0 
0 Sir Keir Starmer loves to present himself as the high-minded ‘Mr Rules’, denouncing those who fail to uphold the highest standards in public life. Except, it seems, when it comes to his own staff.
Just imagine Labour’s reaction if a senior Whitehall mandarin had breached the civil service code by spending months secretly negotiating a top job in the Tory party while still in post.
There would be howls of outrage, calls for a Parliamentary inquiry – the full panoply of righteous indignation.
Yet when Sue Gray, soon to be Sir Keir’s chief of staff, is found to have breached the code following a civil service inquiry, Labour simply refuses to accept the result.
It’s a political stunt, it says; ‘Mickey Mouse nonsense’. Despite the verdict, they insist no rules were broken. How could the sainted Sir Keir possibly be party to any shady dealings? What hypocrites!
Some may dismiss this sorry episode as a side issue. But it has implications beyond the normal cut and thrust of party politics.
Sir Keir Starmer loves to present himself as the high-minded ‘Mr Rules’, denouncing those who fail to uphold the highest standards in public life. Except, it seems, when it comes to his own staff.
When Sue Gray, soon to be Sir Keir’s chief of staff, is found to have breached the code following a civil service inquiry, Labour simply refuses to accept the result
Ms Gray was the Government’s head of ethics and propriety. She was Second Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office. She headed the inquiry into Partygate. Her evidence informed the privileges committee which effectively ended Boris Johnson’s parliamentary career.
In all these roles, her impartiality was essential. Yet it has now been thrown into serious doubt. Her allies may say she acted without prejudice at all times but can we believe that?
They also say the ‘undeclared contact’ between herself and Sir Keir began last October, months after her Partygate report was published. But how can we be sure?
Throughout the brouhaha over Downing Street gatherings in lockdown, Labour’s mantra was: It’s one rule for them and another for everyone else. We can now say the same about sanctimonious Sir Keir.
A flawed ruling
This paper strongly supports the Independent Press Standards Organisation. It provides an essential conduit between the press and members of the public seeking redress for alleged breaches of the Editors’ Code of Practice in such areas as accuracy, intrusion and invasion of privacy.
It has powers to order corrections and the publication of adverse adjudications. In a free country IPSO is infinitely better than any form of state regulation.
However, we believe its latest ruling, that a tasteless column by Jeremy Clarkson for The Sun about the Duchess of Sussex breached the code because it was sexist, is mistaken on two counts.
What Clarkson wrote was ugly, and a serious error of judgment. Both he and his paper rightly apologised, and that should have been the end of the matter
Firstly, IPSO should not be arbitrating on opinions, however objectionable. In fact the code specifically enshrines the right ‘to be partisan, to challenge and to shock’. What Clarkson wrote was ugly, and a serious error of judgment. Both he and his paper rightly apologised, and that should have been the end of the matter.
But even more worryingly, this case also overturns the guiding principle that complaints about discrimination should only be considered from those individuals directly affected.
The accusers here were two women’s rights organisations – the Fawcett Society (new boss, Labour’s Harriet Harman) and an even more obscure domestic abuse charity called the WILDE Foundation.
Their objections to the Clarkson column went in harness with a textbook Twitter storm culminating in 25,000 complaints. Sadly, IPSO appears to have capitulated under the strain.
By taking complaints from third-party campaign groups, it risks opening the floodgates to anyone seeking to suppress views they disagree with.
Free speech is a precious commodity. It mustn’t be silenced by censorious pressure groups and mob rule on social media. IPSO should think very carefully about that.
Source: | This article originally belongs to Dailymail.co.uk
Content source – www.soundhealthandlastingwealth.com
