The original complaint was filed following an expose on ‘epidemic’ levels of child sexual exploitation in the northern town, where it was suggested up to 1,000 girls, some as young as 11, had been abused. The investigative journalists behind the report are of course to be commended for their sterling work, and we are indebted to them in this regard – it highlights the best of British journalism.

However, the NSO’s complaint was made under clause 1.2 of the Editors’ Code on accuracy. We pointed to the vagueness of the term ‘Asian’, which covers the entire Indian subcontinent, and therefore could infer men of Indian, Japanese and Korean origin are targeting underage white girls in places like Telford and across the country. Moreover, it’s deeply insulting to British Sikhs, Hindus and other non-Muslim ‘Asians’ (like Pakistani Christians) especially given girls from these communities have also been the subjects of abuse by sexual grooming gangs. We believe the common denominator is the targeting of non-Muslim girls. In our complaint to IPSO, we pointed to the Islamic names of those convicted and jailed in a sexual grooming gang case in Telford back in 2013.

The offending article also referred to convictions of men in Rochdale and Rotherham. Again, we pointed to the fact that those convicted in these cases are predominantly from the Pakistani Muslim community. The executive staff at IPSO reviewed the complaint responding, ‘You said this article was misleading in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it referred to the men involved in the Telford grooming gangs as ‘Asian’, when they were largely of Pakistani Muslim heritage.’

They went on, ‘You said this term was vague and misleading, and insulting to those of non-Muslim British Asian heritage. However, this lack of specificity did not mean that it was inaccurate to say that the men were ‘mainly Asian’, and we did not consider that this created a significantly misleading impression. There was no possible breach of Clause 1 on this point. In addition, as you note, the names and images of some abusers were included, which might allow readers to infer the precise ethnicity of those involved.’ IPSO’s Complaints Committee reviewed the executive’s rejection of our complaint and didn’t consider there had been any breach of the Editor’s Code.

The NSO’s Director Lord Singh said, ‘It is totally wrong to describe those convicted in sexual grooming gang cases as ‘Asian’. We’re disappointed in IPSO’s ruling. Given the logic applied here, referring to the majority of perpetrators in these cases as ‘human beings’ or ‘mammals’ would also be deemed ‘accurate’ in accordance with the Editors’ Code. The word ‘Asian’ serves only to mask the inconvenient truth that the majority of those convicted in grooming gang cases are men of Pakistani Muslim heritage.’

‘It’s nothing short of an insult to Britain’s Sikh and Hindu communities, moreover this deliberate lack of specificity smears wholly innocent non-Muslim communities who themselves have fallen victim of Britain’s grooming gang epidemic. Given this decision, would IPSO also take the view that referring to those responsible for the holocaust as ‘European’ is accurate?’

Two other faith organisations filed a complaint to IPSO, the National Council of Hindu Temples (NCHT) and the British Pakistani Christian Association (BPCA).

The NCHT issued a statement today. They said, ‘IPSO’s decision on the use of ‘Asian grooming gangs’ serves to prove that British Asians are being targeted by the British media, with institutional sanction. Specificity and precision in language and reporting are crucial which is why ‘Islamist terror attacks’ are not called ‘Muslim terror attacks’, why Clergy paedophilia is not referred to as ‘Christian paedophilia’, why ‘extreme right wing racists’ are not referred to as ‘British or European racists’. In each of these examples, where specificity is vital, it is clearly applied and yet where the crimes of ‘grooming gangs’ are concerned, specificity is abandoned and the generic broad brush term ‘Asian’ is repeatedly applied. This is clearly a discriminatory policy and yet IPSO, which exists to prevent such discrimination, chooses to be elastic with its terms of reference.’

They went on, ‘to repeatedly tarnish the innocent majority as a result of the actions of a minority is clearly an injustice. To do so in the case of the most evil of crimes, targeting the most vulnerable group in society, underage girls – our children, is clearly an act of malice. To identify the innocent majority with the heinous crimes of those who repeatedly, deliberately and with premeditation, select children on the basis of their ethnicity and religious profile, is clearly an act of racist malice by the mainstream media, in this particular instance the Mirror newspaper.’