Resolution Statement: Complaint 03072-15 Lloyd v mirror.co.uk

Resolution Statement: Complaint 03072-15 Lloyd v mirror.co.uk 

Summary of complaint

1. Peter Lloyd complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that mirror.co.uk had published an article, headlined “Anti-feminist offends on TV claiming women who chose to get pregnant are committing ‘financial abortion’”, on 21 April 2015, which raised a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. 

2. The complainant expressed concern that the article had referred to him as an “anti-feminist”; he did not consider this to be an accurate characterisation of his views. He also said that he had not claimed that women who get pregnant commit “financial abortion”, nor had he said during his television interview that “feminism has gone too far”. 

3. The newspaper did not believe that its article was significantly inaccurate.   

Relevant Code Provisions

4. Clause 1 (Accuracy) 

i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures. 

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published. 

iii) The press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. 

Mediated outcome

5. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore instigated an investigation into the matter.  

6. The newspaper offered to remove the article from its website and publish the following clarification online: 

On 21 April we published an article about Peter Lloyd under the headline "Anti-feminist offends on TV claiming women who chose to get pregnant are committing 'financial abortion'". We would like to clarify that Mr Lloyd says that he does not identify as anti-feminist and that his comment was actually that men who are deceived into fatherhood should have the option to commit 'financial abortion' and relinquish monetary responsibility. 

7. The complainant said these offers would resolve the matter to his satisfaction. 

8. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code. 

Date complaint received: 22/04/2015