The press watchdog has been heavily criticised for its decision to reject all complaints about a controversial article. The article claimed that Angela Rayner crossed and uncrossed her legs in the House Of Commons in a bid to distract Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) have said that they have received more than 6,000 complaints about The Mail On Sunday’s report. The report cited the claims about Ms Rayner, Ashton-under-Lyne's MP, that were made by anonymous Tory MPs.
Some of the complainants said that the article breached Ipso’s code for discriminating against women. However the watchdog has argued that the code protects individuals rather than groups.
Ipso has also said that it “declined to consider” complaints made under the code’s accuracy clause. This is because it would need Ms Rayner’s involvement to investigate “things which Ms Rayner is claimed to have said and done”.
The story that was published on April 24 was headlined “Stone the crows! Tories accuse Rayner of Basic Instinct ploy to distract Boris.” It then sparked outrage across the political spectrum, with the Prime Minister describing it as the “most appalling load of sexist, misogynist tripe”.
Since then the campaign group Hacked Off have said Ipso has never sanctioned a newspaper for sexist press coverage since it was established in 2014. The head of communications Sara Badawi said: “Ipso’s decision to reject all complaints about The Mail On Sunday’s patently misogynistic article about Angela Rayner MP indicates they are either powerless or unwilling to address the culture of discrimination and impunity across much of the national press…
“Ipso is an expensive PR project for the national press; an organisation designed to give the perception of accountability whilst sheltering its members from any prospect of genuine regulation.
“Politicians sincere in their opposition to sexism and other forms of discrimination must act to introduce the Leveson reforms in full, and compel national newspapers to join an independent regulator as is already the case for broadcast media.”
