IPSO and DMG ruling

Ivleva v Metro

Who complained about who?

Marina Ivleva complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation about The Metro breaching clause 1, 3, 10 and 12 of the editors code of practice in a story about her that was published on 2 December 2014.

The complaints were:

Clause 1 accuracy: The paper described her as Ukrainian and she said she had £300,000 of assets.

Clause 3 and 10 Privacy, Clandestine devices and subterfuge: A photo had been stolen from her PC or loft had been used

Clause 12 Discrimination: Describing her as Ukrainian when she saw her self as Russian.

In the end the result was, IPSO did not uphold the decision. It was rejected because she had a Ukrainian passport. the photos were supplied by the husband. the paper offered to change the article about her being Ukrainian to her being Ukrainian and Russian.

Armstrong v Metro

Who complained about who?

Paul Armstrong complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation on behalf of James Armstrong about The Metro breaching clause 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the editors code of practice in a story about his brothers daughter that was published on 21 January 2015.

The complaints were:

Clause 1 Accuracy: Not all information about Ellie’s treatment was accurate.

Clause 3 Privacy: information was taken from family social media including the dead girl only 14 years old.

Clause 4 Harassment: the family were grieving and wanted privacy – yet they had lots of phone calls. they did not give concent to the story and it would be distressing.

Clause 5 Intrusion into grief or shock: journalists harrased the family to cover the story.

the judgement was not upheld because the paper saw it was already public. they offered to write a public apology and a private apology letter to the family.