Jeremy Clarkson was guilty of sexism when he wrote a newspaper column about the Duchess of Sussex, the press watchdog has ruled in the first decision of its kind.
Despising some bird is now sexism, because it’s a bird that is being despised, is it?
Ipso said in its ruling that the article included a number of references to the Duchess’s sex, including a claim that the Duchess “exercised power via her sexual hold over her husband” and that to argue that a woman is in a position of influence due to “vivid bedroom promises”, amounted to a breach of the Editors’ Code.
So the claim that a weak man is pussy whipped is now sexism? Despite, you know, it sometimes actually being true?
Must admit I find the notion of Meghan Godiva riding naked through Coventry, London and all the rest of the UK to be quite charming.
“guilty of sexism”
It’s lovely to be accused of sexism by an organisation whose new boss had links to the paedophile Information Exchange.
As I surmise Steve encapsulates, is it a crime now? Nature itself is sexist, whatcha gonna do about it?
It might be sexist, but is it verifiably true as a fact or at least arguable as opinion?
If so then fair comment, surely, sexist or not.
Then again Megain Markle’s version of “Her Truth” is a bit suspect, isn’t it?
I think the Palace’s standard line of ‘recollections may vary’ is generous if truth be told. Then again, it’s their family, including the Ginger Idiot and Mrs. Simpson mark 2.
Surely we all would want to exchange information about paedophiles, so we can know where they are and keep them away from our children.
I always thought Paedophile Information Exchange to be a deliberate misnomer. I mean the US equivalent (I guess) is the “North American Man/Boy Love Association” which doesn’t pull any punches or leave you guessing as to the sort of things they advocate.
Someone comes up and says “I’m a member of PIE”, you’re more likely to start thinking of apples or steak and kidney rather than…whatever paedophiles think about.
Then again, you’d have to ask Kangaroo Kourt chairperson, Hattie Harperson MP about that. She’s got more direct experience of enabling the paedophiles than any of us.
“I always thought Paedophile Information Exchange to be a deliberate misnomer.”
Of course it is. “Paedophile” itself is an invention of these creeps.
It’s all to do with Greek derivations. That “love is love” baloney falls apart in ancient Greek. Love is agape, but there’s also philia (fondness or affection), storge (familial or paternal), and eros (romantic or sexual, although the former is often agape… and stop sniggering at the back). So, people sexually attracted to children are pederasts, not paedophiles. That was a deliberate coinage by PIE in order to whitewash what they were up to. Which backfired spectacularly on them, but it’s still wrong.
I just call them “Kiddy fiddlers”.
Doesn’t leave much to the imagination.
I think the approved newspeak term is Minor Attracted Person
KIDDY
FIDDLERS!
Otto – do they find one another on Google Maps?
Excellent blog from Fraser Nelson.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-clarkson-ruling-puts-ipso-in-violation-of-its-own-charter/
Thanks @Bind. I thought that note about Jezza was off.
Good post by Fraser Nelson, should be the headliner for the next issue of The Spectator (if it isn’t already).
Hopefully, IPSO retracts, if not? IPSO will have to go.