Mummyoflittledragon · 18/07/2024 07:36

WarriorN · 18/07/2024 06:53

Surely we are now at a point where any report of a woman committing an extremely violent or sexualised crime needs to be considered doubtful and cross checked. By all journalists.

News reports are historical sources. They're re writing history by not checking their facts.

The irony of bbc fact check .... 🤨

This is true. And would have been very easy in this case.

SickOfThisSht · 18/07/2024 07:48

BeethovenNinth · 18/07/2024 05:57

More to the point, is this recorded as a female crime I wonder? Because that is horrific if so.

That’s a very good question. Is there any way to check?

I am quite interested to see if female crime statistics are being skewed by ideology. (I know there is a lot of chatter that it is but I would have no idea where to begin looking at facts on this myself)

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 08:32

It’s not a statistic till somebody is convicted.

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 08:33

Mummyoflittledragon · 18/07/2024 07:36

This is true. And would have been very easy in this case.

Show quote history

It was and I did it.

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 08:34

Soontobe60 · 18/07/2024 06:47

What IS unusual is for a 70 year old woman to have killed her 70 year old husband.
Unusual enough to spark some interest in a journalist to dig a bit into the names of both defendant and victim. A quick 2 minute google search would have shown the defendant is male.

Show quote history

Absolutely. This is what happened.

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 08:37

OldCrone · 18/07/2024 06:32

The issue here, as I see it, is had nobody gone to court this would still have been reported as woman kills husband.

The issue as I see it is that despite you going to court and publishing the correct information about this person's sex, 3 days later, the BBC was still referring to him as a woman in another article (although I notice they have just attributed this article to a news agency, presumably in order to deny responsibility for the misinformation).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nnz2w02pzo

Even without you going to court, there was enough information about this individual online for us to discover the truth. The OP had done their own research before posting this thread. But none of that is enough to stop the constant flow of misinformation from the police and much of the media.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/06/04/stop-lying-about-the-sex-of-suspected-murderers

Show quote history

Not overly impressed with Spiked. They ignored requests to remove our picture they’d lifted off the web until we threatened legal action for breach of copyright. The author never got back to me, as the reporter whose copy they used as the basis for their piece, to discuss issues with it.

unclebarry · 18/07/2024 08:40

OldCrone · 18/07/2024 05:54

I made the second post on this thread, 20 minutes after the thread was posted. It took me only a few minutes to find the article in the Mail and post the relevant information on here. What prevented the BBC reporter from doing the same? Who took the photo of the defendant outside the court for them?

A quick search of this person's name and they would have had all the other info posted on this thread and they could have corrected their article. I conclude that the reason they didn't do this is because they wanted to mislead the public. What other reason could there be?

Why are you so keen to defend the BBC?

Show quote history

I’m not defending the BBC. They didn’t get the copy I wrote which the mailonline used. They didn’t have anybody in court. The BBC are bound by their editorial rules on using trusted sources. One of which is the police.

MsNorburry · 18/07/2024 08:40

I worry about recording stats too. Soon we'll be told STATISTICS prove women are as violent as men so, no funding to women's refuges et cetera