IPSO ruling on transgender media complaint

[GrimDamnFanjo]

www.ipso.co.uk/media/2170/january-minutes-2022.pdf

I stumbled on this by accident - not easy to find on the website, I was looking for another complaint.
The detail of the complaint is in an appendix at the back and if I've read this right, the complainant asks that the Forstater ruling is taken into account and the panel rejects this.

11. Notwithstanding this, the newspaper offered, upon receipt of the complaint, in a gesture of goodwill and in an attempt to resolve the complaint, to amend the online article to describe the individual as “the attacker”.

How patronising. Of course this male person who sexually assaulted this female prisoner should be called "the attacker". It's hardly a "gesture of goodwill".

Yes and it's disturbing when you think that this organisation exists to hold the media to account.

As if we should be grateful that the article actually reflects reality 🤬

What is Ipso? Is it a government body? Official regulator?
Taxpayer funded?
(I can Google when I have a few minutes)

If so, they should be working for us too.
If not, we need our own regulator to look at things from women's lens.

Looks like self funded by members? So a protection racket? Does it have real teeth?

Isn't it funded by the newspapers themselves? I thought it was a sop after the hacking scandal/Levinson report to prevent a proper regulator.

This is from memory mind, so I could have misremembered.

You're quite right, Cuck00. IPSO is a self-regulator paid for by its members. It's about as independent and useful as the Press Complaints Commission which it (de facto) replaced. (And there was a reason that the PCC bit the dust in the wake of the phone hacking scandal.)

How has it become acceptable to change direct quotes? Surely that should not be allowed.

Having read the IPSO decision, it's clear that Clause 12 needs amending to cover both religion and belief in order to match the Equality Act. Nevertheless, I'm shocked that they rejected the complaint and condoned the misreporting of what the complainant had actually said - in speech marks, FFS!

It would have been easy enough to edit the piece to make the changes to pronouns transparent, although doing so would have exposed the stupidity of the IPSO approach to pronouns in news reports etc. The quoted extracts would have looked like the ridiculous version of Ruth Bader Ginsberg's quote about abortion that the ACLU put out and swiftly had to apologise for: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/aclu-ruth-bader-ginsburg-abortion-gender-neutral-b1928809.html