mail image

The following is taken from the correction the Daily Mail had to print following the IPSO ruling on its front page article “Another Human Rights Fiasco!” last December. Although the apology appeared on the front page in print, it hasn’t been published on the Mail Online website, so here it is in full. 

Shoaib Khan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, in an article headlined “Another Human Rights Fiasco”, published on 15 December 2017.

The article reported a High Court judgment, awarding compensation to an Iraqi man for unlawful imprisonment and ill treatment by British soldiers, during the Iraq War. It was the main story on the front page, and continued on page 4. The front page subheadline was: “Iraqi ‘caught red-handed with bomb’ wins £33,000 – because our soldiers kept him in custody for too long”. The first line reported that “taxpayers face massive compensation bills after a suspected Iraqi insurgent won a human rights case against the Ministry of Defence yesterday”.

The complainant said that the judge had found that the claims that this man had been caught “red handed” with a bomb, or that he was an ‘insurgent’, to be false.  He also said that he was not awarded £33,000 for being “kept in custody for too long”. He was awarded £3,300 for unlawful detention, and a further £30,000 for being beaten at the time of his arrest, and inhuman and degrading treatment when in custody.

The newspaper said that it had relied on the court’s press summary of the judgment, which did not include the finding that these claims were false. It said the article did not suggest the man was still suspected of being a terrorist or bomb maker; it fully explained that he had been unlawfully detained, as it could not be proven he was a threat to security. It said that the full explanation of the damages award was included elsewhere in the article, which had to be read as a whole. In response to complaints, the newspaper published two clarifications on these points in its page 2 corrections column. The complainant said that the inaccuracies were significant, that they had appeared on the front page, and that the correction should be published on the front page.

IPSO’s Complaints Committee said that central to the article’s characterisation of the judgment as a “fiasco” was the front-page subheadline’s description of one of the claimants as an “Iraqi ‘caught red-handed with bomb’”, and the reference to it being case where “a suspected Iraqi insurgent” had “won a human rights case”. However, the article never explained that the claim he had been caught with a bomb had been discredited shortly after his detention, or that the judge had found the claim was “pure fiction”, and that there was no evidence that the man had engaged in insurgent activity. These details were in the full judgment, which was available to the newspaper.  The repetition of these serious allegations against the man, with no indication they had been disproven, seriously misrepresented the judgment, and breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code.

The claim that the Iraqi man received “£33,000 – because our soldiers kept him in custody for too long”, was inaccurate. As the newspaper knew, only £3,300 was for unlawful detention; the remaining £30,000 was for ill treatment. The contrast the article drew between the Iraqi man’s damages, and the payments to British soldiers for injuries, was therefore based in part on an inaccuracy. This was a further failure to take care over the accuracy of the article.

Both these errors were serious and significant in the article. The previously published corrections did not directly acknowledge the errors, and were not prominent enough. The Committee required publication of this adjudication as a remedy, with a reference on the front page of the newspaper.

Don’t like what you’re seeing in the press? If you see an article you’re unhappy with, you can email the press regulators at inquiries@ipso.co.uk to voice your concerns. If enough complaints are received, they will have to look into it.

Tabloid Corrections Facebook page: here.



IPSO logo

*The following is a republishing of a correction in the Daily Mail and on the Mail Online, 25th May 2018. 

Warwickshire Police complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation on behalf of three people that the conduct of a journalist acting on behalf of The Daily Mail breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complaint was upheld, and IPSO has required the Daily Mail to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.

The complainants represented three individuals who had given evidence as victims in a criminal case concerning allegations of non-recent sex offences.

The complainants alleged that during the course of the trial, the journalist’s enquiries had identified them as victims of sexual assault, and had intruded into their privacy.

The first and second victims said that a reporter had attended their friend’s home in order to ask him about the [perpetrators’] case. The friend said that the journalist had shown him a list of names, and he had recognised their names, as well as the names of their parents. He had then told their parents what had happened. Before this, they had been unaware that they were victims in the case.

The third victim said that the reporter had told their parents that he was seeking a ‘victim’s story’, had referred to the court case, and had asked if they could contact their child. The third victim said that this enquiry identified them as a victim of sexual assault to their parents.

The newspaper said that its freelance journalist contacted the friend of the first and second victims because he had believed that the friend had direct involvement in the case. The friend had said that he would ‘know those involved’, and the journalist had asked whether he knew the second individual, and he had confirmed that he knew victims one and two. At no stage had the journalist deliberately shown him the list of victims connected to the criminal case, which he had in his possession; any disclosure had been inadvertent.

The newspaper did not accept that the journalist had told the parents of victim three that they were seeking a ‘victim’s story’ or that their child was an alleged victim of a sexual offence. The journalist had said that he was hoping to get in touch with their child as he understood that he ‘might have been involved’ in the criminal case, or known those who were.

While the newspaper did not consider that its representatives had breached the Code, it said that it had raised the concerns with those involved and with senior executives. It also offered to write a private letter of apology to the victims, and to make a charitable donation.

The Committee considered that the reporter should have been acutely aware that, in contacting third parties about the complainants, there was a risk that he would identify them as victims. He had identified the well-known, local criminal case he was researching, and said that he was looking for named individuals who had been ‘involved in the case’. Reporting of the case had explained the nature of the crimes, where they had taken place, and the profile of the victims. In this context, to identify the complainants by name as ‘involved in the case’ made clear that they were, or were likely to have been, victims, particularly given that they fitted the general descriptions of the victims that had previously been reported. They had been identified to their parents, as a result of the enquiries.

The fact of their involvement in the case as potential victims was extremely sensitive and personal information about which the three individuals had a reasonable expectation of privacy. This represented a gross intrusion into their private lives in breach of Clause 2. While there was a public interest in carrying out enquiries in order to report on the criminal case, this did not justify disclosing such private information to third parties without consent. The complaint under Clause 2 was upheld.

Don’t like what you’re seeing in the press? If you see an article you’re unhappy with, you can email the press regulators at inquiries@ipso.co.uk to voice your concerns. If enough complaints are received, they will have to look into it.

Tabloid Corrections Facebook page: here.



mail image




Well, actually, that’s manipulating the data a little bit. What I’m talking about is articles that IPSO received complaints about. Two-thirds of the complaints were upheld.

I’m just using the Daily Mail‘s own sensationalist reporting techniques on the paper itself. On Monday this week, a similar style headline appeared about a report on child refugees (below).

mail child refugees

The headline and the sub-headers are focused only on those who were given age assessments because they looked like they might be over 18 and didn’t have any proof of age. It’s not the percentage of overall child refugees. That figure is around 13 percent (or 402 out of the 2952 applications, to be precise).

But the way that the Daily Mail has included the figure of ‘almost 3,000’ next to the words ‘two-thirds’, without making things clear, will probably have a lot of readers thinking that around 2,000 ‘bogus’ child refugees are coming here every year.

So I’ve been similarly manipulative. My headline relates to 55 complaints made about Daily Mail articles between April 2017 and April 2018. Of those articles, 35 were either ruled as breaching IPSO standards or were settled by a resolution statement before a ruling was given. The remaining 20 were passed as ‘clean’ by the regulators.

But I can see that by reading the headline and the sub-headers, people might think that two-thirds of all Daily Mail articles are breaking the rules.

Perhaps they might feel the urge to share the article on social media and generate faux-outrage based on something that is essentially a gross distortion of the truth.

It’s a bit naughty but I think I can live with it. If I get caught out, I’m more than happy to issue a very low-key correction on the whole thing in about 6 months time.


Don’t like what you’re seeing in the press? If you see an article you’re unhappy with, you can email the press regulators at inquiries@ipso.co.uk to voice your concerns. If enough complaints are received, they will have to look into it.

Tabloid Corrections Facebook page: here.







primary school

Britain’s tabloid press piled into Brighton & Hove council over the holiday weekend for adopting an initiative to tackle poverty in schools.

The Mail on Sunday, The Sun, The Sunday Express and the Daily Star all covered the story using the same angle, accusing the council of ‘political correctness’ and focusing on something that’s not even part of the initiative.

The tabloids were covering a scheme called Poverty Proofing The School Day, a programme set up by a charity called Children North East which works with local authorities across the country to remove barriers to learning caused by poverty.

The programme has been running since 2011 and has been successful in improving both attendance and attainment of children from families living in poverty, as well as increasing access to music tuition and school trips, and helping to reduce school costs.

Brighton & Hove council began piloting the programme last year and it has involved 25 primary schools to date. Areas of focus have included keeping school trips affordable, supporting children and families with homework, and making sure that children have access to affordable uniforms.

Nothing particularly outrageous about any of this, you might think.

However, the tabloids have chosen to kick up a storm about one bullet-point from a list of 22 items in an ’emerging areas for consideration’ section of a council report.

This is just a list of things researchers suggested ‘could be seen to negatively impact on children and young people living in poverty’. Things such as not being able to bring in the latest game on the last day of term, or parents struggling to supply raffle prizes for school events.

One thing highlighted in this list was ‘circle time about weekend activities’. Basically, when kids group together in class on a Monday and talk about what they did at the weekend.

It was simply mentioned in one line of this report that some of the schools had given feedback that poorer kids sometimes felt excluded if other kids had been up to exciting activities over the weekend that they couldn’t afford. Therefore it was marked down as an ‘area for consideration’.

Just something to think about. Nothing that actually features anywhere in the actual plan.

This didn’t stop the tabloids from writing as if this was the central idea to the whole project.

‘DON’T TELL THE CLASS WHAT YOU DID AT THE WEEKEND, CHILDREN… BECAUSE IT MIGHT STIGMATISE POORER PUPILS, SAYS BRITAIN’S MOST POLITICALLY CORRECT COUNCIL’, screamed the Daily Mail‘s headline. The paper added that Brighton and Hove council are ‘set to bar children from asking about each other’s weekend’.

The Sun waded in with ‘MP BLASTS COUNCIL’S PC BAN ON ASKING CHILDREN ABOUT THEIR WEEKENDS’. The paper quoted an outraged Tory MP – there always seems to be at least one on hand to talk to the right-wing papers – and lied that ‘teachers have been banned from asking pupils what they did at the weekend.’

Meanwhile the Daily Star – which has been pumping out fact-free articles for a number of years now – proclaimed ‘CHILDREN BANNED FROM TALKING ABOUT THEIR WEEKENDS’, adding that this was the ‘nanny state taken to new heights’.

The Express put its twist on the story with ‘WELL-OFF PUPILS TOLD: DON’T BRAG AS DISADVANTAGED CLASSMATES MIGHT FEEL ASHAMED’ before going on to stick the boot into the council for being ‘politically correct’.

Unfortunately, these papers got so caught up in huffing and puffing about what’s not happening that they failed to mention any of the actual contents of the programme anywhere in their reports.

Who said Britain’s tabloid press likes to get outraged over nothing, eh?

Don’t like what you’re seeing in the press? If you see an article you’re unhappy with, you can email the press regulators at inquiries@ipso.co.uk to voice your concerns. If enough complaints are received, they will have to look into it.

Tabloid Corrections Facebook page: here.


uk press

Press regulation in the UK is a joke. Whereas broadcast media outlets have to follow strict guidelines around the content they put out, print media is given free reign to pretty much publish what it likes, regardless of facts or bias.

If a paper is found publishing something untrue, all it has to do is print a small apology that rarely matches the prominence of the original inaccurate story. Papers have frequently printed sensationalist and misleading front page headlines and then, when caught out, got away with a correction buried away at the foot of one of the inner pages.

This has led us to a situation where the worst offenders flout the rules almost at will. In 2017, the Daily Mail was sanctioned a total of 50 times (amounting to nearly one a week). It’s no wonder that public trust in the press in this country is lower than anywhere else in Europe.

IPSO is the current press regulator, taking over from the Press Complaints Commission in 2014 after the Leveson Inquiry. But many see it as unfit for purpose, unwilling to show any teeth and bring the papers into line, and too cosy in its relationship with the tabloids (the Daily Mail‘s Paul Dacre and The Sun‘s Trevor Kavanagh have held key IPSO positions).

To add to this, the government has just scrapped plans for a second phase of the Leveson Inquiry. So what could be done to improve the current woeful situation? Well, I discussed a few possible suggestions with followers of this blog’s Facebook page…

Force papers to publish more prominent retractions

The most popular suggestion. Making the correction take up the same space as the original fake story seems like an obvious solution.

If a front page story is subsequently found to be false, why should the correction go anywhere other than on the front page? Allowing papers to publish tiny apologies for huge front page or double-page spread headlines is like catching someone stealing £1000 and only making them pay £50 back.

It also means that the original untrue headline is seen by far more people than the correction.

Even if you choose not to buy any newspapers, their front page headlines have an influence on us‘ commented one Facebook follower, Sheila Knight. ‘You cannot avoid them in supermarkets and newsagents. Only retractions on the front page would have any impact.’

Some people came up with more creative suggestions on the same theme. Joe Swindells suggested ‘forcing the editor to run the story again with corrections, in a like for like way‘.

According to Anni Hat: ‘corrections should be published on the front page of all other newspapers‘.

Paul James, perhaps with tongue slightly in cheek and influenced by a recent Oscar-winning film, suggested going as far as ‘forcing papers to print a retraction an a large billboard, in front of which the editor and columnist spend a week in the stocks.

Making the punishment match the crime would surely have an effect. Would papers regularly print sensationalist or shit-stirring rubbish if they knew it might cost them a front page later down the line?

Another idea could be to make papers tweet their corrections. Tory MP Ben Bradley’s recent apology tweet for slurring Jeremy Corbyn was retweeted over 50,000 times, which highlights the power of social media when it comes to spreading the word on misdemeanours.

Impose fines for offences

Another method of bringing the press into line could be to hit them where it hurts – in the pockets. Newspaper owners tend to be ridiculously wealthy sorts but none of them like losing money, as the reaction to the growing success of the Stop Funding Hate campaign has shown.

With the proliferation of online media, traditional press publications have taken a bit of a financial battering in recent years. The threat of a sizeable fine hanging over their heads if they flout the rules might make editors a bit more careful on what content they publish.

Believe it or not, IPSO actually has the power to impose fines under the current rules but it doesn’t seem to want to use this.

Suspensions for repeatedly publishing inaccurate content

A slightly more controversial suggestion (freedom of the press and all that). But, as someone once remarked, with great freedom comes great responsibility. We’re not talking some massively censorious campaign to stop the press publishing anything slightly controversial. But if, for example, a paper is caught publishing untruthful or misleading information on the same topic three times, would it really hurt to see them stopped from writing on that one subject for a temporary period (e.g. 3 months or 6 months)?

If for nothing else, it would undoubtedly see the Daily Express banned from reporting on anything to do with the EU for large parts of the year, which would surely be a good thing.

Temporary bans would also have the effect of being newsworthy themselves, shining a light on the bad behaviour of papers.

It’s a measure that divides opinion. Some fear that it’s venturing just a little too far towards authoritarianism, others see it as a just method of ensuring that the industry retains standards. Adam Beckett suggested that repeat offences should carry more severe punishments, saying ‘Three strikes and the owner should face a lifetime ban from owning, having shares or having any controlling interests in a media company‘.

It would be interesting to see how a certain Mr Murdoch would react to that idea.

Make papers publish how many days it’s been since their last correction

This is an idea someone mentioned in a Facebook discussion a while ago. It’s basically the system often seen in public toilets (‘this toilet was last cleaned 15 hours ago‘) adapted to deal with mopping up a different type of foul-smelling effluence – that of tabloid bullshit.

It would be simple to implement and having a figure stamped in a prominent place (‘this publication last lied to you 5 days ago‘ would be a great improvement to the front pages of many papers, in my opinion) could encourage an improvement in standards.

Another suggestion on a similar theme was put forward by Paul Petty, who said ‘each paper should be forced to publish what percentage of their front pages in the current year didn’t have stories that had to be subsequently retracted’.

Corrections to be announced on other news outlets

A couple of people suggested bringing the broadcast media into it.

‘The BBC and Channel 4 as public broadcasters should announce when corrections have been mandated as part of the news and run the corrected story’ said Robert Wood.

‘Most of the late night news shows have a ‘tomorrow’s front pages’ section’ said Andrew Henshall. ‘This should be preceded by a ‘corrections and retractions’ section with any offenders getting left out of the subsequent section.’

Other suggestions

‘A truth rating would be good, a bit like food hygiene ratings and scored on the number of corrections in a given period’ – John Knight

‘Publish a league table of retractions by media outlet’ – Paul Brownlow

‘Anyone they lie about gets to guest edit the paper for a day’ – Matthew Pond

‘A prominent warning on articles of a subject they have had excessive complaints upheld on, e.g. WARNING, this article may misrepresent facts on immigration’ – Nick Treleaven

So plenty for IPSO to chew on if it ever decides to get serious and actually do something to make the press fit for purpose. Until then, we can all help advertise apologies and corrections ourselves by spreading them on social media. Make sure they get the audience they deserve.

Don’t like what you’re seeing in the press? If you see an article you’re unhappy with, you can email the press regulators at inquiries@ipso.co.uk to voice your concerns. If enough complaints are received, they will have to look into it.

Tabloid Corrections Facebook page: here.


IPSO logo

The below is republished from the corrections section of The Times online as this website has a paywall installed, meaning only those that subscribe or register to the site can access it. 

Following an article published in The Sunday Times on 28 May 2017 headlined “I’m not altruistic, I’m pretty selfish, but I had to do something, so I took in a refugee…”, Mohammed Ahmed complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sunday Times had breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complaint was upheld and IPSO has required The Sunday Times to publish this adjudication.

The article, which included the complainant’s first name and unpixelated photograph, was the journalist’s first-person account of her experience hosting the complainant, at the time an asylum seeker, in her home. The article included various details about the complainant’s background and personal life, and reported the journalist’s recollection of various conversations that she had with the complainant. It also included the text of a letter of apology that the complainant had written to the journalist after they had argued.

The journalist recalled that, while living with her, the complainant had suffered from an illness and the article included details of the illness. She also said that the complainant had left pornographic images on her computer, and she described the content of these images.

The complainant was concerned that his life and experiences had been the focus of a story in a national newspaper, which he considered to be an intrusion into his privacy. He was not a public figure, and had not expected to be the subject of an article. He had not consented to its publication.

The newspaper said that the article was a first-hand piece on a challenging topic written by a widely acclaimed journalist of great experience and integrity. In sharing her story, the journalist was exercising her right to freedom of expression. She was entitled to report her experiences and opinions, and was contributing to a topic of general discussion and debate.

The newspaper did not accept that the article had intruded into the complainant’s privacy. It said that the complainant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to his behaviour, or conversations with the journalist, while staying at her home. It noted that he was a non-paying guest in the house, and that he had shared most of the information in the article with his host voluntarily, in the knowledge that she was a journalist working for a major newspaper.

IPSO’s Complaints Committee emphasised that first-person journalism has a long history as a means to exercise the right to freedom of expression. Clause 2 of the Code makes clear that everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence. This reflects the enhanced privacy rights that people have in their own homes. The Committee rejected the newspaper’s position that, as the complainant was not paying rent, these rights were forfeited. It also did not accept that, as his host was a journalist, the complainant should have presumed that any information he shared with her might be published without his consent.

The article included extensive information about the complainant, relating to: his family and personal relationships; his domestic arrangements; his financial circumstances; his journey to the UK; his asylum application; his relationships and interactions with the journalist, including an argument they had had, and a letter he had written to her, expressing his feelings about the disagreement; his psychological and physical health; his drug use; and allegations about the possession of private, sexual material. These details were used to create a detailed and intimate portrait of the complainant, and his life.

The complainant was not a public figure, and had not publicly disclosed the information about his experiences contained in the article, or consented to the article’s publication. The extent of this detail, published without his consent, and where no steps were taken to obscure his identity, represented an intrusion into his private life. While the journalist was entitled to publish her story, and the Committee recognised that the matters discussed in the article were of significant public interest, this was not sufficient to justify the extent of the information about the complainant, and the resulting intrusion into his private life; the journalist’s right to freedom of expression did not outweigh the complainant’s right to privacy in this instance. There was a breach of Clause 2.

Don’t like what you’re seeing in the press? If you see an article you’re unhappy with, you can email the press regulators at inquiries@ipso.co.uk to voice your concerns. If enough complaints are received, they will have to look into it.

Tabloid Corrections Facebook page: here.



Picture: LSE

The Daily Mail transgressed the press regulator rules no fewer than 50 times in 2017, making it by far the biggest offender of the year out of the publications monitored by IPSO.

This was more than the combined total of the next three worst offenders (Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Telegraph) and far in excess of its 2016 total, when the paper also topped the charts.

The 2017 figures show an overall rise in IPSO sanctions compared to 2016, which could be due to worsening press standards or greater vigilance among those monitoring and reporting transgressions to IPSO.

In terms of overall figures, the Daily Mail chalked up 50 offences. The Daily Express was second worst with 19, then The Sun with 17, the Daily Telegraph with 10, The Times with 8, the Daily Star with 6 and the Daily Mirror with 5.

IPSO rulings 2017

Figure 1 (above): Total number of IPSO rulings 2017

These include breaches of various clauses of the Editors’ Code of Practice, including accuracy, privacy and harassment. Concerning accuracy alone, the Mail breached the code on 37 separate occasions. This is over twice the number of times it breached the code in 2016 (when it was sanctioned 17 times). The Express followed with 17 breaches, and The Sun with 16 (both up on their 2016 totals).

IPSO inaccuracy rulings

Figure 2 (above): IPSO rulings for inaccuracy 2017

This means that the three worst offenders in terms of publishing inaccurate content were sanctioned a total of 70 times between them in 2017, an increase of more than 50 per cent on last year (when they were sanctioned 43 times between them).

This is worrying news for the Daily Mail, the most popular daily paper in the UK in terms of online readership, but perhaps highlights why Wikipedia made the decision to classify it as an unreliable reference source in 2017.

Regarding subject matter of articles pulled up for inaccurate content, it was a mixed bag for the Mail although slightly more common themes were Jeremy Corbyn/Labour Party and issues relating to immigration and refugees (3 each). There were clearer patterns where the Express was concerned, with nearly half of its inaccurate content (8 articles) relating to the EU/Brexit and a further four concerned with Islam/Muslims. The most common theme of The Sun‘s inaccurate content was Corbyn/Labour (3 articles).

Perhaps what these figures show more than anything is that the current IPSO sanctions are ineffective. If they were working, you would expect the number of times these papers were pulled up for inaccurate content to decrease. The very fact that the Mail, the Express and The Sun are committing more offences than ever before does little to instil confidence in the current IPSO model as a regulatory force.

IPSO was established in 2014 as an independent regulator of the press but has been criticised for not imposing sufficient penalties when guidelines are breached. Offenders generally get away with printing a small correction notice months after the original offending article was published.

Surely it’s time to make papers pay for their indiscretions rather than handing out token ineffective punishments. Some have suggested forcing papers to publish corrections in bold print on the front page. Others have suggested imposing fines to hit publications where it hurts.

Another idea could be to impose a ban on papers covering certain subjects for different periods of time if they can’t report truthfully and accurately on them. After all, if a paper has repeatedly demonstrated that it can’t handle a topic responsibly, why should it be allowed into a position where it can influence millions of people?

IPSO does have the power to impose tougher sanctions such as increased prominence of corrections notices or even fines for serious or repeat offences. It can be contacted here.

*The Daily Mail is used here to include the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and the Mail Online. Likewise, the Daily Express is used to include the Daily Express, the Sunday Express and the Express Online, and so on. 

**IPSO rulings include both breaches of the Editors’ Code of Practice, where no agreement between the parties can be reached and IPSO has to intervene, and Resolution Statements, where the publication admits it has breached the code and offers to make a statement/concession that is to the satisfaction of the complainant. 

Don’t like what you’re seeing in the press? If you see an article you’re unhappy with, you can email the press regulators at inquiries@ipso.co.uk to voice your concerns. If enough complaints are received, they will have to look into it.

Tabloid Corrections Facebook page: here.