Discriminatory Reporting Powers
Leveson Inquiry · An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · Issued 29 November 2012 · Addressed to: Press
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation
In conjunction with Recommendation 11 above, consideration should also be given to Code amendments which, while fully protecting freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, would equip that body with the power to intervene in cases of allegedly discriminatory reporting, and in so doing reflect the spirit of equalities legislation.
Leveson Inquiry, An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press · 29 Nov 2012 Source PDF →
Response — verbatim from government
●UK Government
The Prime Minister stated on 29 November 2012 that he accepted "the principles that Lord Justice Leveson has laid out" for independent self-regulation, including "an independent board, a standards code, an arbitration service and the power to demand up-front, prominent apologies and impose million-pound fines." However, he rejected statutory underpinning, expressing "serious concerns and misgivings" about crossing "the Rubicon of writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land." The Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press was granted on 30 October 2013, establishing the Press Recognition Panel as the recognition body. IPSO was established in September 2014 but has not sought Royal Charter recognition. IMPRESS was recognised by the PRP in October 2016. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/david-cameron-statement-in-response-to-the-leveson-inquiry-report
UK Government · 29 Nov 2012 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 27 Feb 2025 · IPSO IPSO's Editors' Code includes Clause 12 on discrimination but this only applies to individuals, not groups. Leveson recommended the power to intervene in cases of discriminatory reporting more broadly, reflecting equalities legislation. IPSO cannot act on group discrimination complaints. View source → Reasonable Progress
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.