Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 109936,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/109936/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 270,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "in its Monday Edition. In the largely comical weekly pullout, the newspaper usually runs a teaser column christened “Eye Identify”. Wherein the newspaper publishes shots of prominent people’s eyes and challenges the readers to identify the owner of the eye. On 22nd March, 2010, at the same column, a similar publication was run albeit with a change. This time the puzzle involved some uncovered body parts as opposed to eyes. Under the heading which was “politically incorrect/a skewed look at the political scene” and the caption, “Below the hem” the newspapers carried the picture complained of with the following explanatory note: “Elsewhere in this pull out, we have the eyedentity quiz which is predicated on the assumption that people’s eyes have a distinct personality. Nobody has ever thought of running a legdentity quiz though. A prize for whoever can correctly identify the owners of these pairs of legs. Clue: The picture was taken in Parliament.” Hon. Members, the question on which I have to rule is whether the picture in question and the manner in which it was carried by the newspaper amounts to a violation of our Standing Orders and if so, the action to be taken by this House against the newspaper. In arriving at these findings, I have made some assumptions. The first assumption, and this does not appear to be in context, is that the picture in question was in fact taken in Parliament. The newspapers itself asserted so and if this were to be false, perhaps different considerations will apply. The second assumption is, of course, that the"
}