Inaccurate BBC story - Trans identified male

[WineIsMyCarb]

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

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

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What am I supposed to notice about the dates?

The blog was published on 2nd June, the Spiked article on 4th June.

The blog mentioned both the BBC article and your article, both of which were dated 31st May.

The blog and the Spiked article also include some information about this man and his husband which isn't mentioned in your article, so your article obviously wasn't the source of that information.

The police are not a trusted source, although they may identify as a "trusted source", and the BBC may accept this self-defined identity. The police persistently lie about the sex of suspects and perpetrators of crimes.

The BBC continue to report the incorrect sex of criminals even when they know this to be untrue.

Tim Davie thinks this is acceptable.

I think June 4 might be the last day it was updated. As I said, we contacted them right away when they broke copyright on our picture of the defendant. I had access to the same material. I'm a reporter, not a journalist. I write what I know, not what I reckon.

I can't speak for Tim Davie. There are rules about reporting - especially in court when somebody has been charged.

I remember the story. Last summer, I think. I was tasked with finding the two suspects. A tall order given the police, who had a head start on me and are much better resourced, couldn't find them. A distinctive pair like these two would have stuck out - even in Crawley.
I did think at the time there was likely a very simple explanation.

That they were two men.......?

It's not misrepresenting if you don't know any different or you are accurately reporting a trusted source or a court hearing.

With respect, with regards to the BBC agenda I mentioned you are commenting on something you aren't informed on. I'm not just talking about this, which is why I said "all aspects of this issue". You can read about the problems with the BBC extensively on earlier threads dating back to 2017/18.

The BBC continue to report the incorrect sex of criminals even when they know this to be untrue.

This is also true.

I get it but when does their problem with this issue kick in?

I don't speak for the BBC.

As I said, 2017/18 when it started being reported in relation to the U.K. (rather than the US) on in mainstream media like the Mail, Times etc.

You're not expected to speak for the BBC, but understand that women on this board have good reason to be frustrated with them on this issue.

In 2017, BBC Crimewatch appealed for information about a sex offender who 'could be living as a man or a woman'. At no point did they mention that this person is male.

The name given was a female name and subsequently the Telegraph published an article about female criminals which included this individual.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/truth-female-sex-offenders/

This has been going on for a long time.

I meant with this story.

What do you mean?

When you said "when does their problem with this issue kick in?" I assumed the issue was the BBC not reporting the correct sex of criminals. What issue are you talking about?

I mean, if they have a problem with reporting on this issue, when does it kick in? Is the problem there when you report a press release from the police saying a woman has been charged or does it kick in when you find out this may not be accurate?
This has been my point from the start. The BBC report what the police tell them and there can't be an issue with this until it's shown to be unreliable.

I wouldn't normally feel the need to join any thread or comment at all.
Nobody likes what they find when they see behind the curtain.

Being generous, the initial BBC report might have been a genuine error, due to simply reproducing the information given to them by the police.

But there is no excuse for the misinformation in the second BBC article on 3rd June. This is after they had had the opportunity to read your article in the Mail and possibly other reports which indicated that this person was male.

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

But as I mentioned in my earlier post, they attributed this story to "PA Media
News Agency", presumably so that when they got the inevitable complaints they could claim they were just reproducing a news agency story, and didn't write the report. At this stage they should have been correctly reporting this person's sex, because they knew this was a man.

Our problem with the BBC is that they have repeatedly, since at least 2017, misinformed the public about the sex of male offenders who "identify as women". We can't trust the BBC, which is why, whenever they report that a woman has committed a violent crime we're always suspicious that the "woman" might actually be a man.

Sometimes the criminal turns out to be a woman, so rather than take the OP's word for it that this was a man, I did a quick search and found your article in the Mail indicating that this definitely was a man. Once your article had been published the BBC also knew this was a man so should have stopped referring to him as a woman. The 3rd June article was pure misinformation.

PA is a trusted source for the BBC.
I can't speak for PA. I think they reported the pronouns as used in court.
I was there too and included in my version the fact the defendant appeared by video link from a male prison. I'd have to check, but I think I avoided using any pronouns in my piece.
When I first posted on this thread, it was about the initial BBC piece and I pointed out all the information in it came from the cops.
I've no idea how subsequent decisions were made.

The difference is, regardless of the pronouns used, you referred to this person as a 'transwoman', which makes his sex clear (as long as people understand that a 'transwoman' is male). There was nothing to stop the BBC doing the same, but they chose instead to refer to him as a 'woman', implying he was female, and thus misinforming the public about his sex.

Mummyoflittledragon
This is true. And would have been very easy in this case.
It was and I did it.

Barry, you previously you said you went to court expecting to see a woman. You suggested it was normal for journalists to not search names because it's a common name, assume 70 year olds don't have jobs and were pushed for time.

Is it the case that you believe the bbc journalists didn't do their own basic research from information offered up by police and so didn't realise the trans aspect, as you first suggested, or that the bbc chose to go with the police line because they feared legal ramifications.

You say the bbc is bound by editorial rules on using trusted sources thereby suggesting they were forced to publish woman not trans woman, or whatever. This implies bbc editors can't query content in police press releases and that Sussex police can determine the BBC's editorial policy. If there are legal concerns around grcs the bbc can choose to write it differently to the police if they want to. Like 'Court appearance over death of Brighton man' A man has died at his home in Brighton after police were called...Joanna RS, Andrew RS legal partner, was arrested and is due in court. etc

The first article was later updated to include a court picture. details such as the defendant appearing from male prison etc could certainly have been added when that info became apparent.

Whether the BBC publishes from the police or agency, they have editorial control, they may trust those sources but still have to approach news articles as the bbc, that includes doing their own research and checking.

Before I sharpen my pencil yet again, can anyone confirm that Mr Joanna Rowland-Stuart has a penis? [however obvious the answer of yes is]

Honestly, I don't have time to walk you through the entire story or the legal process. Suffice to say, I have some understanding of how the law and the industry works and how the BBC and PA make decisions but I cannot speak for them on what they choose to report.
In short, nobody has time to check if the sex as given in every police report is correct.

Medical records are confidential in the UK.
GRCs are not routinely discussed in court either.

But this is not "every police report" it is obviously a very unusual crime for a woman to have committed. It is sensationalist and dishonest to report a male crime giving the impression that it was committed by a woman. So it is worth checking.