UK IPSO press standards are anything but

Dear Mr. Stammers

On reading through your Editors code of practice it clearly states

--------------------

12. Discrimination

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

--------------------

We have clearly stated how by the media in failing to obtain comments from ONE gender while providing regular platforms for another gender massively distorts their reporting in favour of one gender and in anyone else's eyes would view that as discrimination but clearly not IPSO.

This was happening in the South African media during Apartheid when only those of one colour were allowed to make comment and left the black majority to deal with the utter prejudice and smears that only 'black on white' violence mattered .

Unless IPSO are prepared to challenge Britain's GUTTER rags on this matter then we can only assume IPSO are complicit in those gender attacks and will continue to expose the farce that Britain has some form of regulation that has any control over what gets published in that GUTTER media.

You may also be aware that there may be legal claims made against IPSO and each of its individual members of your executive on discrimination grounds if steps are not taken to address our legitimate concerns. We therefore suggest you readdress this issue as a matter of urgency.

================================================================

I am writing to follow up on our earlier email.

On receipt of a complaint, IPSO’s Executive staff reviews it to ensure that the issues raised fall within our remit, and represent a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The Executive has now completed an initial assessment of your complaint.

The selection of material for publication is considered by IPSO to be a matter for discretion by individual editors, so long as the Editors’ Code of Practice has not otherwise been breached. Similarly, the prominence afforded coverage of a subject is also a matter of editorial discretion. On this occasion, it seems that your concerns relate to these issues and falls outside the remit of IPSO. I regret, therefore, that we are unlikely to be able to help you further.

If, however, you believe that a specific Clause of the Code has been breached please do write back to us – within seven days – explaining how (https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/).

More information about IPSO and the complaint process can be found on our website: https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/aboutipso.html

Although I am sorry not to be of further assistance in this instance, I hope you will find our website helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you think we may be able to help in the future.

With best wishes

Todd Stammers
IPSO
Gate House
1 Farringdon Street
London
EC4M 7LG

Tel: 0300 123 2220