UK alcohol regulator The Portman Group has commissioned a significant proactive independent audit to measure responsible marketing across the alcoholic drinks market.
Auditor Zenith Global will select 500 alcoholic drinks in the Great British market which will be assessed against the Naming and Packaging Code of Practice. The Code of Practice consists of 12 rules which ensure that alcohol is marketed in a socially responsible way, only to those aged 18 and over, and in a way that does not appeal particularly to those who are vulnerable.
The sample will be statistically representative and weighted so that all categories of alcohol are included.
While the Portman Group has previously commissioned audits to test compliance following the introduction of a new edition of the Code, this is the first standalone proactive audit of its kind which will now be run biannually in a move towards more proactive regulation.
Typically as a regulator the Portman Group does not create complaints itself and therefore relies on complaints being made by others in order to trigger an investigation. If Zenith Global has any concerns about a product it will act as the named complainant and will raise a complaint with the Portman Group. The cases will follow the formal complaints process and will initially be assessed by the Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel to determine how the case should be resolved.
The audit will result in the publication of two reports and any products which proceed to formal investigation will have full accompanying decisions publicised.
The project is likely to run throughout this year with results expected to be publicised in the Autumn.
Matt Lambert, Chief Executive of the Portman Group said: “We know that the vast majority of the alcohol industry is responsible , so we are confident that the results of this audit will show high levels of compliance across the market with our Code of Practice and enable us to proactively address any products which do not respect the code. It’s an important step to demonstrate the effectiveness of the self-regulatory model and strengthen our capacity even further.”
A complaint against a Sheffield based Brewery’s tap handle and pump clip has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP).
The complaint, about Little Mesters Brewing Stan IPA Tap Handle and Pump Clip said: ‘The idea of Stan is a homage to one of the last ‘little Mesters’ in Sheffield. As much as I appreciate the respect to the history of the city of Sheffield in feel using a knife handle as a tap handle is perhaps a step too far and could encourage alcohol related violence.’
It was upheld under Code rule 3.2(b) which states that a drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour. The full decision can be read here.
The Panel noted the company’s response that the tap handle was an honorific design to commemorate Stan Shaw who was a Little Mester, a title which referred to a master craftsman usually associated with Sheffield. The Panel took into consideration that images of blades and knives are used widely on UK alcohol packaging as they are not necessarily always used as weapons, and therefore may not automatically create a sufficiently strong link with violence and aggression under rule 3.2(b).
The Panel considered the image on the pump clip which included a stylised cartoon depiction of Stan Shaw posing with a knife, held in an upright position with his body turned towards it. The Panel considered that this image drew attention to the knife and made it the central focus of the design. The image of Stan Shaw was surrounded by numerous other blades in a circular fashion alongside the word ‘Stan’. The Panel expressed concern about the number of blades included in the imagery, particularly as they formed a prominent part of the design and appeared to be more akin to sharp weapons than utensils.
The Panel also noted that the image of Stan was holding the knife in an upright vertical fashion. The blade was curved into a tip at the end which gave the appearance that the blade was akin to a sharp dagger, rather than a blunted ceremonial knife. The Panel considered the combination of these elements meant that the imagery could potentially glamourise the depiction of sharp knives which were often used as weapons in violent crime.
The Panel considered the imagery in the wider context of the pump clip handle which was designed to mimic a knife handle which was reinforced by the action required of pulling the tap, where a person’s hand would be required to grip it in a similar fashion as one might brandish a knife.
When considering all of these contributing factors, the Panel upheld the pump clip and tap handle under Code rule 3.2(b) for creating an indirect association with violent behaviour.
Little Mesters Brewery has discontinued the product.
Rachel Childs, Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel (ICP) said: “In this case the Panel acknowledged that the producer had simply sought to celebrate an important local craftsman, however rising rates of knife crime in the UK, and particularly Sheffield where the marketing appeared, generate a high level of public concern so it’s important to remember that any depiction of knives on alcoholic packaging has to be approached with great caution.”
A spokesperson from Little Mesters Brewery said: “We respect the decision made by the Portman Group, and the important role they play in our industry. However we do not agree our branding celebrating a master craftsman and the huge part he, and other, Little Mesters played in building industry in our fantastic city in any way encourages anti social behaviour nor promotes knife crime.”
- Over a third of UK drinkers (38%) now consuming low and no alcohol alternatives semi regularly
- Young adults still the biggest consumers of low and no alcohol alternatives
- UK consumers call for more low and no options on draught in venues to further incentivise take up
The Portman Group’s seventh annual survey in partnership with YouGov shows that more people are drinking low and no alcohol alternatives than ever before, showing the UK is drinking more moderately than ever.
The results show that well over a third (38%) of UK drinkers are now consuming low and no alcohol alternatives semi-regularly (12% regularly and 26% occasionally) – compared to 35% in 2023 and 29% in 2022, with a notable increase in regular consumption from 8% in 2023 to 12% in 2024.
Young adults continue to drive the trend as the biggest consumers of low and no alcohol alternatives, with close to half (46%) of 25-34 year olds surveyed considering themselves either an occasional or regular drinker of alcohol alternatives, compared to 37% in 2023. Whilst 40% of 18-24 year olds also drink these products semi-regularly.
Trends show that the younger generation also continue to be the most sober age group overall, with 39% of 18-24 year olds not drinking alcohol at all.
The results continue to highlight the positive impact of low and no alcohol alternatives in helping people to moderate their drinking, with almost a quarter (24%*) of current alcohol drinkers stating that their weekly consumption has fallen due to low and no alcohol products, up from 23% in 2023 and 21% in 2022.
The survey also highlights an increasingly health-conscious UK consumer, with 29% of low and no drinkers citing collective ‘health and medical’ concerns as a key reason for choosing an alcohol alternative – an increase of almost a third (32%) when compared to 2021(22%).
Not only are UK drinkers increasingly using low and no alcohol alternatives as a tool with which to moderate their drinking, but their rise in popularity is playing an important role in helping to tackle wider alcohol harms such as drink driving. For the seventh year in a row, being able to drive home from social events is the number one reason cited by low and no drinkers for choosing an alcohol alternative, with over a quarter (28%) stating they will most commonly drink low and no alternatives in situations where they are unable to have a regular strength alcoholic drink such as when they are driving. This is especially important as pubs and bars remain the most popular locations for adults to drink low and no alternatives.
While our research continues to tell a positive story of how low and no products are becoming increasingly normalised in everyday life, almost a quarter of adults (24%) would still like to see more low and no options available on tap in pubs to further encourage them to drink. They also want to see greater use of price promotions (30%) and greater availability of low and no products in non-traditional hospitality spaces (26%) such as nightclubs, theatres, cinemas and live music and event venues.
Matt Lambert, Chief Executive of the Portman Group said: “It’s fantastic to see low and no alternatives continuing to soar in popularity, while helping to encourage more mindful and moderate consumption among UK alcohol drinkers. We welcome the drinks and hospitality industry continuing to work together to increase choice, availability and visibility of low and no alcohol alternatives, and we continue to urge the UK government to provide us with the outcome of the recent consultation on low alcohol descriptors which will further facilitate growth of the UK low and no alcohol market.”
*based on removing those who did not drink alcohol before first trying a low/no alternative.
All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2081 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 18th – 19th November 2024. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults (aged 18+).
The alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel has upheld complaints against three ciders produced by Bearded Brewery.
A complaint was received against their Tank Slapper, Moustache Mango, Swallows Rest and Shaky Todd ciders. The complaint was upheld against Tank Slapper, Moustache Mango and Swallows Rest, but not upheld against Shaky Todd cider.
The company is now working with the Portman Group’s Advisory Service to bring the three upheld products in line with the Code.
Tank Slapper
The Panel discussed the meaning of ‘Tank Slapper’ which refers to a rapid side-to-side shaking of a vehicle’s wheels which usually occurs at high speeds, and is a dangerous manoeuvre with a high risk of injury. It also considered the phrase ‘get yer wobble on’ in this context as a direct imperative for a person to perform a ‘tank slapper’, further compounding the link between the drink and the dangerous manoeuvre, as well as an indirect association with drinking before driving.
It therefore concluded that the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety created an association with dangerous behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b). In the context of the decision under Code rule 3.2(b), the Panel also considered whether the phrase ‘get yer wobble on’ encouraged illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption and concluded that it could be read as an instruction for a person to consume alcohol immoderately and upheld the complaint under 3.2(j).
Moustache Mango
The Panel considered the phrase ‘man go hard or man go home’ which it noted read as a play on words for the well-known idiom ‘go hard or go home’. The Panel that the word ‘mango’ had been separated to ‘man go’ which further compounded the link to the well-known phrase, which is generally understood to mean that if undertaking a challenge, a person should make a bold, superior effort or forgo it all together.
In the context of an alcoholic drink, the Panel considered that the line presented drinking as a challenge and on that basis, found that the line created an association with bravado and therefore found the packaging in breach of Code rule 3.2(b). The Panel also considered that the phrase ‘man go hard or man go home’ on an alcoholic drink could encourage immoderate consumption and was also unacceptable in this context. Accordingly, the Panel also upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(f).
Swallows Rest cider
The Panel took into consideration the company’s response which explained that Swallows Rest was the name of its brewhouse and the design of the logo was a traditional tattoo theme which was based on a similar real-life design used by one of the company’s directors. However, with regards to the image of the bird being stabbed – it noted that the design employed a fine line style which created a realistic depiction, with the knife tip dripping with blood compounding the life-like portrayal of the bird being stabbed. The Panel expressed concerned about the representation of a knife being used as a weapon and considered the imagery depicted a fairly aggressive and violent act of killing a bird.
The Panel stated that while it was clear that the imagery had a close personal link to the company, the realistic and violent depiction of killing a bird created an association with aggressive and violent behaviour and therefore upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(b).
Shaky Todd cider
The complainant raised concern that the name of the product, combined with the illustration of a fox with liquid splashing from a tankard, encouraged immoderate consumption. The Panel acknowledged that ‘shaky’ could have a number of meanings, therefore it was important to consider how the word was presented in the wider context of the packaging. It noted the fox did not appear drunk and there was nothing else on the label which encouraged an immoderate style of consumption. It therefore did not uphold the complaint.
Commenting on the decision, Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “Three Bearded Brewery ciders in this case were found to create an association with violent, aggressive, or dangerous behaviour under Code rule 3.2(b). While the Panel acknowledged that the company had not set out to breach the Code, they encouraged all producers to think carefully before transferring these connotations to alcohol packaging.”
The alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP) is delighted to announce the appointment of a new Panel member.
Following a rigorous and highly competitive recruitment process, Martin Machray has been appointed to the Panel and will sit in his first meeting on 28 November. He will replace outgoing member Angela McNab.
Martin is currently the Director responsible for improvement, transformation and partnerships across the NHS in London. He qualified as a general nurse in 1989 and since then he has held senior roles in hospitals, commissioning, the Department of Health and the NHS.
He’s held a variety of roles in the NHS including Regional Chief Nurse and, during the pandemic was the Incident Director for London. Now much of his role is working with partners from all sectors of the capital, including Local Authorities, the Greater London Authority and the community and voluntary sector.
As well as his professional qualification, Martin also has a Masters degree in Public Sector Administration from Aston University.
The Panel is chaired by Rachel Childs and new members are carefully recruited in order to represent a cross section of society with a balance of experience and expertise in key areas such as licensing, public health, children’s services and law.
The ICP is independent from the Portman Group and considers complaints brought forward on the naming, packaging, promotion and sponsorship of alcoholic drinks based on the Portman Group’s Codes of Practice. The Panel meet several times a year to consider these complaints and decide whether they are upheld or not upheld based on evidence.
Rachel Childs, Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel said: “I am thrilled to announce Martin’s appointment to the Panel, and we are all looking forward to welcoming him. He has a truly impressive breadth of experience and knowledge in public health, which I have no doubt will make him an asset to the Panel. This was a very competitive recruitment process with an exceptionally high calibre of candidates, so I’d also like to thank all of the applicants involved, as well as Angela for her service to the Panel.”
A complaint against a Jam Shed wine point of sale display has not been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP). The full decision can be read here.
The complaint, made by a member of the public, raised concerns that the display, which featured the marketing slogan “wine for drinking, not overthinking”, may encourage irresponsible and immoderate consumption.
The Panel considered whether the point-of-sale material could encourage irresponsible or immoderate consumption, under Code rule 3.2(f) as raised by the complainant.
The Panel discussed that ‘overthinking’ was generally perceived to have negative connotations and expressed concern that the line ‘wine for drinking, not overthinking’ in isolation, could be misconstrued as encouragement to drink without due care and attention. However, the Panel stated that it was important to consider the line in the context of the overall impression conveyed by the marketing.
The Panel considered Jam Shed more broadly and acknowledged the company’s response that it was a well-known brand marketed on being a simple and easy choice for consumers who may find the perceived complexity of the wine category intimidating. The Panel also noted that there was nothing else on the marketing material that suggested that a consumer should drink irresponsibly or immoderately.
The Panel considered that the brand identity provided a certain level of context to the intended meaning of the line but that there was an element of ambiguity which could have been made clearer as to the intended meaning of ‘overthinking’. On this point, the Panel warned producers that where marketing was ambiguous it could lead to an unintentional breach of the Code.
After much deliberation, the Panel concluded that while the wording was very close to the line of acceptability, the marketing material did not encourage immoderate or irresponsible consumption. Accordingly, the Panel did not find the point of sale material in breach of Code rule 3.2(f).
The Panel also considered whether the point of sale material urged a rapid or ‘down in one’ style of consumption, in breach of Code rule 3.2(g). The Panel assessed the rest of the marketing material and considered that it did not contain any cues which suggested a consumer should drink rapidly or encouraged a ‘down in one’ style of consumption. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the material did not breach Code rule 3.2(g) and accordingly did not uphold the complaint.
On being notified about the complaint, the company voluntarily removed the display and confirmed it would not use the phrase in future campaigns.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel Rachel Childs said: “While the Panel didn’t uphold the complaint in this instance, they still considered the wording of the point-of-sale display very close to the line of acceptability. It’s important for producers to be aware that ambiguous marketing could lead to unintentional breaches of the Code and I am grateful to the producer in this case for removing the campaign voluntarily which demonstrates their commitment to responsible marketing.”
A complaint against a Hello Kitty branded red wine has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), after it was found to have particular appeal to under-18s.
The complainant said: ‘Astonished to see alcohol sold under a children’s toy brand. How can that possibly be legal?’.
It was upheld under Code rule 3.2(h) which states that a drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. The full decision can be read here.
The Panel noted the response of the Italian producer – Torti Wine – which disagreed that Hello Kitty was a children’s toy brand and said that it was popular with all ages particularly mothers, grandmothers and older celebrities including Kim Kardashian.
The Panel noted that there was a level of nostalgia attached to the brand which remained popular with some adult consumers who had enjoyed it in their childhood, but that it should consider how Hello Kitty was perceived and marketed in the UK.
It noted that the Hello Kitty franchise included a children’s TV show and video game which were suitable for children aged three and above, and the Hello Kitty website included a children’s privacy policy which reinforced the perception that the website and its content not only targeted those under the age of 18 but that the younger age group was of significant relevance.
While the Panel acknowledged that the intention of the producer was to create a Hello Kitty wine which appealed to adults, the Panel considered that wider Hello Kitty marketing in the UK reflected that Hello Kitty was a brand which was predominantly marketed towards children.
In terms of the overall impression of the product, the Panel noted that the packaging included a large image of ‘Hello Kitty’ which was prominently displayed on the front label. The design was a simplistic cartoon which had exaggerated features, such as the oversized bow, and a large cat head which gave the appearance of being kitten-like and cute. The Panel therefore concluded the overall impression of the packaging also had a particular appeal to under-18s. Accordingly, the Panel upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
Torti Wine confirmed that it would no longer sell the product in the UK.
Rachel Childs, Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel (ICP) said: “In this case, it was clear from the producer’s response that it hadn’t intended to market the Hello Kitty wine to children and as an overseas producer were unaware of the self-regulatory system we have in place in the UK to enforce responsible marketing and protect consumers, particularly those under-18.
“It’s a timely reminder that the Portman Group’s Code of Practice applies to all alcohol marketed in the UK, and not just that of UK producers. A children’s cartoon themed wine is wholly unacceptable.”
The producer, Torti Wine, added: “Hello Kitty wines are for adult consumption and sold only in places that own an alcohol license. This is to protect and correctly sell the Hello Kitty wines in places where minors don’t have access.”
A new review of alcohol labelling on the UK market has revealed near universal levels of adherence across the alcohol industry with the Portman Group’s voluntary health labelling guidelines.
The study, which is released today (12 September) and the largest of its kind, sampled 500 alcohol products from the UK’s top brands and demonstrates the robust voluntary industry-wide commitment to providing consumers with public health information.
It found near universal coverage of our minimum guidelines:
- Over 99% of labels carry a pregnancy warning logo or message.
- 96% carry alcohol unit content information, up from 94% in our 2021 review.
- 86% carry the UK Chief Medical Officers guideline not to regularly drink more than 14 units per week, up from 79% in our previous review.
- 92% carry a reference to Drinkaware or other responsibility messaging.
- 74% of labels use a box to explicitly separate information for consumers, including 86% of products which carried the Chief Medical Officers’ Guideline. We will further clarify our advice to producers that this is our recommended method for presenting Portman Group best practice.
The research also revealed significant increases in many brands going above and beyond the guidelines and showcasing additional elements such as calorie information, drink driving warnings and age restriction – further demonstrating a serious and widespread commitment to responsible marketing and tackling harm. Over half (51%) carry calorie information on labels and over a third (38%) carry a warning against drink driving, as well as over a third (36%) carrying age restriction warnings. These are all increases since our last market review in 2021.
For over 25 years, the UK alcohol industry has proactively worked to ensure that alcohol labelling is both socially responsible and informative for consumers, and our latest industry Best Practice Guidance, ensures consumers have access to more product and health information than ever before.
Where there are small gaps in the market, we have already begun reaching out to producers to encourage further take up of the guidelines with many already confirming changes are underway. Any producers who are unsure of the guidelines or our Codes of Practice are encouraged to take advantage of our free and confidential Advisory Service.
Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group said: “We’re incredibly pleased to see such positive levels of increasing adherence to our best practice guidelines, which showcase the alcohol industry’s long-standing commitment to proactively ensuring responsible marketing and informing consumers. It’s important to remember that all of this has been achieved without any need for government legislation and crucially at no cost to the UK taxpayer.
“Our guidelines are absolutely clear that labels should contain distinct information, such as on units and Government lower-risk drinking guidelines, so that consumers are able to easily understand and make informed choices about their alcohol consumption. It’s particularly positive to see not only is this being near universally met, but many producers are going above and beyond to provide additional information such as calories and drink driving warnings.”
For nearly thirty years the Portman Group’s Code of Practice has set the minimum standards for alcohol producers to market their products responsibly, and resulted in nearly 200 inappropriate and irresponsible products being removed from shelves.
The Code of Practice covers the naming, packaging, and promotion of any alcoholic products which are marketed in the UK and now has 12 code rules which all producers must abide by if they are selling or marketing a product in the UK. It ensures that alcohol is marketed in a socially responsible way, only to those aged 18 and over, and in a way that does not appeal particularly to those who are vulnerable.
Since 1996 when it was first introduced, the Code has resulted in nearly 200 irresponsible and inappropriate alcohol products being removed from shelves, in turn protecting consumers and increasing standards across the drinks industry.
A look back over the years provides an eye-opening insight into how alcohol marketing has evolved in line with an increase in moderate drinking and social changes in society, resulting in a more responsible industry than ever.
Now in its sixth edition (amended), we’ve gone through the archives of upheld complaints to see just how far alcohol marketing has come as a result of our Code of Practice.
1996 – TNT Liquid Dynamite
A complaint suggested the product had an association with violent, aggressive, dangerous and anti-social imagery and behaviour given the perception of dynamite and its use in bringing about destruction.
The Panel upheld the complaint under two aspects of the Code, citing that the imagery was of concern and that a reasonable person looking at its packaging could reasonably conclude that there was an association with dangerous behaviour.
1997 – Bullshit Lager
A complaint was upheld against this Newcastle brewed beer on the basis its less than polite name was more likely to appeal to under-18s than adults. The Panel also noted the cartoon picture of the bull snorting on the front of the bottle, and defecating on the back of it, were features that would appeal predominantly to under-18s.
2002 – Cannabis vodka
Code rule 3.2(c) states that alcoholic products shouldn’t suggest any association with illegal or illicit drugs, so it’s no surprise that the Panel upheld a complaint against this prominently themed cannabis vodka.
2003 – Shag lager
Despite the producer arguing that the name of this lime flavoured lager denoted a type of seabird which was featured on the label, the Panel noted that it was also a commonly used slang term for sexual intercourse and that consumers were more likely to interpret the brand name in this way. They therefore upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(d) which at the time stated that alcohol products should not have any link with sexual success.
2005 – Kalashnikov Vodka
A complaint against this product suggested the name was “entirely inappropriate for an alcoholic drink, as the general public would immediately associate the name with the world famous weapon, the AK-47, which has become a global symbol for terror and violence.”. The Panel agreed and upheld it under Code rule 3.2(b).
2007 – Rubel sexy lager
This bottled Belgian beer was removed from shelves in the UK in 2007 after the Panel ruled that the name of the product, and the image featuring a woman in a scantily clad swimsuit, contravened Code rule 3.2(d) stating alcohol products shouldn’t have any link with sexual success. The product also had an interactive feature where consumers could scratch off the swimsuit to reveal a naked woman.
2011 – Suck and blow
A complaint against these alcoholic jelly shot tubes, which were designed for one person to blow into another’s mouth, was upheld under three different aspects of the Code. The Panel found the product appealed to under-18s (Code rule 3.2h), created an association with sexual success (3.2d) and encouraged the consumer to drink rapidly (Code rule 3.2g).
2018 – Pink IPA
This limited edition BrewDog IPA was released for International Women’s Day to generate discussion around the gender pay gap. While the Panel acknowledged the product was intended to be ironic, they noted the dictionary definition of ‘girl’ was ‘female child’ and found the phrase ‘beer for girls’ created a link between beer and children. They therefore upheld the complaint under Code rule 3.2(h).
2018 – Three Pugs Bubblegum gin liqueur
While the Panel stated the alcoholic nature of this product was communicated with clarity in terms of its name and ABV, they upheld a complaint against this product on the grounds that it could have particular appeal to under-18s. While they noted that pugs aren’t inherently appealing to young children, they found the pugs’ features had been exaggerated and had been depicted in a hot air balloon scenario more akin to a child’s adventure story.
2021 – Quickie wine
A complaint against this wine stated its “objectifying, sexual branding” was “outdated and offensive”. The Panel found it created a direct link to sexual activity (3.2d) and also upheld it against our newest Code rule (3.3) which was introduced in 2019 to protect against products causing serious or widespread offence. It noted the image placed unnecessary focus on the woman’s body in a sexualised manner, and depicted a power imbalance between men and women which could cause serious offence based on gender and sex.
Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group, commented: “These examples are a real testament to the alcohol industry’s effective and robust self-regulatory model, and the impact the Portman Group has had over the years in shifting marketing culture and raising standards to protect consumers. With nearly two hundred products removed from shelves, the industry has come a long way over the years and we will continue to work closely with producers to enforce responsible marketing.”
The alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP) is delighted to announce the appointment of three new members, further strengthening and enhancing the Panel’s expertise and diversity.
Following a rigorous recruitment process which saw an unprecedented amount of applications received, Evans Omondi, Amanda Bridgewater, and Hayden Taylor have been appointed as new Panel members and will sit on their first Panel meeting on 9 May.
The Panel is chaired by Rachel Childs and new members are carefully recruited in order to represent a cross section of society with a balance of experience and expertise in key areas such as licensing, public health, children’s services and law.
The ICP is independent from the Portman Group and considers complaints brought forward on the naming, packaging, promotion and sponsorship of alcoholic drinks based on the Portman Group’s Codes of Practice. The Panel meet several times a year to consider these complaints and decide whether they are upheld or not upheld based on evidence.
To maintain the diversity of the Panel applications were particularly encouraged during this recruitment process from those with professional experience working with young people.
Evans Omondi
Evans Omondi is a Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) qualified youth worker with over 15 years’ experience working with young people. He currently manages a youth programme in central London which specialises in working with young people who have experienced youth violence, and has previous experience working in multiple youth centres and mentoring young people with learning difficulties.
Amanda Bridgewater
Amanda Bridgewater has over 20 years’ experience in the education sector, working in various senior leadership roles in the secondary sector, most recently as Interim Principal of a large state-school in Bristol. She has held education consultancy roles across schools in both the urban and rural context as well as sitting at board level in the primary sector. She has also worked with vulnerable young people in the charity sector as a Trustee and volunteer for a number of UK, European and international charities.
Hayden Taylor
Hayden Taylor is a young social entrepreneur and company director who founded social enterprise Unloc, a leading non-profit organisation which helps schools and colleges to empower young people across the UK with the leadership skills and platforms to drive change. Hayden has founded a number of successful campaigns focused on supporting young people to become policy influencers, innovators and entrepreneurs in the UK and Europe, and is a global youth ambassador for One Young World.
Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), Rachel Childs, said: “I’m thrilled to welcome our new members to the Panel and I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate them on their appointment, following what was a very competitive recruitment process with an exceptionally high standard of applicants. All three have demonstrated an impressive breadth of experience and understanding of young people which will be invaluable when applying the Codes of Practice. I very much look forward to working with them.”