Ah, this was what was rattling about in the back of my mind.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/in-defence-of-gareth-roberts/
'We publish what Ipso requires of us here. But I am in no doubt this is an outrageous decision, offensive to the principle of free speech and chilling in its effect on free expression.
When Ipso was set up it was established as a lesser evil. The Leveson Report had called for effective state regulation of the press. The Spectator was resolutely opposed. In place of that undoubted curtailment of free expression, media organisations, including The Spectator, instead agreed to be bound by an independent regulator, whose remit was both to uphold high standards and defend free speech. Ipso was set up to fulfil that role. The Spectator agreed, with other media organisations, to fund the body, subscribe to its Editor’s Code and abide by its rulings. We did so on the basis that self-regulation by an independent body was infinitely preferable to state regulation. But our first duty is not to any committee, no matter how well-intentioned – it is to you, our readers. We are here to report honestly, uphold freedom of speech and defend the right of our writers to express themselves, within the boundaries of the law, as they see fit. '