IPSO upholds Labour activist’s accuracy complaint by Donal Kennedy

www.thejc.com/ipso-upholds-labour-activist-s-accuracy-complaint-against-jc-1.493698 http://www.thejc.com/ipso-upholds-labour-activist-s-accuracy-complaint-against-jc-1.493698

‘The Jewish Chronicle’ has itself reported the IPSO finding against it. 

Jewish Voice for Labour has commented: 

When claims of Labour antisemitism are properly scrutinised they fall apart time after time.

Attacks on Jeremy Corbyn often highlight a claim that Louise Ellman ‘was driven out of the Party by antisemites’ . Such claims often rely on accounts like those published in the Jewish Chronicle in February and March 2019. The press regulator, IPSO, has examined these articles and found them to be a tissue of lies.

IPSO is not renowned for the ferocity of their rulings which makes this one truly exceptional.

Rabbi Mirvis wrote in his letter to the Times “as supporters of the Labour leadership have hounded parliamentarians, party members and even staff out of the party for facing down anti-Jewish racism”. Maybe he will apologise in the light of this ruling.

The whole finding is compelling reading; this is a sample:

“The Committee listened to the partial recording of the CLP meeting provided during IPSO’s investigation. It was apparent to the Committee that the MP had spoken in a consistent and conversational tone; the crowd had not been “rowdy”, as alleged. In any event, the statement from the former Mayor of Liverpool, which the newspaper had referenced in support of the claim that the complainant had “repeatedly interrupted” the MP while she had delivered her speech, clearly did not demonstrate that the complainant, or a group which she was a part of, had conducted themselves in this way. The statement provided by the newspaper supported the complainant’s position that she had responded to an open invitation to ask questions. The publication of this claim represented a further failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, in breach of Clause 1 (i) and gave a significantly misleading impression of the complainant’s conduct towards the Labour MP during the meeting, which the newspaper had not offered to correct, in breach of Clause 1. “

Comments are closed.