The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Tag: Paul Wragg (Page 1 of 3)

The Times, IPSO and the Mystery of the Systematic Breaches Sanction – Paul Wragg

In June 2019, Brian Cathcart and Paddy French published a report which accused Andrew Norfolk and The Times of an anti-Muslim bias in its reporting.  They mention three articles specifically.  Of these, two resulted in complaints to IPSO, both of which were upheld.  In the first, Tower Hamlets v The Times, the newspaper was ‘ordered’ to publish a summary of the adjudication. Continue reading

Lord Hain and Privilege: When power, wealth and abuse combine to subvert the rule of law – Paul Wragg

Judges have their role to play, and Parliamentarians theirs, and “it is for the public to judge whether what I have done is right or wrong”, says Lord Peter Hain.  Yet since Lord Hain chose to breach the court injunction issued by the Court of Appeal in ABC v Telegraph Group plc by hiding behind Parliamentary privilege, this is exactly what the public does not get to do.  Continue reading

Why Sir Cliff Richard’s case was rightly decided: Part 1: Reasonable expectation of privacy – Thomas Bennett

In a recent post on Inforrm, my good friend Dr Paul Wragg sets out a detailed argument critiquing the High Court’s recent decision in Cliff Richard’s successful privacy claim against the BBC (Richard v BBC). Wragg takes the view that the reasoning of Mann J in the case is deficient in a number of respects, and that his disposal of the case is unsatisfactory. Continue reading

Why Sir Cliff Richard’s case was wrongly decided – Paul Wragg

There are three reasons why I think the case of Sir Cliff Richard v BBC is wrongly decided.  Firstly, it seems to me that whilst a wrong has been done to Sir Cliff, this was committed by the police when it, or someone within it, disclosed information to the BBC that Sir Cliff was being investigated as part of Operation Yewtree (it must be stressed that the CPS announced on 16 June 2016 that no charges would be made against Sir Cliff and that, as was said in court, ‘he is an innocent man in the eyes of the law’). Continue reading

Silencing the President: the Free Speech implications of censoring hateful political speech online – Paul Wragg

Something incredible is happening in modern politics.  The shackles of propriety, diplomacy, and discretion have been released.  Politicians are speaking their minds.  This has not resulted, as so many commentators tell us it has, in statesmen ‘telling it like it is’.  Instead, political debate is awash with vacuous, bewildering, abrasive guff. Continue reading

« Older posts

© 2020 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑