- Home
- About Us
- Hindu Temples
- Resources
The Hindu Temple -Its design and PurposeMore to come..
PRESS RELEASE –
IPSO DECISION ON THE USE OF THE WORD ASIANS IN REFERENCE TO “GROOMING GANGS”
The recent decision of IPSO on the use of "Asian grooming gangs" serves to prove that British Asians are being targeted by the British media, with institutional sanction.
Specificity and precision in language and reporting are crucial which is why “Islamist terror attacks” are not called "Muslim terror attacks", why Clergy paedophilia is not referred to as “Christian paedophilia”, why “extreme right wing racists” are not referred to as “British or European racists”. In each of these examples, where specificity is vital, it is clearly applied and yet where the crimes of “grooming gangs" are concerned, specificity is abandoned and the generic broad brush term “Asian” is repeatedly applied. This is clearly a discriminatory policy and yet IPSO, which exists to prevent such discrimination, chooses to be elastic with its terms of reference.
To repeatedly tarnish the innocent majority as a result of the actions of a minority is clearly an injustice. To do so in the case of the most evil of crimes, targeting the most vulnerable group in society, underage girls – our children, is clearly an act of malice. To identify the innocent majority with the heinous crimes of those who repeatedly, deliberately and with premeditation, select children on the basis of their ethnicity and religious profile, is clearly an act of racist malice by the mainstream media, in this particular instance the Mirror newspaper.
For IPSO to have then defended such a glaring anomaly, to have overlooked the gross inconsistency and to have performed linguistic gymnastics to defend a position which is irrational and unreasonable, is clear evidence of how much institutional contempt for those "Brown and Yellow" people still persists in 21st Century Great Britain.
There is an increasing sense amongst the British public that British Institutions which exist to provide the British public with services, are no longer acting in their interests, are no longer “fit for purpose” and for the non-white British public this is doubly so, where the residual presence of colonial prejudice is still regularly felt.
IPSO’s decision is clearly deeply flawed and we will be responding to their decision once we have consulted with our “Asian” and “NON ASIAN” community influencers.
https://www.ipso.co.uk/make-a-complaint/
The IPSO Decision -
The Complaints Committee has considered your complaint, the email of 26 March from IPSO’s Executive notifying you of its view that your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice, and your email of 30 March requesting a review of the Executive’s decision. The Committee agreed the following decision:
The Committee apologised that the Executive’s letter did not fully address the concerns you had raised under Clause 3 (Harassment). You said that there was a general bias in the media against Asians. The terms of Clause 3 generally relates to the conduct of journalists during the newsgathering process, and is designed to protect individuals from unwanted or repeated approaches by the press. Your concerns that the article was bias against Asian people did not engage the terms of the Code, and did not therefore raise a possible breach of Clause 3.
Also, while the Code does cover discrimination under Clause 12, this does not apply to groups or categories of people. The terms of Clause 12 are designed to protect identified or identifiable individuals mentioned by the press against discrimination on the basis of their race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability. Therefore concerns that the article, or the press more generally, discriminates against Asian people in general, do not engage the terms of the Editors’ Code.
For these reasons, and the reasons already provided by IPSO’s Executive, the Committee decided that your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code.. As such, it declined to re-open your complaint.
The Committee would like to thank you for giving it the opportunity to consider your concerns.
