Scum caught keying Aston on dashcam
Discussion
Jon39 said:
Also had the 'bouncer'.
We perhaps need our fellow PHer, the Vantage owning solicitor.
What has been published might possibly be considered, incitement to cause criminal damage to motor vehicles.
I wonder if IPSO leave criminal matters to others?
She's been very clear on Twitter that she's not inciting anything, she's merely applauding an action that's already occurred. We could all say vile things under that pretence. We perhaps need our fellow PHer, the Vantage owning solicitor.
What has been published might possibly be considered, incitement to cause criminal damage to motor vehicles.
I wonder if IPSO leave criminal matters to others?
It's a shame as hardworking, wealth generating, tax paying individuals we can't play a discrimination card which she'd no doubt play if we generalised about women. Or the Scots.
JonV8V said:
She's been very clear on Twitter that she's not inciting anything, she's merely applauding an action that's already occurred. We could all say vile things under that pretence.
Anyone reading her article quickly forms an opinion about her.
She might have been very clear on Twitter, but it is of course a matter for others to judge.
Jon39 said:
JonV8V said:
She's been very clear on Twitter that she's not inciting anything, she's merely applauding an action that's already occurred. We could all say vile things under that pretence.
Anyone reading her article quickly forms an opinion about her.
She might have been very clear on Twitter, but it is of course a matter for others to judge.
Might get the papers attention more if complaints went to any car manufacturer advertising on that page. The way these things work they probably have little control to that degree but if questions start being asked on the money side, the agency who serves the ads might ask questions. Money is likely to talk louder than anything.
gmacdb9 said:
RichB said:
Well it seems my complaint has been bounced back to me. They want me to justify teh complaint by telling them which point of the code of conduct I consider the journalist broke. Anyone?
I got this too. Intro to the code includes this: "All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. The Code, which includes this preamble...". I don't think condoning the keying of any kind of car can be considered acting in a professional manner so I will refer to the preamble, and this sentence in particular, in my response. The code also says "It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit" and so I will add that the fact that there is no specific clause covering her actions should not prevent them from investigating. "You have cited the preamble to the Editors' Code. IPSO does not take forward complaints framed under the preamble online. The preamble provides guidance on how the 16 clauses of the Code should be interpreted and applied. If you do not believe that any of the clauses of the Code have been breached then we will be unable to take forward your complaint.
I also complained and got the same back. I then used the no.1 of their 16 codes, 'inaccurate, misleading etc..'
Which is exactly what she does in her piece on multiple occasions. She misleads the readers into thinking it's an ok act to vandalise someone else's possessions. She also eludes to the fact all flashy car drivers, drive like morons and that you don't get boy racers in Fiat 500's! Both sweeping generalisations and highly misleading!
Try that angle of attack!
Which is exactly what she does in her piece on multiple occasions. She misleads the readers into thinking it's an ok act to vandalise someone else's possessions. She also eludes to the fact all flashy car drivers, drive like morons and that you don't get boy racers in Fiat 500's! Both sweeping generalisations and highly misleading!
Try that angle of attack!
I also complained and got the same back. I then used the no.1 of their 16 codes, 'inaccurate, misleading etc..'
Which is exactly what she does in her piece on multiple occasions. She misleads the readers into thinking it's an ok act to vandalise someone else's possessions. She also eludes to the fact all flashy car drivers, drive like morons and that you don't get boy racers in Fiat 500's! Both sweeping generalisations and highly misleading!
Try that angle of attack!
Which is exactly what she does in her piece on multiple occasions. She misleads the readers into thinking it's an ok act to vandalise someone else's possessions. She also eludes to the fact all flashy car drivers, drive like morons and that you don't get boy racers in Fiat 500's! Both sweeping generalisations and highly misleading!
Try that angle of attack!
Yes - spat it back at me here and passed the buck. They live and breathe this stuff so should have a more positive and helpful attitude - surely they should know within 5" which of their code points it breaches. They, err, wrote them after all!. What a bunch of workshy fobbers offers!
Any point in me analysing the text and making a call as to which points it breaches - or will it just get fobbed off?
Any point in me analysing the text and making a call as to which points it breaches - or will it just get fobbed off?
Bounced mine back too. I've responded as follows, will let you know if this just gets bounced back too, which I expect it will.
Thank you for your response.
1. The Editors' Code of Practice begins as follows: "The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), as Regulator, is charged with enforcing the following Code of Practice..."
2. It is clearly stated that the preamble is part of the Code ("The Code, which includes this preamble and the public interest exceptions below...)".
3. It follows that a breach of any requirement explicitly placed on members of the press by the preamble has the same status as a breach of any requirement under any of the numbered clauses.
4. In this sense, there is no difference between, for example, "Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information" (Clause 14), and "All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards" (preamble). Both impose obligations on members of the press, and both have equal status under the Code.
5. This is made very clear, indeed even emphasised, by the inclusion of the words "The code, which includes this preamble". Otherwise there would be no need for these words.
6. As regulator, you are charged with enforcing the Code. The preamble is part of the Code. If there is an obligation placed on members of the press by the preamble, and that obligation is breached, then that is a breach of the Code which you are charged to enforce.
7. If you disagree with this analysis, perhaps you would be good enough to let me know why. You may wish to consult with your in-house or external legal advisors before you do so.
Thank you for your response.
1. The Editors' Code of Practice begins as follows: "The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), as Regulator, is charged with enforcing the following Code of Practice..."
2. It is clearly stated that the preamble is part of the Code ("The Code, which includes this preamble and the public interest exceptions below...)".
3. It follows that a breach of any requirement explicitly placed on members of the press by the preamble has the same status as a breach of any requirement under any of the numbered clauses.
4. In this sense, there is no difference between, for example, "Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information" (Clause 14), and "All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards" (preamble). Both impose obligations on members of the press, and both have equal status under the Code.
5. This is made very clear, indeed even emphasised, by the inclusion of the words "The code, which includes this preamble". Otherwise there would be no need for these words.
6. As regulator, you are charged with enforcing the Code. The preamble is part of the Code. If there is an obligation placed on members of the press by the preamble, and that obligation is breached, then that is a breach of the Code which you are charged to enforce.
7. If you disagree with this analysis, perhaps you would be good enough to let me know why. You may wish to consult with your in-house or external legal advisors before you do so.
Well done Graham. Excellent.
I will go along with their little game, and use Clause 1 -accuracy.
Almost every line of her article contained an accuracy error.
The most disgraceful part of the article, inciting damage to a category of motor vehicle, does not seem to concern the Regulator. Perhaps because it presumably would be a criminal matter.
Is this present body, a new version of the one we remember?
I went down the clause 9 route and stated "The article promotes the act of criminal damage and supports the actions of a convicted criminal prior to sentencing." I put the complaint in the day after publication and it hasn't been rejected. I have no experience in this area but thought that publishing this prior to passing sentance was in breach of the code.
Edited by DocW on Friday 18th September 19:27
Ahh now good info. I just threw my toys out the pram earlier and assumed I wasn't dealing with a lawyer and bigged it up with some added pique/emotion:
You bounce my considered submission back with a view to make me do further footwork on your Code of Practice clauses - I would have thought IPSO more familiar with these (they were generated by IPSO after all ) rather than a layman first time complainer and thought that maybe guidance/help could be better form?
I note that there is nothing seemingly obviously in the Code of Practice against any mass published incitement to commit a crime or against delivering hate speech towards all sections of society (inclusive) or that there aren't any caveats against disseminating a publication that wholeheartedly promotes acts that are clearly anti-society or are in fact wanton acts of criminality, vandalism or violence. It therefore seems perfectly fine for a journalist to print 'kill the rich' or 'slash flash car drivers faces' under your watch? I find that disappointing, weak and un-measured.
Can you kindly let me know how I could escalate this further please or maybe even advise me if what I complained about CAN in fact be dealt with under your current remit - if its not too much trouble as many many people are very upset indeed by this odious piece of 'journalism'.
You bounce my considered submission back with a view to make me do further footwork on your Code of Practice clauses - I would have thought IPSO more familiar with these (they were generated by IPSO after all ) rather than a layman first time complainer and thought that maybe guidance/help could be better form?
I note that there is nothing seemingly obviously in the Code of Practice against any mass published incitement to commit a crime or against delivering hate speech towards all sections of society (inclusive) or that there aren't any caveats against disseminating a publication that wholeheartedly promotes acts that are clearly anti-society or are in fact wanton acts of criminality, vandalism or violence. It therefore seems perfectly fine for a journalist to print 'kill the rich' or 'slash flash car drivers faces' under your watch? I find that disappointing, weak and un-measured.
Can you kindly let me know how I could escalate this further please or maybe even advise me if what I complained about CAN in fact be dealt with under your current remit - if its not too much trouble as many many people are very upset indeed by this odious piece of 'journalism'.
I think they are used to this! "If you do not believe that any of the clauses of the Editors' Code of Practice have been breached on this occasion, then I am afraid we will be unable to assist you further.
If, however, you do believe that one or more of the clauses of the Code has been breached then I would be grateful if you could write to us, within the next seven days, explaining how".
I'll take the lead from here - but was there nothing about social responsibility/decency/not be anti society at all in there at all though?
If, however, you do believe that one or more of the clauses of the Code has been breached then I would be grateful if you could write to us, within the next seven days, explaining how".
I'll take the lead from here - but was there nothing about social responsibility/decency/not be anti society at all in there at all though?
Ken Figenus said:
I'll take the lead from here - but was there nothing about social responsibility/decency/not be anti society at all in there at all though?
Go, Ken, go!! We will follow....I got the same rebuttal...I replied thus:
"I refer to my email from Friday last week.
It is clearly stated that the preamble is part of the Code ("The Code, which includes this preamble and the public interest exceptions below...)". It follows that a breach of any requirement explicitly placed on members of the press by the preamble has the same status as a breach of any requirement under any of the numbered clauses. This is made very clear by the inclusion of the words "The Code, which includes this preamble".
As regulator, you are charged with enforcing the Code. The preamble is part of the Code. If there is an obligation placed on members of the press by the preamble, and that obligation is breached, then that is a breach of the Code which you are charged to enforce.
I therefore request, again, that you deal with my complaint in the proper manner, or pass my request to your legal counsel so they can confirm the position on the preamble being an integral part of the Code."
Ken Figenus said:
... but was there nothing about social responsibility/decency/not be anti society at all in there at all though?
Many of us have had to work hard in the commercial business world.
Public sector thinking is so different. I don't think they know or care, where the money for their salaries comes from. You pick a Clause, is somehow rational to them. Customer service and repeat orders - what is that?
Wonder if the telephone hacking episode, and their subsequent change of name, still bothers them?
Rant over.
As you already know, clauses 1 and 9 seem to be the ones for us to select.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff