Skip to content

So, we tell ’em to fuck off then

The press watchdog has ruled against journalists reporting evidence given in open court, in a decision branded a dangerous intrusion on free speech.

Lawyers and campaigners have warned that the ruling sets a precedent that could seriously curtail reporting in the future.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) ruled that details of a rape trial reported by the website Aberdeen Live had been an “intrusion into grief or shock” of the anonymous victim in the case.

The victim, whose identity is protected by law, had complained to Ipso that the website’s report of a specific “detailed description of her physical reaction to the attack” had contained a “level of detail” that “had retraumatised her”.

IPSOS can fuck off. Simple, see?

12 thoughts on “So, we tell ’em to fuck off then”

  1. I think it shocking that these cruel and heartless journalists are physically forcing victims to read web sites in order to retraumatise them. What is the world coming to?

  2. I have some sympathy for the girl. I doubt the old Press and Journal would have reported such detail for the titillation of its readers.
    OTOH Ipso can fuck off. The light or dark web has made them redundant.If the court decided to present the facts openly that’s the decision of the court and the complaint should be made there.

  3. An utter travesty but no surprise in the aggressively nannying state of Britain. If information can be aired in an open courtroom ie a public space, it can be aired in a newspaper. Potential upset is not the newspaper’s problem.

    With its typically brave approach to free speech, the Terriblegraph allows no comments on the case.

  4. Marius, it’s only copying its fellow budgie cage liner, the Guardian, for whom Comment is only Free if it’s not a subject that they know will attract dissent from the party line.

  5. Of course they should fuck off, but all fucks should be consensual and recorded as such, to avoid further trauma.

  6. In this case I think the newspapers are wise not to have comments turned on – obviously some wag is very likely to ask what exactly was said, and someone else is going to paste some material in which the paper’s lawyers would rather they didn’t. At the very least the comments would need to be pre-moderated, which doesn’t come cheap.

  7. Would be nice if you had some limits on government power over there.

    Might be time to impose some.

  8. But you can guarantee that IPSO was just waiting for a case like this & the opportunity to extend its reach. And that’s will be what the discussions at IPSO will have been about & not the distress of the unfortunate woman.

  9. Person in Pictland

    Is true information as traumatising as misinformation?

    Don’t we live in interesting times?

  10. It is interesting to note stories that do and don’t allow comments when looking at a media organisation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *