Independent Press Standards Organisation Reviews 

I was happy with the process, and IPSO came back to me quickly after I sent in my concerns about a publication and then kept me updated. I also communicated with the editor of the magazine, who saw my issue in part and promised to publish an amendment. I'd guess the success or failure of a complaint via IPSO simply depends on whether or not it's valid.

Well, whaddya know? The response explaining why IPSO does not uphold multiple complaints about the Times caricature of Zack Polanski is because - contrary to the description of the code given when I made the complaint - only the individual targeted may complain under article 12. In other words, IPSO is a toothless regulator that makes up and changes the rules to justify doing absolutely nothing. And we wonder why the press is one of the least trusted of all professions in the UK. Pathetic, but sadly not entirely surprising.

They refused to assist at all, even when they had broken the law. Apparently, they agree with an old lady being removed from her home. They have been reported to the Human Rights Commission, Action Fraud and the Serious Fraud Office. Ironic that they picked on one of their own, a journalist.

Abundantly clear they had 0 intention of helping me. They suffered an ‘administrative error’ which we all know means human error and ignored me for months and when they did respond it was essentially to tell me to f off. My complaint was against the Telegraph who wrote a very cruel factually incorrect article (thanks Katie Morley) which made me self harm. Ipso patronised me, laughed at me and were wholly unsympathetic. They told me an independent body of 12 people unrelated to the media would review my complaint then had a volte face and decided not to. When I called them and expressed how upset I was, they advocated I call 999 which is wasting emergency services time.

Not a single complaint upheld in their entire existence yet their main staff guy sits on Twitter showing off pictures of himself baking scones on a big farm. Tory failed regulation. Needs to be abolished and started anew in a different format.

IPSO refused to assist in my case on the grounds their policy does not cover racial discrimination/prejudice, a joke of an organisation. Think IPSO needs to be dismantled for all the good they do.

In bed with the enemy!

Never ending sensationalised clickbait Everywhere!
The next few months newspapers will speculate on any & every "possible" football transfer & maybe 5% of them will actually be accurate. Any real Criticism of the government will be labelled fake news... All thanks to this corrupted organisation! Don't want to loose funding now do they?

They consistently fail to safeguard the public and enable harassment from desperate tabloid hacks like the M.E.N and Echo staff.

Doesn't investigate any complaints which go against the evil corrupt government and their media paymasters.

Another supposed regulator which from start to finish is set up to block justified complaints about the press.

With IPSO first you will discover that the newspaper may very well not respond to a direct complaint by you. This is because they know IPSO will protect them and because it saves them the time and money of replying to you and dealing with it themselves. But they all allegedly claim to comply with the Editors' Code but they do not.

IPSO uses all sorts of techniques to get you to drop the complaint. This can include bullying and threats and abusive treatment of you. They all the time behave as if they are doing nothing wrong and their emails seem to be eminently reasonable, until you start to think about the implications.

They take advantage of your lack of knowledge of their procedures.

They make up reasons - regardless of how inappropriate - why your complaint is not valid or why the newspaper has not failed to comply with the Code.

It is a battle every step of the way.

If you manage to get to nearly the final stage, IPSO will try to blackmail you into withdrawing your complaint by insisting your name is published with the complaint even if your name has nothing to do with the news story, there is no justification for it and you might be caused harm if your name is published. In short, IPSO has no problem breaching your privacy - which is a legal right of yours.

IPSO in this reviewer's opinion is very much as bad as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman [PHSO] - which also in this reviewer's opinion demonstrates how poor Members of Parliament are in that they allow such organisations to operate and in the case of PHSO - to be paid out of public funds. None of them do anything about it. The public are right to be concerned about the scale of corruption throughout all levels of goverment and supposed regulatory bodies but MPs behave as if the problems do not exist. And then they complain that the public do not trust them, government, the police or any other kind of government type representative.

IPSO pay a Member of the House of Lords to be their Chairman who is also a judge, barrister and Queen's Counsel taking £140,000 per annum to make IPSO look like it is a genuine press regulator with an air of respectability.

You are much better off suing the newspaper under the county court small claims procedure for data protection breaches and breach of contract.

If you make a complaint which the newspaper does not respond to and there is a breach of the Editor's Code, you can sue the newspaper in the small claims court for breach of its contract with you to comply with the Editors' Code. You can claim the time you have spent dealing with it [good for the self-employed] and any other damage suffered from not having the matter put right.

Plus you also get a judge deciding whether your complaint was justified.

You have to keep your claim to below the small claims limit [currently £10,000]. If you do that you should qualify for the small claims court and not be liable for legal costs if you lose - provided you do not behave unreasonably.

You can also sue IPSO for breach of contract in the same way.

Absolutely disgusting and disgraceful. Pointless as they are clearly there to promote and help the newspapers. They did not bother listening or helping. Birmingham live spreading false and inaccurate lies without fact checking. Shocking and pathetic.

Charlotte Dewar of ipso has said that it is ok for birmingham live to use the word "altercation" in their awful article, can they please provide the definition of what "altercation" and evidence that an "altercation" occurred when a paramedic attacked me ? I was attacked by a paramedic and two other guys. Paramedic was in uniform and drunk. As a result of my head getting banged multiple times, it caused me mental and physical health problems. Yet the article failed to mention what actually happened. They tried to make the Police and Ambulance look good and cover up the truth.

Terribly condescending. Appalling customer service. In the end I just gave up with the complaint because they made it so difficult to do. another waste of time complaints adjudicator.

I complained in relation to the reporting of COVID deaths in the Sun, falsely attributing ALL deaths to COVID when in fact it was *following ANY cause of death within 28 days of a positive test.

Look at this thoroughly patronising response from a Jonathon Bell.

“Thank you for your email.

Just to clarify, are you able to tell us how many deaths are in fact due to Covid, rather than deaths which simply occurred following a positive Covid test? This will help us establish the extent to which it may be significantly misleading to describe the reported deaths as "Covid deaths" without any further explanation.

We look forward to hearing from you and would appreciate your response within the next seven days“

I do not regret complaining to the IPSO, because had I not done so, I would have presumed that the press in this country are generally kept in line. What is evidently clear by the disingenuously imbecilic email I received from them, is that they are no more than a logo, website and expensive suite of London offices: another quango. I see no credibility or justification in their use of the word ‘Independent’.

I can see why corrections in newspapers are predominantly issued as a result of civil litigation for libel.

What a bureaucratic waste of time; simply to be a plastic front for ‘standards’. It’s little more than a perception.

Biased and actively work hand in hand with the same press they are meant to regulate. Have ignored repeated requests for staff information and legal department contacts so I can take action against them.

It’s pretty clear they are biased towards the press. No wonder there is an assault on freedom of speech when these clowns are the supposed guardians of truth and journalistic standards.