Burchill trans column: PCC + 3rd party complaints

Burchill's column attracted 1000s of comments + complaints. Pic source.

NB: The Observer was bought by The Guardian Media Group in 1993, and so is what you'd term its Sunday sister paper.

[Scroll to the bottom for an update, March 26th]

The PCC may have announced it was disbanding itself ... but it continues until such times as a post-Leveson successor body is set up. They've stepped into the row about Julie Burchill's Observer column, now removed from its website (a highly unusual step), which was seen to widely insult transgendered people.

Some key details:

• Dealing with clause 12 (discrimination) + 1 (accuracy); the issue of 3rd party complaints; the right to offend; the difference between columns and editorial: there are some links with the Iain Dale case (2010); Jan Moir's Gately column (2009), AA Gill's column on Clare Balding (2010) etc
• Read all of Roy Greenslade's columns on this here
• Burchill wrote a column for The Observer, sister paper to The Guardian;
• She and it were known for featuring controversial views;
• A January 2013 column set out to attack transsexual 'trolls' of her colleague Suzanne Moore, another columnist;
• the column featured strong derogatory terms for describing transsexuals ("screaming mimis", "bed-wetters in bad wigs" and "dicks in chicks' clothing")
• the paper received 1,000s of complaints; there were over 2,000 comments below the article
• the PCC received 800 complaints
• the topic trended on Twitter
• they don't usual respond to 3rd party complaints but did in this case because of the public interest
• PCC Editors' Code clause 12 states:

12	Discrimination
	i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

• The Guardian, exceptionally, removed the article from their website (Greenslade argues this was wrong)
• A (Lib Dem) government minister (Featherstone) called for both her and the editor to be sacked
• An Independent readers poll saw 90% deem the article offensive
• It attracted a protest outside the Guardian offices:

An internal Observer inquiry, conducted by the readers' editor, Stephen Pritchard, accepted that the column had broken the paper's own code, which states that it "should not casually use words that are likely to offend". He said that it was published due to "a collective failure of editing".
Days later, a peaceful protest about the publication was staged outside the offices of The Observer and The Guardian.
The editors of both papers, along with other journalists (including me), have since been invited by a transgender group, On Road, to meet young trans people in order to understand the problems they face. [source]

• The Observer sacked her
• The PCC rejected the complaint; here's Greenslade on the decision:

Clearly, the PCC decided that Burchill's column, despite her colourful choice of language, could not be deemed to be prejudicial. In other words, she had a right to be offensive.
Reading between the lines, I imagine the commission took the view that it was a matter of taste and therefore lay within the editor's prerogative.

(SOME OF) ROY GREENSLADE'S COLUMNS ON THIS
Here's Roy Greenslade covering the PCC's intercession:

Columnist Julie Burchill attracted 1,000s of online comments

The Press Complaints Commission is to launch an inquiry into the publication of Julie Burchill's controversial column in The Observer that caused outrage among transgender people. The commission decided to act after receiving 800 complaints.
Though the PCC does not generally take up what are called third-party complaints, it has done so on occasions when it feels there is sufficient public interest in doing so.
Similarly, although the commission has been reluctant to investigate stories that involve groups of people in which no individual is identified, it has done so in the past.