IPSO ruling in Molly v Sunday Times - the press can call men in dresses men

[fromorbit]

Another win.

For Women Scotland

Very much enjoying the IPSO ruling in Molly v Sunday Times.

The press should note that columnists are at liberty to call Euan a "bloke", a "lunatic", and "Mr Molly".

00092-26 Molly v The Sunday Times - IPSO
Sophie Molly complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sunday Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “How the ex-Green stole Christmas”, published on 21 December 2025.
https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings/00092-26/

Sparkles lost every single claim. This is a HUGE win for sexing blokes correctly in the Press. Thanks Sparkles we could not have done this without you being a lunatic. Your attempt to steal Christmas brought a gift to every boy and girl who knows their own sex.

NB The facts around Molly/Sparkles reliability and sex is a key focus in the upcoming libel trial for the Fox Botherer so If I was JM I would be panicking. If you winning anything legal depends on Sparkles you are doomed. Sarah has now issued her claim and it is heading for court.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5511121-glp-are-going-after-sarah-phillimore-and-are-going-to-lose-part-two?page=22

😁
Please tell me this is now The End and there's no one to complain to about how the Independent Complaints Reviewer handled the complaint about the complaint.

He will be taking it to the European Court of Human Rights next. (joking, hopefully).

Hopefully the European Court of Hurty Resentfulness will tell him to do one.

To go to ECHR you have to have gone through domestic courts first. So he would have to sue the newspaper for ....actually I cant think what he could sue them for.

For breaching his Human Right to be a complete and total pillock.

There is a decent piece by Nick Wallia in the Sunday Times regarding the BBCs Darren Rigby reporting.

For trying to erase all trans people, inciting literal violence...yanno, the usual stuff 🥱

Dont forget the genocide, dead naming and misgendering is literally genocide.

Mr Molly and Mr Sparkle both sound like characters from Psychoville to me. How fitting.

Sarah doesn't need any defences in her case. She is suing JM it's him that needs to defend himself

Yes that's true, if I remember rightly SP is innocent until proven guilty, the onus is on JM to prove she did whatever he's accusing her of doing.

Which he can't.

So I'm quietly confident she'll win.

Interestingly he has accused her of harassing a certain Sophie Molloy and making him suicidal. SP has been gathering receipts which show Mr Molloy has claimed a number of factors making him feel suicidal and also all the many many times Mr Molloy has shown himself to enjoy harassing other people.

@ChamonixMountainBum Got a share token?

I was being serious - I guess the nearest thing might be misuse of personal information.

But SP won't need her receipts, JM will be the one who has to produce the receipts that show SP harassed Sparkles. He's the accuser, it's up to him to prove what he's said about SP is true.

Nick Wallis in the Sunday Times

https://www.thetimes.com/article/1d940dfa-bb62-4af5-90fe-49756bb0b269?shareToken=159199150aa2e0f91e6f9fa476bb3cd2&ver=article

Have not yet RTFT but that ruling was an absolute joy to read on what is already a lovely sunny Sunday morning.

Nick Wallis is spot on with this comment.
They argue that the longer the BBC remains equivocal about something as fundamental as sex, its audience is unlikely to trust it on much else.

The level of equivocation has amounted to lying - presenting people as something they are not - and my trust in the BBC has entirely gone as a result of this and other inaccuracies in their reporting. If there was a root and branch change starting now, it would take them years to restore the trust I once had in them. They have shown themselves to be easily swayed by pressure groups and activists, and reluctant to explore the full facts in case they find something they don't like. Not just on this issue - on others, too.

They would have to convince me that they were looking at the facts before they wrote an article, rather than than scribbling down copy based on whatever BS they were being told by whichever activist had a direct line.

Politically, I am still centre-left, but get me going on the BBC and I become an absolute curmudgeon.

Agree.It comes to something when it became normal to read a news article on the BBC news page and then have to go onto X or even tiktok to establish the actual true facts! I remember way back when it was once the other way round!

Wallis does accept the BBC's excuses and they do seem plausible. To me that begs the question, why was the press release from the Police so obfuscatory?

Loss of trust means not trusting the excuses, too convenient for them.

EDI policies is probably why - police are seemingly terrified of being labelled racist or transphobic. The UK justice system seem to be unreasonably keen on protecting the feelings of criminals nowadays.

Oh dear, sad times for the polycule.

I'm hoping Sainsbury's publish the whole ruling as a Christmas card

Here is the delicate flower in action - a mild mannered speech which would not ever create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for anyone at all....

Bloody hell. I hope they're able to show that video in court if he brings a claim based around being delicate and vulnerable.

Inheritance
Titles
Toilets under the Workplace Regulations 1992 (GLP v EHRC JR)
Toilets and changing rooms in NHS (LS v NHS England)