BBC Article updated with details "A man who admitted sending a number of threatening hoax emails to three girls schools, threatening to target pupils and staff over the "misgendering" of trans girls, has been jailed."

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0e20ll9gz2o

This went out with no details at all on the reasons or details.

Quite a comprehensive explanation at the end of the article about the update

Update 17 June: This article was originally published without including key details about this case, due to miscommunication between BBC reporters in court and the writers. We have updated the article to explain that these threats were directed at three all-girls' schools, related to the "misgendering" of trans girls and that Darren Rigby identified in one threat as a trans woman.
We have also included further details from these communications which referred to TERFs, targeting female pupils and staff and included threats to use bladed weapons, a crossbow, a revolver, and poison.
Separately, we have also added reaction from senior leaders at all three schools, in which they explain the fear, disruption and upset caused by these threats to pupils, parents and staff.
We have also included comments from Recorder Eric Lamb during sentencing that despite Rigby's guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, this was a "planned and sophisticated plot" which included measures to make him harder to trace, and the Recorder's references to defence submissions which included Rigby's heavy use of cannabis and alcohol, immaturity, previous convictions and refusals to provide medical information for two psychiatric reports.
We apologise for the failures in our reporting.

As I said on another thread, I suppose the BBC has made it clear to all exactly what it left out in its first report.

Thus drawing more attention to those facets of the case than if it had included them in the first place.

And raising, in at least some readers' minds, the question "Why did it leave those details out? What possible reason could there be?"

That update sounds like... everything people asked for at the time? Is this the first time there's been such a comprehensive response from the BBC?

Anyway, I'm glad this violent young man has been stopped before more harm was caused, but obviously it's really depressing that people are doing this in the first place.

Well, that certainly does seem to contain rather more detail than some previous reporting.

Yup, found the thread.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5538270-darren-rigby-case-salient-details-left-out-of-reporting?reply=152718115

And we got some loon or other claiming that his being trans might be the hoax, quite forgetting that anyone who says he is trans is trans, no debate.

‘Poor lamb got a bit upset and did something naughty in retaliation’.

That sounds as if the original.report left out virtually everything. Did it just say 'Man jailed'.

I wonder how many complaints it took to get the updated version posted…

Ah, Hoax-Gender. It's the new Rapist Gender. AKA "we don't like the look of this one, let's pretend he's nothing to do with us."

I haven't seen such a comprehensive update/non-apology from the BBC in years. It seems as though Hoax-Gender may have finally landed on the LGBTETC desks at the Corporation as an "acceptable get out clause."

due to miscommunication between BBC reporters in court and the writers.

My. ass.

Retaliation about what wrong done to him, though? I don't think that bit is entirely clear.

Is "hoax gender" the same as "fake trans"? Those have always been what I was worried about: men saying "I identify as a woman" and needing nothing more to gain access to women and girls in vulnerable situations which are supposed to be single sex, women-only places (rape crisis centres, prisons, hospital wards, changing rooms, and yes, public lavatories).

I think you'd have to ask the activists. It's something some have noticed being used recently, and although it's not an entirely new concept, I've never seen "fake trans" being acceptable to activists. Maybe others have?

The "hoax-gender " seems to have increased in popularity at the same rate that crime by "trans" people has been increasing in reportage (using quotes here to indicate that it seems a lot of trans-identfied people don't consider any criminal to be really trans). It can no longer be hidden, so must be explained away.

It doesn't, however, sit entirely comfortably alongside "I am trans if I say I am" and we still see activists on these threads caught out by this. Just another sign of the ideology becoming more of a Hydra, in my opinion.

It did seem pretty epic, enough for a new thread for attention!

I think the logic is:

Men won't pretend to be trans or wrongly believe themselves trans to gain access to women for sexual drivers, oh no nono they never would. Sure men will exploit and fetishise almost anything you can imagine, but they won't do that.

But bad actors will pretend to be trans in order to discredit trans people. Oh definitely for sure. Those people have no shame.

So yes fake trans might exist, but only for reasons that hurt trans people and mean we need to take even more special care of them. No extra risks for women at all.

Someone thought something mean. A girl obviously.
All those girls effortlessly exercising their girl privilege to be girls, and gatekeep their schools, races and toilets. Bitches! They had it comin’.

Oh I think I get it: "fake trans" hurt only trans-identified people, but "hoax gender" hurt everyone else indiscriminately? Is that right?

(BTW, do they have their own dictionary, in order to keep all this straight, so to speak? Or is it all in their heads? I'm really not trying to be facetious here, I'm just wondering now, who's driving this bus?)

I’ve never seen an edit note like that before. Obviously should have been right first time but good it was changed.

Another story for GB News , Tommy , Farage etc to ignore

Begs the question – why aren't the reporters in court the writers?

Is it to do with the fact the BBC employs multitudes of highly-paid reporters for TV and radio who aren't qualified to cover court cases online?

The additions/explanations do seem to make up an entire article in themselves. I'm picturing the new DG getting ahold of the complaints and the original article, reading it, going "FFS" then grabbing the nearest senior editor, saying "get down to the Alphabetti desk and Sort It Out." (or some such scenario, reminiscent of His Girl Friday. Complete with typewriters. The manual kind. ) 😁

Terrifying to think he will be back on our streets in two years, threatening women and girls again, or worse.

OG article - https://archive.is/EdpNU

1 year they only serve half inside

Blimey, that was a bit terse, wasn't it.