Index html on barryc.info IPSO v2

Overview
I made complaint against a Telegraph article in April 2025.
History: I was somehow dragged into phone conversations with a Journalist - Josh Kirby.
I always asked to see anything before it is published.
Told by a friend who reads the paper version, that there was an article and I was recognised.
Several direct complaints to Telegraph Editors, who put their Legal Department on the case.

    
Who supports/likes IPSO:

Most UK Newspaper & Magazine Publishers: IPSO is backed by roughly 90-95% of the UK’s national daily newspapers (by circulation) 
and the majority of regional/local publishers. Major industry members include News UK and Reach.
Industry Supporters: Publishers join IPSO because it represents a "sign of high standards" and provides 
  a, reputedly, self-regulatory framework that is preferable to statutory, government-backed regulation.
     Journalists & Editors: Many within the industry appreciate the 24/7 advice, training, 
     and support for editorial decision-making, particularly concerning potential breaches of the Editors' Code.
IPSO Employees/Management: Staff within the organization (e.g., in the complaints team) value its role in shaping journalistic standards. 

Who criticizes/dislikes IPSO:

Hacked Off (Campaign Group): The campaign for a free and accountable press frequently labels IPSO a "sham regulator" 
   or "PR shield" for the industry, citing that it rarely fines or investigates newspapers.
Media Reform Groups & Academics: Research from organizations like the Media Standards Trust
     has found that IPSO fails to meet the majority of recommendations set out by the Leveson Inquiry.
Specific Public Interest Groups: Various groups (e.g., those advocating for better coverage of gender, privacy, or discrimination) 
     argue that IPSO rarely upholds complaints or acts effectively. 
In summary, IPSO is "liked" by the majority of the UK press it regulates as a preferred, industry-backed regulator, 
but is frequently criticized by campaigners as ineffective and unindependent.