Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated at 1.35pm
THE PRESS OMBUDSMAN has received four complaints in relation to the column about equal pay for women by Kevin Myers published in the Sunday Times yesterday.
The opinion piece, which appeared in the Irish print edition, is critical of recent calls for equal pay for men and women in media organisations after the BBC published its list of highest-paid stars and only one woman made the top 10.
Yesterday afternoon, the online version of the article was removed, and both editors of the British and Irish editions issued apologies.
The Press Ombudsman confirmed to TheJournal.ie that four complaints were lodged in relation to the column.
However, the complaints are not yet formal as the complainants must first take up the matter with the editor of the publication.
The case officer for the Press Ombudsman said:
I will be responding to those complainants this morning letting them have a copy of the Press Council’s Code of Practice, and advising them that the complaint must be taken up with the editor in the first instance.
The editor should be given an opportunity to respond and if he doesn’t respond within two weeks, or if he responds within that time and the complainant is not happy with his response, this office will then consider the matter.
A spokesperson for the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the independent regulator for the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK, has confirmed to TheJournal.ie that it has received a total of 25 complaints in relation to the column.
In the article, which is entitled “Sorry, ladies – equal pay has to be earned”, Irish journalist Myers argues that men may get paid more for a variety of reasons:
Is it because men are more charismatic performers? Because they work harder? Because they are more driven? Possibly a bit of each.
In a later section, the article highlights that the two highest-paid female BBC presenters are Jewish.
“Horrifying racism”
BBC presenter Vanessa Feltz has described the column as “horrifying racism”.
Speaking on BBC Radio London, Feltz questioned how “something so blatantly racist” was allowed in the newspaper.
“When someone alerted me to it.. I couldn’t believe such a thing had been printed. It is absolutely gratuitous, not cleverly done, it’s blatant racism. When you see it like that it’s very horrifying,” she said.
The editor personally rung me to apologise. He said he was horrified.
Speaking on RTE Radio 1′s News at One, Sean Donlon of the Press Council of Ireland said: “There are many people who have been impacted by this article and it’s up to them to take up their case with the Press Council if they feel it’s appropriate.”
“Like most press councils in Europe, we rely completely on what I might call the court of public opinion,” he said.
We make our views known. We hope that those views will be taken into account and on the basis of our track record over the last ten years, I think it’s fair to say the court of public opinion has been at least as effective as any court of law.
Editorial apologies
Senior management at the Sunday Times sent an apology to the Campaign Against Antisemitism after it complained about the article.
The British edition of the Sunday Times was unable to confirm how many complaints the publication has received.
Frank Fitzgibbon, editor of the Sunday Times in Ireland, said in his apology yesterday: “On behalf of the Sunday Times I apologise unreservedly for the offence caused by comments in a column written by Kevin Myers and published today in the Ireland edition of the Sunday Times.
It contained views that have caused considerable distress and upset to a number of people. As the editor of the Ireland edition I take full responsibility for this error of judgment. This newspaper abhors antisemitism and did not intend to cause offence to Jewish people.
The editor of the British edition of the Sunday Times Martin Ivens said the column was “unacceptable and should not have been published”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Best of luck to him , I will always have great respect for Hugo Chavez for trying to be a president for the common man and for sending the yank vultures and their puppets packing .
Absolutely 100% agree with you. Any one in any doubt should google John Pilgers documentary, the war on democracy. Chavez is a man of the people that big business want to see the back of.
Great documentary by Oliver Stone about Chavez “South Of The Border” worth a watch, tells how the US tried and failed to bring him down. Great interviews with him and other South American leaders about their refusal to be governed by US policy, it’s an eye opener.
Best wishes to him. He’s an inspiration.
don’t know much about Chavez,
but the fact that extreme right-wing yanks seem to hate him, makes me think he’s ok.
anyway – hope he defeats his cancer.
There is a very real possibility that his cancer was deliberately induced by the US military industrial complex in my opinion.
seriously? bit too much conspiracy perhaps?
Not really Simon. The CIA tired similar stuff with Fidel down the years.
They tried to give him cancer?
How do you give somebody cancer?
Exactly..
I can selectively quote parts of a random article from the internet too, first line under the heading… “Can you give someone cancer? If they’re healthy probably not”.
You want me to copy and paste entire articles here?
The point – and it’s embarrassingly obvious – is that while nobody knows whether his cancer was deliberately induced, it’s a possibility and a reasonable suspicion given the various ways the US tried to murder Fidel Castro down the years.
ha you quoted one part of an article to suit your own agenda! The US are capable of most things, so if they wanted rid of him I’m sure they could find a more effective way then giving him cancer, which your article goes onto say is a highly unreliable way of assassinting someone.
It’s highly unreliable yea but very discrete , I know it’s what I’d do it can’t be traced
A dose of radiation sufficient to appreciably increase cancer risk would undoubtably cause acute radiation sickness (about 3 to 5 sieverts).
Then, if the exposed person survives radiation sickness, there would be a ~10 year latency period before there’s an increased risk of Leukaemia, then if they don’t get Leukaemia, another 10 to 20 years would pass before there’s an increasing chance of solid cancers.
The maximum increase chance of cancer from radiation is ~40%, the risks are not higher as the exposed person would more likely die from radiation sickness at higher doses, they wouldn’t survive to get cancer years later.
Do you have a source for that, David?
Studies of the Mortality of Atomic Bomb Survivors, Report 14, 1950–2003: An Overview of Cancer and Noncancer Diseases
The Japanese Life Span study is the gold standard, 130,000 atomic bombing survivors monitored since the mid-1950s, since Japanese doctors started to notice increased cases of leukaemia.
The Excess Relative Risk per Gray (roughly the same as a Sievert) is 0.42, since the baseline cancer rate is ~30%, this gives a cancer rate of 42.6% for 1 Gray dose.
For an additional increase of 40% (30+40%)= 70% cancer rate, the radiation dose would need to be massive, undoubtably accompanied with severe radiation sickness.
Where is that’s documentary pls love to see it
Here’s a great one filmed by two Irish reporters, they were in the Chavezs’ office when the coup happened. They stayed behind, when Chavez and his ministers fled; they said they wanted to film the revolution happening. They got both sides from the inside, it’s a real eye opener, an excellent documentry:
Venezuela has one of the most democratic systems in the world.
Here’s what former US President Jimmy Carter of the Nobel Prize-winning election monitoring Carter Center had to say about it:
“Of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”
All Venezuelan expatriates get a vote. Those people are likely to vote for the opponents of Chavez, yet he still gives them the vote.
The people of Venezuela keep voting for Chavez, because he is of them.
It’s amazing that just because Chavez has stood up to the United States people make him out to some kind of hero. He presides over a massively corrupt country, which usually happens when one man resides in power way beyond what is healthy for any supposedly democratic country.
He keeps getting elected. Pesky democracy!
Because he has made it easier and easier for him to get elected. Himself and Putin have a lot in common.
At least he’s not owned and operated by Goldman Sachs, like BOTH of the selected candidates in the USA’s farcical overture to democracy.
That article doesn’t even back you up. Anybody that knows anything about cancer knows you can’t give somebody cancer.
Are you pretending to be dim or does it come naturally. Read. The. Comments. Again… S l o w l y !
I agree its unlikely but to rule if out is daft , best way to kill someone is to make it look like an accident.
Petr no need to get upset because you were wrong
Exactly, Kevin. Quite a simple point to grasp really.
A large dose of dioxins will induce cancer in most people. There are many carcinogenic compounds that can be administered covertly in food. It’s not science fiction
No, the amount of Dioxin required to greatly increase cancer risk would cause obvious symptoms – Chloracne. Just look at what happened to Viktor ‘s Yushchenko’s face after he was poisoned by Dioxin.
Caracas is one of the most dangerous places on earth. I suspect Damascus would be safer. Roaring inflation and shortages makes his rule not much of a success. It would be possible to have clinics in slums areas without wrecking the economy. He or his heir won’t be able to buy support for much longer.
I wish Mr Chavez all the best and I admire what he has done for working people in his country and the region. For too long the United States have treated South America as their own private plantation.
have your say