[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]By Nathan Sparkes[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width="1/2"][vc_column_text]For years, the Government and parts of the press have repeated a toxic libel against British men described as Pakistanis or of Pakistani heritage: that the grooming, abuse and rape of girls and young women, crimes of Child Sexual Exploitation, is mostly committed by them.The truth is that the majority of individuals found guilty of these crimes are white. But a handful of high-profile cases, which have involved men of Pakistani heritage, have been used as cover for newspapers and Government Ministers to push an anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism agenda.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width="1/2"][vc_single_image image="22739" img_size="Full"][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]Two such voices, the Mail on Sunday and the Home Secretary Suella Braverman, published and authored an article committing this libel in April of this year.Braverman wrote,

“Perpetrators [of Child Sexual Exploitation] are groups of men, almost all British-Pakistani, who hold cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values”.

This is false. The Government’s own research on the matter confirmed that most of the perpetrators of these crimes are white men.A complaint was brought by the Centre for Media Monitoring. You might have expected that even IPSO, the sham regulator controlled by the press, would agree and order a correction against the Mail on Sunday. And you might have believed this had happened, from reading some of the coverage of the ruling.The BBC announced:Suella Braverman UK-Pakistani grooming claim misleading, says press regulatorThe Guardian proclaimed:Braverman’s claim about ethnicity of grooming gangs was false, regulator rulesNeither of these articles clearly set out the fundamental outcome of IPSO’s consideration of the complaint: that it was in fact rejected. The course of events, as laid out in IPSO’s ruling, was as follows:2^nd April 2023:The libel is committed in the Mail on Sunday, in an opinion piece authored by Suella Braverman.6^th April 2023:In response to initial complaints, the Mail on Sunday offered a “clarification” that Ms Braverman’s comments referred to a specific handful of cases, chosen because they were “high profile”.Subsequently:Complainant the Centre for Media Monitoring said this clarification was inadequate, and that the Mail on Sunday should be clear about the fact that the majority of abusers are white, not of Pakistani heritage, and should apologise. The Mail on Sunday refused.April – 28^th Sept 2023:IPSO spends the best part of six months determining that Braverman’s claim, which can be verified as untrue on Google in the time it takes most people to make a cup of tea, is false.28^th Sept 2023:IPSO finds that although the claim was untrue, the Mail on Sunday’s “clarification” would be perfectly adequate to resolve the matter, even though the complainant had made very clear it was insufficient. IPSO rejects the complaint, records that the Mail on Sunday did not commit a breach of standards and, provided the Mail on Sunday publish the clarification they intended to do anyway, IPSO let them off the hook.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width="1/2"][vc_single_image image="74391" img_size="Large"][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width="1/2"][vc_column_text]It is such a bizarre ruling that it is unclear what happens if the Mail on Sunday don’t publish the clarification after all. In any case, it is a very weak line which they had offered to publish at the outset.The failure to find a breach of standards is significant, because (a) it very much is, and (b) it means that the Mail escape without any permanent record of having breached the code.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]There are further perversities in IPSO’s ruling.Firstly, it flirts with the idea of requiring an apology, but ultimately determines that this isn’t appropriate, finding that the inaccuracy “did not directly affect the complainant.”This is a libel against all those with Pakistani heritage. The Centre for Media Monitoring is an offshoot of the Muslim Council of Britain, an organisation representing British Muslims, among whom there is likely to be a significant contingent with Pakistani heritage.The test of “direct effect” on the complainant is unjustified, but that said, it is surely met in this case.Secondly, IPSO found that the Mail on Sunday had “taken care” over the inaccuracy. “Care” in this case constituted checking with the author of the article whether what they had said is true.This is no way to consider whether “care” had been taken. Of course the author of the article thinks what they have said is true. One should assume that is the case whenever anyone writes for a newspaper.“Care” has to mean something more than this. At the very least, it should mean a check against the Government’s own data.That is not to let the Government off the hook: it is appalling that Suella Braverman's office made and stood by this false claim. But if the Mail on Sunday were genuinely committed to proper journalistic enquiry, they would have interrogated the claim rather than amplifying it.Once again, IPSO has let down people vulnerable to marginalisation and discrimination in the press, and allowed a national newspaper – and a Government Minister – to mislead the public.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row]