,
8 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
The email from @JennieGenSec gives detail of the issues Labour have with the Sunday Times reporting: they say:
- it's "categorically untrue" that leader's office approved, delayed or blocked 101 cases
- not reported in article that practice of intervening ended in April 2018 ...
- it's "categorically untrue" that leader's office approved, delayed or blocked 101 cases
- not reported in article that practice of intervening ended in April 2018 ...
- They say an email chain involving Thomas Gardiner wasn't accurately represented (this is from the article). They say he wasn't blocking it being fast tracked, he was suggesting it should be dealt with as antisemitism 
Seems that the most serious - and important - inaccuracy they allege is that the leader's office intervened in 101 cases.
What say you @Gabriel_Pogrund? Can you back up that claim in the article?
What say you @Gabriel_Pogrund? Can you back up that claim in the article?
@Gabriel_Pogrund The complaint about how Gardiner's email was represented seems unfounded given how much detail was provided in the article. Isn't this exactly how @JennieGenSec describes the position? Unless the article was later edited? thetimes.co.uk/article/vile-a…
@Gabriel_Pogrund @JennieGenSec Again, the article may have been edited but this point about the leader's office 'advising' on complaints (nb from the emails 'deciding' seems more appropriate) seems to have been explicitly reported in the article - and I think it was in the original version I read on Sat night
@Gabriel_Pogrund @JennieGenSec Labour's Press Office effectively said the whole article was inaccurate.
Given how important the issue, and the competing claims, I would like to see Labour complain to IPSO so that we can have a full and impartial resolution of this.
Given how important the issue, and the competing claims, I would like to see Labour complain to IPSO so that we can have a full and impartial resolution of this.
@Gabriel_Pogrund @JennieGenSec I am tempted to complain to IPSO myself if Labour don't do it.
There are 2 possibilities:
1. The article is inaccurate = Sunday Times should be found in breach of Editorial Code
2. Article is accurate = Labour are deliberately exaggerating or misrepresenting the position
There are 2 possibilities:
1. The article is inaccurate = Sunday Times should be found in breach of Editorial Code
2. Article is accurate = Labour are deliberately exaggerating or misrepresenting the position
@Gabriel_Pogrund @JennieGenSec One thing is clear to me:
If a political party outright denies a press report based on whistleblower leaks, accuse journalists of "gross" misrepresentations, it should put its money where it's mouth is and complain to IPSO
What possible justification for not doing so?
If a political party outright denies a press report based on whistleblower leaks, accuse journalists of "gross" misrepresentations, it should put its money where it's mouth is and complain to IPSO
What possible justification for not doing so?
