Baroness Patricia Scotland, general secretary of the Commonwealth, has complained to the Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO) that Mail Online articles about the renovation of her flat contained inaccuracies. IPSO was right to conclude that the publication did not breach clause 1 (accuracy) of the Editors' Code of Practice due to the language used, the provision of a right of reply and the journalistic value of the articles. The original Mail Online article, published on November 1, 2016, was headlined: "Commonwealth leader Baroness Scotland's £450,000 renovation of her Mayfair flat included a new bathroom, £3,000 of wallpaper and a £4,000 cupboard at the taxpayers' expense” (Mail Online, 2017). The strongest evidence in favor of Mail Online is the language used in the original story. Mail Online said the £450,000 figure for the refurbishment was an estimate and was based on leaked email correspondence between senior staff at the Commonwealth Secretariat in May 2016. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'?Get the original essay The figure was based on the initial cost of £264,000 to renovate Baroness Scotland's flat, with 'the project exceeding the budget of £25,000 and recommended additions to the renovation which would cost £140,000 excluding VAT'. Mail Online adopted the £450,000 figure as fact, although the author made it clear that the figure came from leaked documents. The article also stated that Baroness Scotland declined to comment. The right of reply has been respected. Mail Online said that despite a request from its sister publication, The Daily Mail, Baroness Scotland had refused to confirm the true cost of the renovation. Therefore, Mail Online cited the estimated £450,000 used by the Daily Mail. After the article was published, Baroness Scotland complained to IPSO that the overall cost of the renovations was actually £338,622, a figure which Mail Online did not dispute. Mail Online wrote in mid-November 2016 that the overall cost of the renovation would be £338,622, £70,000 more than the original budget. The author said in his article that it was unclear whether the project was scaled back after the estimated cost reports were released. The article was not inaccurate, given that the final cost of renovating the apartment was still well over budget. Mail Online amended the articles weeks later to reflect the final overall cost, and this revised article included a clarifying and apologetic footnote: "An earlier version of this article referred to the 450,000 renovation £ by Baroness Scotland from her apartment in Mayfair. In fact, the overall cost of the renovation was later revealed to be £338,622. We are happy to clarify this and apologize for any confusion” (Mail Online, 2017). Mail Online wrote that the £450,000 figure was an estimate on several occasions and, furthermore, they clarified the figure in a timely manner and made it clear to the reader that there was a clarification. Despite this, the heart of the story remained intact: his office had spent taxpayer money on these renovations. Every time taxpayers' money, whatever the cost, must be made public. Baroness Scotland also complained about inaccuracies in a second Mail Online article, headlined 'Downing Street REFUSES to give confidence to Commonwealth leader Baroness Scotland after her lavish spending spree'. The November 3 article reported that the Prime Minister's spokesperson.