February 27, 2024 - 7:00am
Scarlet Blake is a dangerous man. Months after livestreaming himself torturing and killing his neighbour’s cat, the 26-year-old deliberately lured Jorge Martin Carreno to his death in the River Cherwell. Both crimes were thought to be sexually motivated. But those who’ve followed reports of the trial through the BBC might not know that Blake shares something in common with over 90% of other murderers: he is male.
BBC correspondent Duncan Kennedy, who reported on the sentencing of Blake, referred to him simply as a “woman”, as did news anchor Ben Brown. Online reports from the corporation were slightly more open about Blake’s transgender identity, with one article noting “she came out to her parents as transgender at 12.”
Such language accords with the BBC’s news style, which advises: “We generally use the term and pronoun preferred by the person in question, unless there are editorial reasons not to do so.” Nonetheless, to the casual reader it is jarring that Blake — a brutal, sadistic male killer — was referred to as “she” and “her” throughout reports of his crimes as per his preference.
As the detective overseeing the case noted, crimes such as those committed by Blake are thankfully “incredibly rare”. But they are vanishingly rare among women. This is because males, whatever their identity, are significantly more likely to be violent.
This is far from the first time the BBC has rolled over and shown its belly to trans activists. From sympathetic coverage of criminals such as Tara Hudson to Isla Bryson, the BBC has form for championing trans-identified offenders.
A 2018 survey revealed that 417 staff members at the BBC identified as trans (one in 50), which is significantly more than the proportion among the wider population (estimated by ONS as one in 200). Given these figures, it is tempting to surmise that editors at the BBC are more scared of the sensibilities of their powerful LGBTQ+ staff network than they are of the public they serve.
In obscuring the sex of offenders, the BBC may well have been following its own editorial guidelines on transgender inclusion. But the effect of performing allyship to the LGBTQ+ community was to deny its whole audience the truth. For the UK’s national broadcaster, arguably the world’s most trusted news outlet, this shows a troubling disregard for accuracy.
Notably, the BBC is less coy about reporting on the trans identity of victims. Indeed, the corporation positively drools over stories of rising hate crime among “marginalised genders” and even has dedicated LGBTQ reporters. Yet these journalists seem more interested in writing puff pieces on trans-identified pop stars and drag queens than digging into crime data. This is a shame, because arguably there are patterns which deserve to be scrutinised.
To an impartial journalist, the trans identities of perpetrators ought to be every bit as important as those of victims. Today the Telegraph reported that Ministry of Justice figures show at least 181 of the 244 transgender inmates, more than 74%, are in jail for crimes including rape, forcing children into having sex, grievous bodily harm and robbery. Tellingly, this story has yet to be picked up by the BBC.
On these issues, we need an impartial, national broadcaster more than ever. But that hope is slipping away by the day.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeOne would have thought that the key characteristic of Ms Blake was her being a murderer. Unless of course you have a vicious anti trans agenda that you are trying to push…
A murderer? So not a murderess? It is important to use the correct gendered words on this delicate topic.
Good point!
There is no such thing as “gender”. There are men and women.
At least the BBC did end with the information that “Scarlett ” will be detained in a men’s prison.
Shades of Nicola Sturgeon!
Perhaps you should read the current latest research indicating that in fact there is a Biological difference in the brain – as we know there already is in the body. Metaphysical ‘identity’ does not dictate the biological reality.
It matters. The language used can be disorienting and miss-informative.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26134791-300-new-evidence-finally-reveals-how-male-and-female-brains-really-differ/
In the early 1970s when i.became a young adult the very vocal feminist agenda was that physically boys and girls,thus young men and young women were identical,just with the odd bump here and there.
As I was young, strong,not into pink or barbie dolls and loved gardening (only boys do that) I was accepting of this idea,it seemed rational.Now it’s being found that men and women of physically the same size have very.different.muscle.strength. Its to do.with.body mass and I can’t employ the technical terms.but it’s true,even a weedy thin man.has got more inherent strength than a woman bulkier than him. And now women are playing football professionally they are.finding they.are.vulnerable to an injury the men rarely get due to internal differences in muscle composition.
And a campaign is underway to get the sports equipment redesigned to suit the female body. Smaller and lighter. (And pink?).
You should read the latest research on the biological reality of difference between women and men’s brains…..we know there is a biological difference. Feeling female, is not biological reality.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26134791-300-new-evidence-finally-reveals-how-male-and-female-brains-really-differ/
As Dr. Paul Mchugh showed, there is no science behind transgender claims and a persistent serious delusion is the definition of a psychosis. No one is helped by the western world becoming psychotic for the same reasons we don’t treat anorexia nervosa with liposuction.
The most important thing is that he is a transvestite murderer. That is the reason for the public interest.
The most important thing is that he is a transvestite murderer.
———-
This means that he as a man(!) is potentially dangerous. This fact should be stated explicitly.
So if you were looking at statistics showing the vast majority of murderers are male, that would be irrelevant in your eyes?
As the article says, why the difference between how this has been reported how the murder of Brianna Ghey was? It is not balanced.
I don’t like his/her parents. (and I don’t have to). There is something wrong about their whole reaction.
If a male, whatever his ‘gender identity’, is described in the official statistics as a female, it makes the statistics inaccurate and makes it look like there are more female criminals than there really are. This is especially misleading and disturbing if the crimes are violent, e.g. murder and sexual offences, which are very rarely committed by females.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/24/government-figures-70-per-cent-of-transgender-prisoners-are/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/
So now it’s ‘vicious’ to notice that a man is, in fact, a man?
It affects crime statistics too and ultimately government policy, Champagne Socialist. The news has a duty to speak the truth no matter how uncomfortable it makes us. Spreading lies to avoid causing offence does us a great disservice, not least to those that these lies seek to protect. Expecting truth from a well-established news source is hardly agenda-pushing.
Just LOVE a vicious anti-trans agenda.
Youre Jewish then?
A 2021 ONS estimate of 1 in 200? Before 2010 the estimate was between 1 in 80.000 en 1 in 130.000. Here is the answer to your question: ROGD.
Helen Joyce wrote an interesting book on this subject.
If the census were taken again, in say 2025, the figures would have dropped dramatically as the viral-phase of the gender-cult will have taken a severe knock from reality.
The main problem is that the ONS let Stonewall write the census question on gender identity. Needless to say they came up with some excruciating word-salad which confused pretty much everybody who doesn’t have a degree in Intersectional Post-Colonial Studies from They/Them University.
As a consequence there has been a surprising increase in reported transgenderism in areas largely populated by demographics where English is commonly not the first language and people lean towards the traditional end of religious observance.
If you’ve got a c**k you’re a man if you’ve got a c******s you’re a woman. Simple as that. Now complicate things by pointing out youre a breeder of heritage chickens. Never that simple is it
1 in 200 is still likely to be an overestimate. The article’s link to the relevant ONS web page is interesting. The ONS admits that the question was poorly phrased, but only in a mealy-mouthed way: “there are good reasons to expect higher levels of uncertainty with the estimates relating to the gender identity question than for other census topics”. However, the ONS are STILL claiming that you are two times more likely to be trans if your main language is not English, three times as likely if you are black and four times as likely if you cannot speak Engish at all.
And six times if you’re totally illiterate and a friend fills it out for you.
Wait. Is that true, that one’s English skills and race are being claimed as factors contributing to trans delusion? I wonder what white leftist came up with that.
Hello Alex. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) say, on their website, say that migrants who are trans-inclined are more likely to travel to the UK because the UK is perceived to be more trans-friendly than other potential detination countries. The ONS offer no statistics to back up this claim. They simply state this as a plausible-sounding explanation of their census results.
So England is seen.as a destination .for depravity. That can’t be good.
All identity groups do this to bolster their claims. So there are always far more people affected than you imagine, and they are always suffering more hate crime and discrimination than before. The term diddly-squat ‘phobia ‘ was invented to this end.
In the 80’s gay numbers suddenly jumped and the estimated figure was always trotted out as 1 in 10. I’ve no idea where this even came from, but gay people knew this was nonsense and thought it was probably more like 1 in 50. I think gay people were the first group to use the phobia tag to great effect.
The current ‘victims of Islamophobia ‘ are using the same strategy but to be fair to gay people, they didn’t use it as a cover for transparent bully-boy tactics like the current victims. No gay man ever cut off somebody’s head because they felt insulted.
Like the trans brigade, the new victims cleverly accompany their victim whining with literal violence to great effect.
Obviously, the only group not allowed to claim victim status in the new intersectional merry-go-round are the Jews.
But they overdid it and even before recent events some of us (non Jews) were feeling their victim schtick was getting outdated. I know thats incredibly irretrievably insensitive in light of the “going to Poland” and everyone knew what that meant. But do we,the world have to apologize for ever and let THEM inflict it on some one else.
Interesting as the GANNA study of over half a million finds that homosexuality is not innate and that the majority of people with their genome mix is heterosexual. So how is this a distinct type of person like skin color or sex. No “innate and immutable trait” at all. We’ve been conned.
Maybe now we can start to look at the corpses of young men who number over a million in the west and counting from these behaviors which even the CDC Atlanta shows cannot be performed safely.
As a phobia is an attitude unsupported by facts and reason, just who are the real “phobes” here? Who are the people who distort and deceive and hide reality about these behaviors. Including the Denmark Registry study which shows homosexual behavior linked to family divorce and same sex parent dysfunction and death of a same sex parent.
The NYC AIDS surveys revealed that half of respondents reporting had been sodomized or otherwise assaulted at the average age of eleven years old. Yet factions bow to the “born that way” lie. Is this actually caring about people?
Maybe its time to start protecting children from being caught up in these destructive and deadly pursuits and its now been shown that the “conversion” therapy bans, which almost no one did in any case, were actually SOCE that actually showed phenomenal results and 80% fewer suicides. The original studies counted people with suicide histories in the SOCE groups and then claimed it was SOCE that was responsible. It is almost impossible to believe that a researcher or the APA’s could make such a mistake honestly. Must everything be a lie? Let’s start helping people and to hell with Wilhelm Reich.
It is true that in the fight to gain equality before the law for homosexuals, a lot of dubious science and statistics were employed to help people overcome some inherent prejudices. I believe however, it was the rightness of the fundamental argument that the sexual preferences of people should not be just cause to discriminate against them that won the argument. Hence if every single dodgy bit of science or use of statistics is debunked, it would not suddenly make it right to repeal the laws that have allowed equality before the law.
Stonewall, by adding in the rest of the alphabet soup, is understandably using the tactics that worked before – why wouldn’t they? The problem is that as opposed to “He’s gay, so what! He still has the same rights as anyone else, get over it” is fundamentally just, trans women are women is fundamentally a lie, which leads to significant harm to the 50% of the population who really are women – it is not a white lie like believing in the existence of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.
An even worse problem arises when you start deploying the same arguments in support of paedophiles. There is pretty good science that they can’t really help themselves and cannot be cured, but need to learn to control themselves by denying their desires. The first step down the slippery slope to seeing the paedophile as the victim is to call them minor attracted!
https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/sex-offender-negative-label/
It’s already happening.
So in future news items regarding a person who is operating under.their own choice of gender it is of pubic interest and in the public interest for us to be told what genitalia they have. Yes,this is ridiculous,in fact Ronnie Barker could have written a hilarious and probably classic sketch for The Two Ronnie’s on it but they have brought it about. Just for your information I have a c******s so I identify as female, actually wash out my mouth,thats the dirty.secret we really are not allowed to say,the polite and publicity accepted word is vagina,I bet that word won’t get starred.
Why on god’s green earth does the BBC have 20,000 employees? What could they all possibly be doing?
Mostly watching each other for signs of wrong think, I expect.
20,000 isn’t many for a nation-wide media organisation that is also involved with publishing (physical and online) and original content production.
Original ?
I just finished watching The Way. Great original content.
didn’t take 20,000 folk to produce it though!A broken clock etc
That’s nice. You’re probably their target audience.
Yes but its an awful lot for an organisation damaging civic society and stirring up or spreading hate between different groups. Putin would love to have such a cohort and whilst i am sure Xi has even more i doubt they are as competent as BBC drones. I am told these days nearly all went to public school. I know 99%+ went to University as they were a client of mine way back. What i think changed in last 30 years is the spread of language, PPE, IT, engineering and management grads has changed and its PPE only now.
I think this is largely because big broadcasters and news corporations are rapidly becoming obsolete. They try to keep us all hooked by fomenting division and unrest.
Historians will look back in this period and comment on how failing news media companies tried to remain relevant by creating events rather than reporting on them. The whole white privilege thing is designed to make people feel like their way of life is under existential threat thus keeping them hooked to the news.
They’ve been doing all that longer than you think. Several decades at least. I have to laugh when a radio presenter (not just BBC) says “we sent a request to …….for clarification on this point but they told us they have no one available to deal with our enquiry.”I laugh.but it’s concerning really. It shows that the Elite have got the legacy media under control. The days when a company or a government dept HAD to reply to a media challenge are gone. Which does not bode well for us.
You HAVE to have a university degree to be employed as a journalist with the BBC. It’s a legal requirement. Probably for the cleaners as well I wouldn’t be surprised. I worked as a cleaner for a while. Loved it. Great colleagues.
It’s a huge secret that a lot of high IQ people (not me,them) choose this way of life and employment to as far as possible live “outside” the system without actually going to a hut in the woods. But I’m rambling.
LBC is the same though. All the younger presenters male and female have been to “posh” schools. The days when a young man could graduate from a mobile disco to a radio career are long gone. I notice that all these young posh educated people are far happier to follow the government line,only say what official policy allows them and just lately I’ve heard several of them explaining to Muslims callers in about how they are getting it wrong and the Koran says this and your religion takes this position and you don’t understand the situation in Israel/Palestine. They just sound so up themselves telling actual Muslim callers in to they’re getting their religion wrong!
Mostly dross.
Checking each other’s privilege, silly.
Or the MoD more civil servants than the army has aoldiers.
Which makes a great pretext in the not so far off future for bringing in CONSCRIPTION. Theyve said the word,just to put the concept out there. Don’t think theyve dismissed it. It’s all part of that frog boiling method and the waters quite hot now. And all those.old buffers my age (70) who eagerly promote us piling in thinking they’re safe and can have lots of cosy fun recreating Dad’s Army like on tv,be careful what you wish for,it’s not.going to be like that.
Spreading left wing/woke propaganda, making up stuff about black history, looking for items where there’s an indication that a minority person has been victimised, finding left wing activist to broadcast as “independent experts”, implicating that respected persons from British history were implicated in the slavery trade, filling in expense forms, idolising G Lineker etc etc.
Fact checking each other.
Among some stiff competition, it is one of the more repulsive aspects of this issue that women are now expected to accept being implicated in such revolting crimes.
Yes,I only found out yesterday it was a depraved man.Not a female person at all.
As a committed cat lover, I first focused on different aspects of the story.
But when I read the BBC version, I was genuinely confused about the facts about the identity and story of the perpetrator. It just wasn’t at all clear and I misunderstood. Was that my fault? Most of us probably just want to get some basic clarity on what terms and facts mean. As a start. Was there an intention to confuse, or has the BBC lost sight, amid its own internal issues, of its requirement to make things easy to understand.
They didn’t want to use the phrase transgender in the first instance believing it to be an emotive term (imo). This of course leads to the absurdity of the ideology, you “have” to believe when the vast majority simply do not, rightly. The absurdity got traction with the very poor Equalities Act.
I agree. I, too, had focused on the cat killing; I didn’t realise until two days ago that Blake is a bloke. When I spoke to a friend last night, he still thought Blake was a woman. That is how easily this nonsense is slipped past people, even when they are generally alert to it.
This confusion is part of the reason why some people prefer to refer to ‘transwomen’ as trans-identified males. At least that makes clear what their sex is (and some of us are old-fashioned enough to believe that sex – determined at conception, observed at birth and immutable – is more important than gender identity, whatever that is).
It is also good to be aware that many – perhaps most – trans-identified males are transvestites/ AGPs/ etc, with a variety of fetishes, for which it is essential that their male bodies remain intact. The ones who really believe they were ‘born in the wrong body’ and who opt for medical ‘transition’ are a minority.
“The ones who really believe they were ‘born in the wrong body’ and who opt for medical ‘transition’ are a minority.”
And these ones can be referred to as transsexuals.
Me too – i thought there were two weird homicidal cat killers stalking St Aldates, when in reality there are a probably quite a few more!
The use of the plural pronouns (they and them) about individuals still boggles my little mind. They (I mean the gender activists) really should have picked a different pronoun replacement. I’ve gotten to the point where I’m ready to just ignore them all.
It isn’t 1 in 200. The majority of those who claimed to be trans were in Bradford and Tower Hamlets and were not literate emough to understand the poorly worded survey question. Think more like 1 in 1000, and that’s including ‘queer’ teens looking for social media clout.
So they checked for ethnicity and not for geographic location?
I think it’s something in the water.
Me No speaka da English. Oldest trick in the book. Not so slow to go for the benefit money. I’ve heard we allow £35 a week to migrants once they’ve been processed but cant go for jobs legally. That’s a tiny amount of money Do you.know how much the French Government gives migrants who rock up to Paris, to keep.them from complete.destitution. Nothing.
Thank you for correcting this. I, for one, did not realise, though I was surprised. We shouldn’t forget though that women are also capable of horrendous crimes (though less frequently), including the murder of infants in their care.
Back of envelope calculation:
Around 560 men murder each year in the UK
The figure for women is around 40
There are about 53,000 transwomen in the UK
So, if transwomen were women you’d expect to see a transwoman murderer around once every 16 years.
If transwomen were men you’d expect to see a transwoman murderer just under once a year.
More evidence, though none is needed, that transwomen are not women:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/24/government-figures-70-per-cent-of-transgender-prisoners-are/
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/
Ah, but by BBC definition Scarlet Blake is a systemic victim* and therefore must not be vilified.
*Logically if there is systemic discrimination there must be systemic victims of that discrimination. Rewarding such systemic victims with a prepared excuse for bad behaviour flows ‘naturally’ from such flawed reasoning.
Isn’t it sad that most readers are, like myself, totally unsurprised by yet another example of the numerous biases which run through the BBC? Indeed, it should be shocking to see such wilful distortions of the truth coming from what was, sometime in the past, a trusted and trustworthy news organisation. To report on such crime without bothering to mention that the perpetrator was in fact biologically male is quite inexcusable.
Just male is sufficient, that’s a biological term indicating the type of gamete the individual is designed to produce. My preferred descriptor for these adult human males is “Men-who-say-they-are-women”
The trans issue is not the only area where the BBC air brushes the identity of offenders, when it is inconvenient for it to be publicised. However the BBC is not alone in the MSM in this regard. Journalism is no longer a search for and then a means to expose the truth. This is part of the rot in society which leads us to distrust all our institution.
Transwoman is the term. Sadly they seem to often to belong to a particular criminal sub-group nowadays, transgender supplanting transsexual in the vernacular.
But this was not the reputation of transsexuals, those decades ago. They worked in the arts, academia or education and those who were a bit wild and/or deprived were just a little tragic, poisoning themselves with drugs be those steroids, club drugs or narcotics.
unless there are editorial reasons not to do so. –> Editorial reasons such as accuracy perhaps? Or is that concept too far gone in today’s “journalism”?
Deplorable. May sanity eventually return to BBC.
Maybe the BBC fall apart and get all.sold off and disbanded. And put Marianna Spring out of a job.
All the mainstream papers, Times, DM, Daily Telegraph ,,referred to the murderer as she
yet again the trans ‘fig leaf’ disguise has slipped to reveal another pervert. Will this change how these creeps are reported? I doubt it. Who still pays for a license fee? Who even watches it without one?
Why would anyone even want to watch BBC. I mean Chris Packham on Nature Watch is a turn off in itself.
“This is because males, whatever their identity, are significantly more likely to be violent.”
This seems to me to be a composition fallacy – that because a characteristic (violence) is exhibited by some of the members of the male category, one cannot infer it is shared by the whole category of males.
So, those violent individuals, whatever their identity, are significantly more likely to be male.
This places the emphasis on individual members of a group rather implicating all members of a group in a negative behaviour.
And a chink too.