Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Press watchdog rejects complaints over Rod Liddle “piano wire” column

IPSO says anti-cyclist column did not breach Editors' Code of Practice...

Press watchdog the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has rejected complaints regarding Rod Liddle’s recent column in The Sunday Times in which he wrote that he found it “tempting” to “tie piano wire at neck height across the road” to target cyclists, with the regulator saying that the article did not infringe the Editors’ Code of Practice. The column has been published at a time when unprovoked attacks against cyclists, including through the use of booby traps such as wire, appear to be on the rise.

In a detailed response (published in full at the end of this article) to people who complained to it about the column under various provisions of the Editors’ Code, IPSO “noted that many complainants expressed concerns that the article could incite violence against cyclists,” and that others maintained that it “constituted hate speech” due to the reference to piano wire across the road.

“However,” IPSO said, “both hate speech and incitement are potentially criminal matters which are dealt with by the police. If you believe that the article was inciting hatred or violence, or constituted hate speech, then you may wish to contact the police about these concerns as IPSO cannot offer advice on criminal matters.”

Other complaints were rejected because they did not fall within the provisions of the Editors’ Code.

Complaints under Clause 3 (Harassment) that the column “constituted harassment towards cyclists and could potentially encourage further hatred and harassment from members of the public” were rejected because, IPSO said, that clause “generally relates to the way journalists behave when researching a news story and is meant to protect specific individuals from being repeatedly approached by the press against their wishes.”

Similarly, IPSO said that Clause 12 (Dsicrimination) “is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability,” but does not apply to groups or categories of people,” such as “cyclists.”

IPSO also said that it could not pursue complaints alleging that the article “was highly offensive, inappropriate and irresponsible.”

It said: “We should note that the Editors’ Code does not address the issues of taste or offence. It is designed to deal with any possible conflicts between newspapers’ right to freedom of expression and the rights of individuals, such as their right to privacy.

“Newspapers and magazine are free to publish what they think is appropriate as long as the rights of individuals – which are protected under the Code – are not infringed upon. Accordingly, concerns that the article was offensive and inappropriate did not engage of the terms of the Editors’ Code,” IPSO added.

The Sunday Times last week defended the column, published on 24 May, saying that it “was not meant to be taken seriously,” despite receiving complaints from the charity Cycling UK, broadcaster Ned Boulting and barrister James M Turner QC, among others.

> Sunday Times says Rod Liddle “piano wire” column “not intended to be taken seriously”

That, plus the response from IPSO, which does admittedly appear hamstrung by the specific provisions of the Editors’ Code and lack of scope to deviate from that, means disappointment and frustration for those who did complain.

One cyclist who received the response from IPSO was Blythe Storm, who posted the text of the letter on her Girl On A Brompton blog in a post headed, Sunday Times threats to cyclists perfectly acceptable?

She wrote: “I am, to be frank, pretty disgusted with the response. It may not breach their ‘code’ but that doesn’t excuse the language or sentiment that has been expressed and the damage it has done to the relationship between the media and cyclists, and cyclists and the general public.

“It is appalling that this is allowed to continue, and does so even whilst people are in hospital and at home recovering from unprovoked attacks. For the Sunday Times to accept no responsibility for these assaults, when they were clearly prompted and justified by its staff writer is simply appalling and further assaults and attacks will now be seen as ‘justified’ in the eyes of some of their readers.

Cycling UK told road.cc that it did not itself lodge a complaint with IPSO since “our complaint did not fall within the strict rules of the Editor’s Code.”

It did, however, make a formal complaint to The Sunday Times, saying that the column was “inflammatory, in seriously poor taste, and implies that a seriously dangerous and criminal act is somehow an acceptable course of conduct.”

Today, Duncan Dollimore, the charity’s head of campaigns, said: “Although The Sunday Times this Sunday published a letter highlighting Cycling UK’s concerns in response to Rod Liddle’s article, we have yet to receive a response to our more detailed complaint letter. We will comment further as and when that is received.”

 The full text of the letter sent by IPSO to people who complained about the article appears below.

Dear Complainants,

I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “Auntie’s doing her job again. All it took was thousands of deaths and a useless cabinet”, published by The Sunday Times on 24 May 2020.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has received a number of complaints about this article. In order to be able to respond in a timely manner, we have prepared a response which deals with the various concerns raised by complaints.

When IPSO receives a complaint, the Executive staff review it first to decide whether the complaint falls within our remit, and whether it raises a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. We have read your complaint carefully, and have decided that it does not raise a possible breach of the Editors’ Code.

First, I should make clear that our response deals only with the concerns raised under the Editors’ Code of Practice. We noted that many complainants expressed concerns that the article could incite violence against cyclists as it stated that “it’s tempting” to “tie piano wire at neck height across the road”.  Other complainants were concerned that this phrase constituted hate speech. However, both hate speech and incitement are potentially criminal matters which are dealt with by the police. If you believe that the article was inciting hatred or violence, or constituted hate speech, then you may wish to contact the police about these concerns as IPSO cannot offer advice on criminal matters.

Many complainants said that the article breached Clause 3 (Harassment) as it constituted harassment towards cyclists and could potentially encourage further hatred and harassment from members of the public. However, Clause 3 generally relates to the way journalists behave when researching a news story and is meant to protect specific individuals from being repeatedly approached by the press against their wishes. As the concerns we received did not relate to this, the terms of Clause 3 were not engaged.

Many complainants also said that the article breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) because it discriminated against cyclists. Clause 12 is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability. It does not apply to groups or categories of people.  The concern that the article discriminated against cyclists in general did not relate to an individual, nor did it relate to a protected characteristic listed under Clause 12. This meant that it did not engage the terms of this Clause. For more information about Clause 12 and how it works, this blog may be of interest.

https://www.ipso.co.uk/news-press-releases/blog/ipso-blog-how-clause-12-...

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) because it encouraged members of the public to injure cyclists. Clause 10 relates to the obtaining of information by journalists through clandestine means or by deploying subterfuge – for instance, by using undercover reporters.  As the complaints that we received did not relate to this, and therefore the terms of Clause 10 were not engaged. 

Many complainants expressed concerns that the article was highly offensive, inappropriate and irresponsible. We should note that the Editors’ Code does not address the issues of taste or offence. It is designed to deal with any possible conflicts between newspapers’ right to freedom of expression and the rights of individuals, such as their right to privacy. Newspapers and magazine are free to publish what they think is appropriate as long as the rights of individuals – which are protected under the Code – are not infringed upon. Accordingly, concerns that the article was offensive and inappropriate did not engage of the terms of the Editors’ Code.

We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.

You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us in the next seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made seven days after the date of this email.

Best wishes,

Sebastian Harwood

Cc

The Sunday Times

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

16 comments

Avatar
spen | 4 years ago
1 like

There were probably less than 1% of the population that actually read the article either on line or in print and, give the readership of the Sunday Times, less than 1% of those (figures plucked from thin air for illustrative purposes) would have felt in any way stirred to action.  These articles and the complaints to the watch dog are exactly what Liddle wants, a bit of noteriety to gloss over the acuity of his writing in general. He is, after all, a man as trustworthy as our PM. 

 

Avatar
handlebarcam | 4 years ago
3 likes

He may not have infringed the Editors’ Code of Practice, but Rod Liddle is unquestionably, definitively, 100%-verifiably a bellend. He was a bellend when he was left-wing in his youth, and he is a bellend now in his reactionary middle age. He'll be a bellend when some poor care assistant has to feed him and wipe his arse in his final years. And he'll probably leave instructions in his will for the kind of inscription on his gravestone that will make passers-by remark that whoever he was he must have been a massive cock.

Avatar
The Choking Angels | 4 years ago
0 likes

<ignore>

 

Avatar
The Choking Angels | 4 years ago
0 likes

<ignore>

Avatar
The Choking Angels replied to The Choking Angels | 4 years ago
3 likes

It is of course no surprise that IPSO will do nothing about it. In the last three years they have not carried out any investigations or issued any fines. 

Source:
https://hackinginquiry.org/campaigns/ipso/

AFAIK IPSO do not meet the requirements for an independent press regulator set down by Lord Leveson (in phone hacking enquiry)

Also the second part of the Leveson inquiry has been cancelled. The Conservative party rewarding their mates in the mainly right wing press.

I am glad that IPSO consider incitement and hate speech to be police matters. I expressed the same view in another thread. Yesterday I formally complained about Liddle's two articles to my local police and crime commissioner, and asked for a police investigation. 

I suggest that others do the same.

Avatar
ktache replied to The Choking Angels | 4 years ago
0 likes

Good luck The Choking Angels.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to The Choking Angels | 4 years ago
0 likes

The Choking Angels wrote:

It is of course no surprise that IPSO will do nothing about it. In the last three years they have not carried out any investigations or issued any fines. 

Source:
https://hackinginquiry.org/campaigns/ipso/

AFAIK IPSO do not meet the requirements for an independent press regulator set down by Lord Leveson (in phone hacking enquiry)

Also the second part of the Leveson inquiry has been cancelled. The Conservative party rewarding their mates in the mainly right wing press.

I am glad that IPSO consider incitement and hate speech to be police matters. I expressed the same view in another thread. Yesterday I formally complained about Liddle's two articles to my local police and crime commissioner, and asked for a police investigation. 

I suggest that others do the same.

Thanks for that.  I'll give my local bobbies a call.

Avatar
shufflingb | 4 years ago
6 likes

Wonder if they would have given the same ruling if Mr Liddle had said car drivers were so annoying it was tempting to lob bricks at them from motorway bridges?

Avatar
leqin | 4 years ago
6 likes

How long do we have to put up with this sort of crap. They are not a fucking watchdog if all they do is cart blanch allow one of the newspapers, they are supposed to police, to print hate speech against members of the public. Does somebody need to be dead before they act, because I get the impression that they wouldn't even give a fucking shit if that happened. For all we know it is a organisation filled to the brim with ineffectual tossers of the likes of Rod Liddle and his ilk, who maybe walk around dressed like the KKK or Hitlers brown shirts.

Avatar
PaulHerneBay | 4 years ago
5 likes

Strange how it seems acceptable to incite violence or intolerance against a "group of people"  when they are "cyclists", but if "cyclists" was replaced wirh gay, lesbian, black or whatever that would be unacceptable. I'm a person who rides a bike as a chosen means of transport, why should that mean I am open to abuse etc.

Avatar
53.12.scruz | 4 years ago
3 likes

I received the same letter.  It did offer 7 days to appeal, but the position won't change.  I'm going to stop at this point.  The response was clearly written for the committee by legal advisors.  The reviewers who replied were unwilling, or more likely unable, to respond to further questions.

As suggested earlier, voting with your money does seem to be the best approach.

 

 

 

Avatar
dodpeters | 4 years ago
3 likes

It’s time we had a list of businesses that advertise with the offending papers so that we can all boycott them.

Avatar
Drinfinity replied to dodpeters | 4 years ago
4 likes
Avatar
leaway2 | 4 years ago
8 likes

To sum up, the body funded by press find no problem with press.

Avatar
eburtthebike | 4 years ago
1 like

I'll be requesting that the IPSPO Complaints Committee review this decision.  Then I'll be writing to my MP demanding that the government do something about press responsibility, just like they've failed to do for a long time; forever really.  Maybe with their current "golden age of cycling" they might actually do something.

Anything that makes them justify their unjustifiable position is going to make more work for them, and discourage them from doing it again, 'cos let's face it IPSO is there for the sole purpose, like the BBC complaints process, of exonerating people.

Avatar
brooksby | 4 years ago
4 likes

Oh, I get it - so IPSO is completely toothless and uninterested.  Alrighty then... 

Latest Comments