Responding to the announcement by The Guardian that it has rejected the IPSO scheme proposed by the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBoF), Professor Brian Cathcart, Executive Director of Hacked Off said:“We welcome the Guardian's decision to reject a press regulation scheme that would fall far short of the Leveson recommendations – and also far short of what the public, the victims of press abuse and all parties in Parliament agree is necessary.“Coming as it does from the paper that bravely exposed the phone hacking scandal, this is a clear signal to the proprietors of the big national newspaper groups that they must think again.“As the Guardian points out, their IPSO scheme would not be effective and would not be independent. Instead it would reproduce all the faults of the discredited Press Complaints Commission.“Every opinion poll confirms that the public will only endorse a self-regulator that genuinely meets the Leveson criteria, and whose regulatory standards are upheld through regular external inspections by an independent body representing the public's interests. That is the arrangement that all parties in Parliament have approved through the Royal Charter, and it is for proprietors and editors now to accept that that is the only legitimate way forward.“It is also the only way to protect ordinary people from the kinds of abuses that made the Leveson Inquiry necessary, and the only way to bear down upon the kinds of unethical conduct exposed by that Inquiry. And the Leveson scheme poses no threat whatever to freedom of speech.“As the Guardian points out, without the trust of the public, IPSO could never have succeeded. Hacked Off calls on all proprietors and editors to do what the polls show their own readers expect: redesign their scheme so that it clearly meets the Leveson standards and submit it in due course for inspection under the Royal Charter approved by Parliament.”Notes1) The main flaws in IPSO are set out here and include:It would, like the old PCC, be under the control of the big national newspaper groups and would put their interests before those of the public.It would make it far too difficult for members of the public to gain remedies when they have been wronged by newspapers.It would be unacceptably exposed to political interference.It would not have satisfactory powers to investigate when things have gone wrong, and so would probably never be able to impose sanctions.It would not have the clear power to oblige editors to give proper prominence to corrections and apologies.2) The most recent Opinion Poll by YouGov can be seen here.3) Hacked Off is confident that a "Leveson-compliant" alternative to IPSO and the PCC will be established for newspapers to join. The Leveson recommendations anticipated an attempted boycott by sections of the press and provided for a system of benefits for joiners and penalties for non-joiners.