Tag Archives: Lucy Meadows

Section 40 and Leveson 2

The Government has just closed it’s consultation on whether to commence Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, and whether to hold Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry. To the uninitiated, commencement is making sure that the law now applies. It’s not enough for it just to receive Royal Assent, the relevant Government […]

Accuracy? Public Interest? Nah – just sell the story…

The tabloid press have been remarkably silent regarding the outrage around the Lucy Meadows story.  They reported her death with the usual deliberate misgenderings and pictures of her as male.  Since then – nothing in the redtops. One tabloid journalist has put fingers to keyboard and blogged “an alternative view“.  In it he quotes the […]

Parliament and the Press Complaints Commission

Yesterday I, with one other, paid a visit to the Press Complaints Commission.  I was asked why, as the generally accepted view is that its days are numbered.  But my purpose was quite simple.  I wanted to spur them into some kind of pre-emptive action, and to explain to them just some of the emotion that […]

Vigil

Monday’s vigil seemed to come from nowhere.  It’s certainly nothing to do with Trans Media Watch.  It’s strongly positioned as a vigil of respect, not as a vigil of protest, for which I’m relieved.  I plan to be there, to show my respects to another trans person, harassed then monstered by a press who wouldn’t […]

Twitterstorms, Inaccuracies and Press Ethics

The Daily Express, for example, is outside of the Press Complaints Commission’s remit.  So what do you do if they publish an inaccurate story, like the one about the costs of treating two trans prisoners approaching £100,000?  Well, you phone them up, like Jane Fae says she did. The paper wasn’t interested in correcting things.  […]

The Ongoing Saga of Tabloids and Trans People

It’s not been a good 24 hours for trans people’s relations with the British press. Yesterday evening, the Press Complaints Commission ruled that Julie Burchill’s January article did not breach the Editors Code.  On a strict “legal” definition, that’s true, as the Code only specifically restricts discriminatory articles against named individuals, and accuracy more generally.  […]