IPSO’s new “compulsory arbitration” scheme: why claimants are unlikely to use it – Evan Harris

4 05 2018

The press industry’s consumer complaints body, IPSO, has announced a new “compulsory” arbitration scheme for national newspapers.  This is the third version of the IPSO arbitration scheme.  The first two versions have had no takers and the third is unlikely to be any more successful. Read the rest of this entry »





IPSO’s latest season of calamities – Brian Cathcart

2 05 2018
Damned in an official report, exposed as useless by a select committee, incapable of tackling flagrant press dishonesty, caught cherry-picking complaints – the sham press regulator is blundering between disasters.

Read the rest of this entry »





IPSO upholds complaint against The Times in the Muslim Foster Carer Case – Transparency Project

1 05 2018

Last year The Times ran a number of leading articles criticising the arrangements for the care of a young girl placed in foster care by Tower Hamlets council, with a focus on the religious background and practices of the foster carer and their ability to speak English. Read the rest of this entry »






Case Preview: R (on the application of Coulter) v IPSO: Ground breaking judicial review challenge to IPSO

11 04 2018

One of the many people who have seen their complaints about bad journalism in the national press swept aside is taking his case against the sham press regulator, IPSO, to the High Court.  The hearing will take place in the Administrative Court on 17 April 2018. Read the rest of this entry »





IPSO, Trevor Kavanagh and a licence to abuse minorities – Brian Cathcart

29 11 2017

However low our opinion of IPSO may be, we have to accept that some of those who have supported it, engaged with it and even worked for it have done so for sincere and honest reasons. The time has come to feel sorry for them, because they have been utterly humiliated. Read the rest of this entry »





Hacked Off: IPSO’s Sham Arbitration Scheme

29 11 2017

IPSO has announced what it falsely claims to be a new “Leveson-style” arbitration scheme in its latest attempt to mislead the public into believing that it is implementing the recommendations of the Leveson Report and providing access to justice to members of the public.  Read the rest of this entry »