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.

Maybe the "confusion" between the court reporters and those who actually wrote the original story was that the court reporters had actually written about the Truth, and the writers couldn't handle the Truth (where's that gif when you need it?) so chopped it up into something Resembling the Truth.

Or what you said.

I suppose someone will be keeping tabs on him?

He sounds dangerous. Potentially another "why didn't someone stop him" sort of dangerous.
From the report, he was in possession of a weapon.
Rigby admitted the charges, along with possession of cannabis and possession of an offensive weapon in a private place.

The problem is that noone will see the updated article or the update.

The clicks for news stories is something like 95%+ in the first 24 hours .. that update was added nearly three weeks later!

Odd how none of the reddit crowd show up on threads like this.

Someone go post it there I assume they don;t know it happened...

His messages have an Incel feel to them, he's 21, sitting at home firing himself up on booze and weed, angry because there's three whole schools full of young girls who wouldn't give him the time of day.

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

I thought court reporters wrote the articles and sub/editors tweaked them for spag and word count?

Am I so old that I remember court reporters rushing to the telephones to make their dictated reports... or was that only in films which identified as real life?

I assume after the bias whistleblowing specifically highlighted Genderist bias BBC management have realised they have to be squeaky clean on this topic.

Only after numerous complaints reached someone who might worry about such things, I suspect.

Given the time gap between the original story and the updated one.

Nick Wallis has brought this to wide attention on X. Thread starts here: https://x.com/nickwallis/status/2069133598414733556?s=20

After he quotes the BBC's explanation for the changes to the report he says:

This is not an outlier. This is endemic with BBC reporting on trans issues. Men who claim/believe they are women are still called women by the BBC. Or their crimes are ignored. Or both.

I told the last BBC DG to his face last year that if he didn't get a grip on the definition of "woman" in the BBC's reporting, we are all fucked. Because if our national broadcaster can't define a woman, society will start to break down. He told me it wasn't a big story.

I implore the new DG to impose reality on his journalists. Tell them that sex is real. Drop the phrase "trans women" which confuses the audience and make clear that people who call themselves "trans women" are men.

I might believe I'm Napoleon, but the BBC would not call me Napoleon. Why extend that courtesy to men who believe they are women?

Well said.

And in Nick Wallis' thread we learn that one person who complained got a letter back which I think is worth reading because it does explain how the grossly inaccurate report happened, officially at least.

It's twenty-three posts down after Nick's posts, someone called Matt quoting "Amelia" in a different place.

I'd copy-and-paste it if I could, but I can't....

Better late than never 😬

I told the last BBC DG to his face last year that if he didn't get a grip on the definition of "woman" in the BBC's reporting, we are all fucked. Because if our national broadcaster can't define a woman, society will start to break down. He told me it wasn't a big story.

How very Hislopian.

I just don't understand how there can be a miscommunication between court reporters and report writers other than 'miscommunication' actually meaning 'deliberate and wilful misunderstanding in order to suit an agenda'. And reading the original article, it comes across as being begrudgingly written, as if the person responsible for it can't bear to write that a trans person is responsible for such crimes.

Hmm. So in the correction they're saying they had a BBC reporter in court. But in the letter it says the article was based on a police press release, suggesting no journalist in court.

Or they ignored their own reporter in favour of the police account.

[Edited for accuracy after checking wording of correctuon]

Here's the letter, for those not on X.

Here you go. I've never seen such a straightforward admission of failure from a BBC employee.

Cross post!

If there’s one person I wouldn’t argue with about what is a ‘big story’, it’d be Nick Wallis.

Yes, definitely, but, as a poster upthread said, many (most?) people who read the story the first time around will never see the additional information, unless they are looking for it.

This seems like it could be a deliberate tactic by the BBC. Like apologizing for genocide perpetrated by someone else, 400 years after it happened.

Or they genuinely are turning a corner on these issues. Time will tell.

it comes across as being begrudgingly written, as if the person responsible for it can't bear to write that a trans person is responsible for such crimes

I wonder if the BBC will update their report on the Zizians to more accurately reflect the prevalence of trans identities within the group 🤔

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy83958r2d0o

I don't think that the BBC has reporters sitting in court on the off-chance the story will be juicy. I guess at one time they would have relied on local newspaper journalists as stringers but that species is all but extinct now. I think that the Press Association do court reporting at the Old Bailey & for other prominent cases.

The letter of apology reads to me as though the original story was written without full knowledge of the case because there was no journalist in court & it was only later that the full story was made known.

Almost certainly AI though. Not that it's not genuine in that he still signed it and sent it, and not that just because a person writes something they actually believe it, but IMO even writing something you don't believe because you know you need to nevertheless necessitates an engagement with and understanding of the other pov which hiving the task off to AI doesn't.

I'm pleased to see it. Even last year the BBC would never have admitted any failure of accurate reporting - just look at how their complaints team dismissed all complaints related to women's rights, no matter how serious. The fact they put it in writing and that people are talking about it is significant.
This is yet another sign that this tanker is slowly turning - painfully slowly but it must give a message to other BBC journalists about learning to report these issues accurately.

I agree - far from ideal, but so much better than previous BBC responses to complaints.
The tanker is definitely turning, though I don't think there's anybody sitting on the deck with a glass of whiskey/whisky and a cigar just yet😁