05897-25 Troxy v The Sunday Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. The Troxy complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sunday Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “London theatre reported for ‘ban on Jews’”, published on 9 November 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on page six – opened by reporting that “Jewish community leaders have accused an East End music venue of discrimination after claims it has banned Jewish-related events.”

3. It went on to report:

“Campaigners have written to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) calling for an investigation into accusations that since the Oct 7 attacks the Troxy theatre has adopted an anti-Jewish policy. The Jewish Community Council (JCC) alleges that charities and event organisers have had their bookings rejected over the past two years, allegedly because they are Jewish.”

4. The article also reported: “The Troxy theatre has denied the claims, saying its booking decisions are ‘never based on faith or race’”.

5. The article went on to report that the “EHRC has begun an assessment of the claims before deciding whether to launch a formal investigation.”

6. The article included examples of events that it claimed had been turned down by the venue. This included an event “in aid of the Yachad Foundation (Kids in Pain) charity” and “a concert by Benny Friedman, a US-Jewish singer, and an event for Crohn’s and Colitis Relief”.

7. The article also reported that the venue had “twice staged a LGBTQ+ Jewish ‘queer club night’ party called Buttmitzvah since Israel launched its military response to the Hamas attacks of Oct 7 2023.”

8. The article went on to report that someone who had tried to book an event with the complainant “accused one of the Troxy’s management staff of telling him directly during a phone conversation that they ‘do not accept Jewish bookings’.”

9. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format. This version of the article was published on 8 November 2025.

10. The online version of the article also included a sub-headline, which read: “Troxy theatre in city’s oldest Jewish community has become an ‘openly anti-Semitic venue’”

11. The online version of the article also reported that the complainant “staged a Gig for Gaza starring Paul Weller, the Northern Irish rap trio Kneecap and Paloma Faith, which raised more than £125,000 for humanitarian relief.”

12. The online article also reported that Robin Williams had performed at the venue.

13. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as it had not banned Jewish events in the wake of the 7 October attacks, and Jewish events had been held at Troxy since the attacks. It said that the article gave a disproportionate prominence to this allegation, which appeared in the headline and the opening paragraphs of the article. The complainant said that its rebuttal did not appear until much further down the article, and that it had been afforded limited space in comparison with the allegations.

14. It also said that the article’s reference to the LGBTQ+ Jewish events it had hosted since the 7 October attack created a misleading inconsistency in the reporting, which undermined the credibility of the allegations.

15. The complainant then said that online article’s sub-headline quoted what it called the most inflammatory accusation in the piece, and that was done without qualification or attribution. The complainant said this implied editorial endorsement.

16. The complainant said that the online article incorrectly reported that Paloma Faith and Kneecap had appeared at the “Gig for Gaza” event at the venue, which was not the case The complainant also said that the article had incorrectly reported the Crohns and Colitis Relief event and the event for the Yachad Foundation were two separate events. The complainant said that it was a single event.

17. The complainant then said that the article had incorrectly referred to the venue as a theatre and that Robin Williams had performed at the venue. It also said it was inaccurate to report that the EHRC had begun an assessment of the complaint against it. The complainant said that its understanding was that no formal investigation had been launched, and that only initial correspondence had been received.

18. The publication did not accept that its reporting was significantly inaccurate on any of the points of complaint and said it had clearly and accurately reported the alleged ban as claims made by the Jewish Community Council (JCC). It said it had included Troxy’s position that this was not correct.

19. While it did not accept that its reporting was significantly inaccurate, on 11 November, the publication made amendments to the online article. These amendments included removing references to Kneecap and Paloma Faith from the list of artists that performed at the “Gig for Gaza”. It also amended Robin Williams to read Robbie Williams and amended its reference to the event for “Crohn’s and Colitis Relief”, so that it was instead referred to as a “joint event”.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

20. The Committee considered that the article clearly distinguished the allegations that the Troxy had enacted a ban on Jewish events in response to Israeli action following the 7 October attacks as claims made by the JCC. It considered this to be the case with reference to the headline claim, where it appeared in inverted commas in the headline - indicating that this was not a straightforward claim of fact. It further noted that the headline said the venue had been “reported” for the alleged “ban on Jews”. It did not claim that the allegation had merit, or that it had been proven. The article also included the information that the LGBTQ+ Jewish events had been hosted by Troxy after the beginning of the alleged ban, allowing the reader to come to their own understanding of the allegations.

21. In the article itself, this allegation was attributed to the JCC and clearly denoted as unproven allegations by the use of terms such as “accused” and “claimed”. It was also not in dispute that the allegations had been made by the JCC, and the content of their allegations accurately reported by the publication.

22. The sub-headline of the online article also used inverted commas to distinguish the allegation against the venue as such. The article then went on to make clear the basis of this allegation, by reporting claims that the venue had allegedly adopted a ban on Jewish events and the allegation that a member of staff had said that the venue “do not accept Jewish bookings”.

23. The Committee did not consider that the position in the article of the venue’s rebuttal in and of itself made the article inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. The article put the venue’s position on record that it disputed these claims, and given they were adequately distinguished as such, the Committee did not consider that the allegations were given undue weight and prominence in comparison to the complainant’s position.

24. Where the claims were distinguished as such and the complainant’s denial had been put on record, the Committee found no breach of Clause 1 with regard to the article’s reporting of the allegations.

25. The Committee then went on to consider the reporting of Paloma Faith and Kneecap as performers at the “Gig for Gaza”.

26. The Committee noted that the correct position, that these acts had not performed at the Troxy as part of the “Gig for Gaza”, was publicly available information which the publication would have had access to. As such the Committee considered that the publication had not taken care not to publish inaccurate information, Therefore the Committee found a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

27. It next considered the significance of this inaccuracy. In the context of the article – which reported on the alleged ban on Jewish events following the Israeli military’s response to the 7 October attacks – the Committee considered that the participants of an event held in support of the people of Gaza was significant. This was further compounded where one of the groups, Kneecap, had been the focus of widely reported controversy following the alleged chanting of pro-Hamas slogans at one of their gigs. Where the inaccuracy was significant, it required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

28. While the publication had amended the article to remove these references, it had not offered to print a correction and, therefore, the Committee found that there had been a breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

29. The Committee noted that, in response to the pre-publication request for comment, the complainant’s response referred separately to the Yachad Foundation and to the Crohns and Colitis Relief Event. As such, the Committee considered that it was not clear that these were the same event, and that it was reasonable for the publication to have assumed that they were separate events. The Committee did not, therefore, consider that the error had come about due to a lack of care on the part of the publication. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

30. The Committee did not consider that it was significantly inaccurate to report the Crohn’s and Colitis Relief event and the event for the Yachad Foundation were two separate events: the point being conveyed by the article was that allegations had been made that Jewish events had been turned down by the venue. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

31. The Committee considered that the reference to Robin Williams (rather than Robbie Williams) was a typographic error which did not represent a failure in the publication’s pre-publication process which would give rise to a breach of Clause 1 (i). It also did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate on this point, given that this was a passing reference which did not impact the point being conveyed in the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

32. The Committee considered it was a fair supposition on the part of the publication to refer to the Troxy as a ‘theatre’ where the term is widely used to describe venues which host live entertainment events. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

33. The Committee did not consider it was inaccurate to report that the EHRC had begun an assessment of the complaint against the Troxy, where it was accepted that correspondence on the matter had been received. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

34. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

35. Having partly upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

36. The article inaccurately reported that Paloma Faith and Kneecap as performers at the “Gig for Gaza” held at Troxy. However, the Committee noted that the publication had taken steps to remove the inaccurate information from the online article – albeit it had not published a correction. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that the article had incorrectly reported that Paloma Faith and Kneecap had performed at the “Gig for Gaza” at the Troxy. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that they had not.

37. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.

38. As the incorrect information appeared only in the online version of the article and the article had already been amended, the correction should be published as a footnote to the online article.

39. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following a partly upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 11/11/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/04/2026