by Alice Watkins

Last year a staggering 25,100 people complained to press complaints-handler IPSO about a column, written by Jeremy Clarkson, which was published in The Sun. The piece published on 18th December 2022 centred around Meghan Markle. And now, after six months, the sham press regulator IPSO has finally upheld one of the thousands of complaints, finding that the article made a ‘pejorative and prejudicial reference to the Duchess of Sussex’s sex.IPSO only considered two of the complaints made. One was from The Fawcett Society and another fromThe Wilde Foundation. Their complaints alleged that Clarkson’s article was sexist, racist, inaccurate and represented harassment. Only the sexism element was upheld. Yes, this is the first time in IPSO’s entire history that it has upheld a complaint of sexism against any newspaper. But it’s not enough - because this decision doesn’t actually require any further action from The Sun, beyond the publication of an adjudication inside the paper. The individuals responsible for the decision to publish this article have not and will not face any regulatory sanction at all. Jeremy Clarkson gave a weak apology following the public outrage, but the buck doesn’t stop with him. The column passed the editorial process, and the responsibility for publication of Clarkson’s venom also lies with The Sun’s editors, including Victoria Newton, and News UK’s CEO, Rebekah Brooks. Plenty of senior figures at The Sun could have stopped the publication of this piece. None did.Fundamentally, this piece was allowed to be published because the press is not properly regulated.

The discrimination clause in the Editors’ Code is inadequate.

IPSO says the column was a serious breach of Clause 12 of the Editors Code of Practice, and that they found the imagery Clarkson employed to be ‘humiliating and degrading toward the Duchess.’Sadly this kind of adjudication is very much the exception, and not the norm.Clause 12 isn’t fit for purpose. The code boldly declares that the press ‘must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religions, sex, gender identity and other protected characteristics. But, as explained in the handbook that accompanies the code, this clause ‘does not cover generalised remarks about groups or categories of people.’Currently, newspapers and journalists are able to express sexist, racist and discriminatory views, even where those views are likely to cause harm to vulnerable minorities. And according to evidence the vast majority of complaints aren’t even considered. In 2018, IPSO received 8,148 complaints from the public about discrimination of which it upheld just one. In fact, this is only the third discrimination complaint ever upheld by IPSO.As a result, there is no protection for ordinary members of the public from abuse or discrimination in the press. This time, after thousands of complaints, public outrage and with Meghan Markle, a high profile figure at the centre of the story, IPSO did the bare minimum and upheld one complaint.But without further action or a proper remedy, it will happen again in the future.Fawcett Society Chief Executive, Jemima Olchawski, said today;

“The Fawcett Society has made history with our complaint against The Sun for itspublication of Jeremy Clarkson’s vile and offensive column about the Duchess ofSussex, Meghan Markle. We are so proud to stand with the thousands of Fawcettmembers who made this possible. The column should never have appeared in printor online – its publication legitimised sexism and misogyny and that is neveracceptable. We stand with Hacked Off and call for more to be done to ensure ourmedia outlets do not support the peddling of hate by publishing content likeClarkson’s.”

Free speech comes with responsibility.If IPSO were the tough regulator it claims to be, The Sun and those individuals responsible would be facing sanctions. It would have taken action sooner, and not waited six months to reach a decision. And if IPSO would use its regulatory powers effectively and establish a standard investigation into The Sun, those responsible might actually be held to account.Why was the article published in the first place? Who signed it off? Which executives were involved? As long as the press remains effectively unregulated, we will never know.