IPSO does not cover taste, decency. Lightshade lover ruling

An odd case, but certainly illuminating on the limited purview of IPSO. An interesting contrast with BBFC here, which quite explicitly does judge taste (annual reviews of public opinion on swear words etc) and decency (it refuses an 18 if it judges a film work to be without artistic merit and obscene, thus breaching the archaic, shamefully undemocratic Obscene Publications Act, as it did with Human Centipede II).

The complaints panel at the press regulator sided with the newspaper, saying that they acknowledged that the article was considered to be “offensive and upsetting” by Liberty but that Ipso do not cover issues of taste and decency.

Woman's attraction to chandeliers not a sexual orientation, ruling says.