Latest news with #Ipso
BBC News
06-05-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Post Office: Press watchdog revises ruling against ex-Fujitsu CEO
Post Office: Press watchdog revises ruling against ex-Fujitsu CEO Michael Keegan was chief executive of Fujitsu UK from May 2014 to June 2015 A separate part of the complaint remains upheld for which the newspaper published a correction three years ago. It is the first time the watchdog has revisited one of its published findings on the basis of new information. The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) now says the Sunday Times had not been misleading when it reported that Michael Keegan had been "central" to Fujitsu's dealings with the Post Office, reversing a ruling it made in 2022. A press complaint by a former Fujitsu CEO about his role in the Post Office scandal has been partly overturned by the industry watchdog following new information uncovered by a BBC investigation. Paula Vennells was chief executive of the Post Office from 2012 to 2019 Ipso said Mr Keegan told it, as part of its original investigation in 2022, that he had only met former Post Office chief Paula Vennells once and "that he had no ongoing relationship with her; and that he did not discuss or give her any assurances regarding Horizon's capabilities". But last year BBC News revealed Mr Keegan had in fact had four meetings with her during his 13 months heading up Fujitsu UK from May 2014 to June 2015. Two of these were face-to-face meetings and the other two were telephone calls, one of which concerned a BBC Panorama investigation into the scandal. Mr Keegan now accepts the new information shows he met Ms Vennells more than once. But he told Ipso the number of times he met or spoke to her was "immaterial" to his complaint and that he had not played a "central role", as reported by the Sunday Times. Ipso's Complaints Committee was not persuaded and found that the newspaper had not been "inaccurate" or "misleading" when it said Mr Keegan had played a "central role" or been "central" to Fujitsu's dealings with the Post Office during his time in charge. Part of the dispute about the Sunday Times' reporting centred around comments by Ms Vennells that the Horizon IT system used by the Post Office was like "Fort Knox", a quote she attributed to an ex-CEO of contractor Fujitsu. The Post Office has previously tried to argue that branch accounts could only be changed by sub-postmasters. It has since emerged that they could be accessed remotely. The Sunday Times identified Mr Keegan as the source of the quote, but acknowledged it was mistaken when IPSO first investigated in 2022. Between 1999 and 2015, more than 900 sub-postmasters were wrongly prosecuted after the faulty Horizon software made it look like money was missing from Post Office branch accounts. Mr Keegan told BBC News: "Any judgement about the Horizon scandal should await the findings of the inquiry. "The fact I had one additional meeting with the CEO of the Post Office on an entirely unrelated matter, some 11 years ago, does not in my view call into question the original decision Ipso reached. I am pleased that Ipso upheld its original decision in relation to the inaccuracy of the earlier article in The Sunday Times". Last year lawyers for Mr Keegan said he regrets that sub-postmasters were prosecuted unfairly and denied playing any part in it. A spokesperson for Ipso declined to comment.
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The press has a big problem: Its regulator wants to be nice
Who should be the ultimate arbiter of what a news organisation should or should not be allowed to publish? Who decides whether the words on this page are appropriate or not? Those were the questions debated by MPs this week after the UK's press regulator decided to censure The Telegraph for reporting something that had been said in Parliament. The row over the role of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) became so heated that Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary, said on X that it 'must be abolished'. You might wonder why you should care about a wrangle between the media and its watchdog, but the implications for the freedom of the press are far-reaching, and in turn have implications for democracy and explain why it was given time in the House of Commons. Critics say that instead of protecting free speech, Ipso is starting to stifle it by allowing pressure groups to 'weaponise' press regulation to silence those who challenge their point of view. There are concerns that Ipso has drifted away from its founding principles of preventing the sort of wrongful behaviour that led to the Leveson Inquiry more than a decade ago, and has instead started to insert itself in matters of taste, or issues that are best left to the courts. For anyone new to this story, the row began after Ipso upheld a complaint by the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) over a report that quoted Michael Gove, the former communities secretary, telling Parliament that the MAB was 'affiliated' to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation banned as a terrorist group in some countries. Ipso ruled that despite Gove's comments being made under parliamentary privilege, The Telegraph's account of those comments in a subsequent story in January 2025 was misleading because it failed to include a response from the MAB, which denies any affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood. The ruling came despite there being no obligation for a publisher to seek a response when reporting the workings of Parliament, provided that care is taken not to publish 'inaccurate, misleading or distorted information'. Gove has suggested that such rulings risk having a chilling effect on journalism, because reporters will feel less inclined to report freely on the workings of Parliament for fear of being reprimanded by the regulator. In another recent ruling, Ipso censured The Spectator magazine (which Gove now edits) for allowing one of its writers to describe a transgender author as 'a man who claims to be a woman'. Since then the Supreme Court has ruled that trans women are not legally women, suggesting that if the person who complained to Ipso had taken their case to court they would have lost. Lord Young, the founder of the Free Speech Union, says: 'Ipso has certainly made some eccentric decisions recently. It's as though Ipso now regards freedom of expression as being less important than protecting minority groups from being offended, and that is a significant shift that has taken place over the past 10 years.' Ipso is an independent body whose members, including The Telegraph, volunteered to be regulated by it after it was set up in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry to replace the Press Complaints Commission, which had been criticised for failing to prevent the News International phone hacking scandal. Its focus was originally on preventing the sort of invasions of privacy and illegal behaviour that led to the Leveson Inquiry, but it increasingly acts as an arbiter of what is or is not in the public interest. As a result, says Lord Young: 'Various activist groups have become very good at weaponising Ipso to silence their critics.' There are also concerns from Lord Young and others that by presenting campaign groups with a 'win' by finding against news organisations on often highly technical grounds, Ipso will make its own job much harder by encouraging complainants to bombard it with accusations against the press. In its ruling against The Telegraph, Ipso acknowledged that 'the article had accurately reported Gove's comments' in which he linked the MAB to the Muslim Brotherhood in Parliament, but this 'could lead readers to believe that the allegation had gone unchallenged and is accepted'. A reporter paying attention to this ruling might interpret this to mean that they must seek comment from anyone who is the subject of a contentious statement in Parliament, which, as several MPs have pointed out, is at odds with the legal protections given to the reporting of parliamentary proceedings and might interfere with the speedy reporting of them. Reporters might, for example, be left wondering whether they are obliged to seek a comment from Hamas every time it is described in Parliament as a terrorist organisation. The former Cabinet minister Sir David Davis is so concerned about this that he and two other former ministers this week urged the parliamentary authorities to investigate whether Ipso has undermined free speech with its ruling. In finding against The Spectator, Ipso ruled that the magazine had not breached rules on accuracy because the columnist who referred to 'a man who claims to be a woman' was expressing a view to which they were entitled. However, Ipso decided that the description was 'belittling and demeaning toward the complainant' and upheld the complaint that it amounted to a 'prejudicial or pejorative reference' to their gender identity and 'was not justified by the columnist's right to express their views on the broader issues of sex and gender identity'. In other words, the columnist has every right to hold their view, but it is trumped by the complainant's hurt feelings. News organisations have always operated on the basis that they have a right to cause offence, but any journalist reading that adjudication might conclude that their regulator is moved above all by the desire to be nice. A free press, and a press regulator that is independent of government, are vital components of a healthy democracy. But, says Lord Young: 'If Ipso continues to deprioritise freedom of expression then key members will eventually leave and Ipso will inevitably collapse. 'That would be disastrous because it would give the Government the excuse to bring in state regulation of the press.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The press has a big problem: Its regulator wants to be nice
Who should be the ultimate arbiter of what a news organisation should or should not be allowed to publish? Who decides whether the words on this page are appropriate or not? Those were the questions debated by MPs this week after the UK's press regulator decided to censure The Telegraph for reporting something that had been said in Parliament. The row over the role of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) became so heated that Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary, said on X that it 'must be abolished'. You might wonder why you should care about a wrangle between the media and its watchdog, but the implications for the freedom of the press are far-reaching, and in turn have implications for democracy and explain why it was given time in the House of Commons. Critics say that instead of protecting free speech, Ipso is starting to stifle it by allowing pressure groups to 'weaponise' press regulation to silence those who challenge their point of view. There are concerns that Ipso has drifted away from its founding principles of preventing the sort of wrongful behaviour that led to the Leveson Inquiry more than a decade ago, and has instead started to insert itself in matters of taste, or issues that are best left to the courts. For anyone new to this story, the row began after Ipso upheld a complaint by the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) over a report that quoted Michael Gove, the former communities secretary, telling Parliament that the MAB was 'affiliated' to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation banned as a terrorist group in some countries. Ipso ruled that despite Gove's comments being made under parliamentary privilege, The Telegraph 's account of those comments in a subsequent story in January 2025 was misleading because it failed to include a response from the MAB, which denies any affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood. The ruling came despite there being no obligation for a publisher to seek a response when reporting the workings of Parliament, provided that care is taken not to publish 'inaccurate, misleading or distorted information'. Gove has suggested that such rulings risk having a chilling effect on journalism, because reporters will feel less inclined to report freely on the workings of Parliament for fear of being reprimanded by the regulator. In another recent ruling, Ipso censured The Spectator magazine (which Gove now edits) for allowing one of its writers to describe a transgender author as 'a man who claims to be a woman'. Since then the Supreme Court has ruled that trans women are not legally women, suggesting that if the person who complained to Ipso had taken their case to court they would have lost. Lord Young, the founder of the Free Speech Union, says: 'Ipso has certainly made some eccentric decisions recently. It's as though Ipso now regards freedom of expression as being less important than protecting minority groups from being offended, and that is a significant shift that has taken place over the past 10 years.' Ipso is an independent body whose members, including The Telegraph, volunteered to be regulated by it after it was set up in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry to replace the Press Complaints Commission, which had been criticised for failing to prevent the News International phone hacking scandal. Its focus was originally on preventing the sort of invasions of privacy and illegal behaviour that led to the Leveson Inquiry, but it increasingly acts as an arbiter of what is or is not in the public interest. As a result, says Lord Young: 'Various activist groups have become very good at weaponising Ipso to silence their critics.' There are also concerns from Lord Young and others that by presenting campaign groups with a 'win' by finding against news organisations on often highly technical grounds, Ipso will make its own job much harder by encouraging complainants to bombard it with accusations against the press. In its ruling against The Telegraph, Ipso acknowledged that 'the article had accurately reported Gove's comments' in which he linked the MAB to the Muslim Brotherhood in Parliament, but this 'could lead readers to believe that the allegation had gone unchallenged and is accepted'. A reporter paying attention to this ruling might interpret this to mean that they must seek comment from anyone who is the subject of a contentious statement in Parliament, which, as several MPs have pointed out, is at odds with the legal protections given to the reporting of parliamentary proceedings and might interfere with the speedy reporting of them. Reporters might, for example, be left wondering whether they are obliged to seek a comment from Hamas every time it is described in Parliament as a terrorist organisation. The former Cabinet minister Sir David Davis is so concerned about this that he and two other former ministers this week urged the parliamentary authorities to investigate whether Ipso has undermined free speech with its ruling. In finding against The Spectator, Ipso ruled that the magazine had not breached rules on accuracy because the columnist who referred to 'a man who claims to be a woman' was expressing a view to which they were entitled. However, Ipso decided that the description was 'belittling and demeaning toward the complainant' and upheld the complaint that it amounted to a 'prejudicial or pejorative reference' to their gender identity and 'was not justified by the columnist's right to express their views on the broader issues of sex and gender identity'. In other words, the columnist has every right to hold their view, but it is trumped by the complainant's hurt feelings. News organisations have always operated on the basis that they have a right to cause offence, but any journalist reading that adjudication might conclude that their regulator is moved above all by the desire to be nice. A free press, and a press regulator that is independent of government, are vital components of a healthy democracy. But, says Lord Young: 'If Ipso continues to deprioritise freedom of expression then key members will eventually leave and Ipso will inevitably collapse. 'That would be disastrous because it would give the Government the excuse to bring in state regulation of the press.'
Telegraph
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Press regulator accused of ‘double standards' by former attorney general
A press regulator has been accused of 'double standards' after it reprimanded The Telegraph over a report about comments made in the Commons about the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). Sir Michael Ellis, a former attorney general in the last Tory government, said the recent ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) was an 'appalling breach of parliamentary privilege' which risked having a 'chilling effect' on the press. In a comment piece for The Telegraph, Sir Michael said it was 'well established' that the media could report proceedings in Parliament 'without hindrance.' He said it was 'critically important' that double standards were not applied to the press by treating them more or less fairly than MPs, or in different ways according to their political complexion. The Telegraph was reprimanded for quoting comments made in March last year by Michael Gove, who was an MP at the time, in the Commons. It came despite his remarks being covered by parliamentary privilege, which protects politicians against legal action over anything they say in Parliament and extends to the reporting of such proceedings. However, Ipso upheld a complaint by the MAB against The Telegraph over allegations made by Mr Gove, the then communities secretary, that it was 'affiliated' to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation banned as a terrorist group in some countries. The regulator ruled that The Telegraph's account of Mr Gove's comments in a subsequent story in January 2025 was misleading because it failed to include a response from the MAB, which denies any affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood. Ipso judged that it was not sufficient for The Telegraph to publish a statement online from last March in which the MAB rejected Mr Gove's allegations of extremism, maintaining that it was 'law-abiding' and 'contributed to the common good'. The ruling came despite there being no obligation for a publisher to seek such a response provided that care was taken not to publish 'inaccurate, misleading or distorted information'. 'Mission creep risk' In his comment piece, Sir Michael said that the 'unfettered' right of MPs to speak out would be 'of little value' if journalists did not have the same protection 'as no one would be able to hear what has been said other than those in the chamber at the time.' He added: 'As recently as 1996 the Defamation Act ensured that fair and accurate reports of proceedings of the legislature are protected by Part I of Schedule 1 'without explanation or contradiction'. 'The ruling from Ipso is an appalling breach of parliamentary privilege. It is well established that the press can report proceedings in parliament without hindrance... 'The Ipso ruling risks mission creep for regulators who are all too keen to build their empires of power over what people say and how they act. It is the thin end of the wedge and risks creating a chilling effect for the press on how they report proceedings in Parliament.' urged the parliamentary authorities to investigate Ipso over the decision. Speaking in the Commons on a point of order, Sir David said that the regulator should be reminded that the British press 'has an absolute right to report on what is said here in this chamber without any hindrance or conditionality'. In response, Caroline Nokes, the Deputy Speaker, said she supported the principle that 'being able to report on what is said here is extremely important.' Asked by MP James Wild about the 'disturbing step for the freedom of the press', Lucy Powell, the Commons leader, said the Government was 'absolutely committed' to protecting press freedoms and promised a 'ministerial response.' Press watchdog must apply same rights to Left and Right By Sir Michael Ellis, former attorney general Parliamentary privilege is an ancient and important pillar of the British constitution. Call me old fashioned but I don't think a self-regulator like Ipso, to which The Guardian and The Independent for example decline to submit themselves, should interfere with that ancient privilege. Ipso has ruled against The Telegraph following a complaint from the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) that the paper reported the words of a then MP, Michael Gove, when he spoke frankly and highly critically about them from the despatch box. Protecting the unfettered right of parliamentarians to their freedom of speech has existed for hundreds of years, since at least the occasion when King Charles I burst into the House of Commons with his soldiers in 1642 to arrest the five MPs who had spoken against him. More recently, the European Court of Human Rights rejected an attempt to challenge parliamentary privilege in Britain, when Lord Hain was alleged to have circumvented court orders around an injunction by using parliamentary privilege to speak in the Lords. But if the right of members of parliament to speak is unfettered, then the right of journalists to report what those MPs or peers have said is equally important – otherwise, the privilege would be of little value, as no one would be able to hear what has been said other than those in the chamber at the time. The legislation around this goes back a way too. The Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 was passed to ensure documents wider than just those circulated for MPs had the protection of privilege so that Hansard could do its job. As recently as 1996, the Defamation Act ensured that fair and accurate reports of proceedings of the legislature are protected by Part I of Schedule 1 'without explanation or contradiction'. The Telegraph has said that its reporting of Michael Gove's speech was a fair and accurate reflection of the Hansard record of the proceedings and that the protection of 'qualified privilege' therefore applied. It said the article also included the MAB statement, issued at the time and in response to Mr Gove's speech. Notwithstanding this, on receipt of the complaint, The Telegraph had updated the article to include the MAB's additional statement. And yet Ipso still ruled against them. The ruling from Ipso is an appalling breach of parliamentary privilege. It is well established that the press can report proceedings in parliament without hindrance. It is critically important that double standards are not applied to the press in the same way as they are being applied to so much else in public life, such as policing. The same rights must apply to the Left and the Right; politicians and journalists, the poachers and the gamekeepers, must both be treated fairly. The Ipso ruling risks mission creep for regulators who are all too keen to build their empires of power over what people say and how they act. It is the thin end of the wedge and risks creating a chilling effect for the press on how they report proceedings in parliament.
Telegraph
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Parliament urged to investigate press regulator in free speech row
Parliamentary authorities have been urged to investigate allegations that the UK's press regulator undermined free speech by reprimanding The Telegraph for quoting comments made in the House of Commons about the Muslim Association of Britain. Three former Cabinet ministers raised concerns over the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), including Sir David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, who called for Parliamentary authorities to speak to the regulator. The Telegraph was reprimanded for quoting comments previously made by Michael Gove in the Commons, despite them being made under parliamentary privilege, which protects politicians against legal action over anything they say in Parliament and extends to the reporting of those proceedings. Speaking in the Commons on a point of order, Sir David said Ipso should be reminded that the British press 'has an absolute right to report on what is said here in this Chamber without any hindrance or conditionality'. Ipso upheld a complaint by the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) against The Telegraph over allegations made in the Commons in March 2024 by Mr Gove, the former communities secretary, that it was 'affiliated' to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation banned as a terrorist group in some countries. Ipso ruled that despite parliamentary privilege, The Telegraph's account of those comments in a subsequent story in January 2025 was misleading because it failed to include a response from the MAB, which denies any affiliation with the Brotherhood. Ipso judged that it was not sufficient for The Telegraph to publish a statement online from last March in which the MAB rejected Mr Gove's allegations of extremism, maintaining that it was 'law-abiding' and 'contributed to the common good'. The ruling came despite there being no obligation for a publisher to seek a response provided that care is taken not to publish 'inaccurate, misleading or distorted information'. 'Cornerstone of democracy' Sir David said: 'Press freedom is a cornerstone of democracy, and for centuries the right to freely report on the proceedings of this House have been protected in British law. 'Those freedoms allowing the press to report without any hindrance or conditionality were secured as long ago as 1771 by John Wilkes,' he continued, referring to the journalist and MP who successfully fought for the right to report parliamentary proceedings in the 18th century. 'While Ipso may think it is being responsible, its reprimanding of The Telegraph undermines those fundamental rights. 'Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, ask the House authorities to speak with the Independent Press Standards Organisation to remind it that the British press has an absolute right to report on what is said here in this Chamber without any hindrance or conditionality?' Caroline Nokes, the Deputy Speaker, said: 'Without commenting specifically on the Ipso ruling, because I understand that the issue was not straightforwardly about the reporting of what was said in this House, I do of course support the principle that being able to report on what is said here is extremely important.'
