Vincent v Daily Mail (Mail Online)
Complaint
Miss Natalie Vincent complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, that the newspaper had published a report of suicide which included excessive detail about the method used.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated a donation to charity, and the newspaper affirmed its commitment to training staff about the requirements of Clause 5 (ii) of the Code. (Cl 5)
Field v Daily Mail
Complaint
Dr Steven Field complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article about the launch of Clare’s Law. He said that the article had not made clear that the new law, which gives people the right to know if a partner has a history of domestic violence, applies to both men and women.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the publication of the following clarification in the newspaper:
“Following an article on March 8 about ‘Clare’s Law’, which allows police to disclose information about a partner’s previous convictions for domestic abuse, we are happy to clarify that the scheme applies to men as well as women.”
The newspaper amended the headline of the online article so that instead of reading “Now women can be told of their partner’s violent past thanks to new law named after tragic murder victim”, it read “Now people can be told of their partner’s violent past thanks to new law named after tragic murder victim.” It also amended two references to women having the right to know to read “people”, and appended a note to the bottom of the article which read:
“Following an article on March 8 about ‘Clare’s Law’, which allows police to disclose information about a partner’s previous convictions for domestic abuse, we are happy to clarify that the scheme applies to men as well as women.” (Cl 1)
Hesselmann v The Daily Telegraph
Complaint
Mr William Hesselmann complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had published inaccurate information in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant said that the newspaper had misled readers by suggesting that the BBC accommodated the 65 person crew of Lambing Live in hotel rooms costing £279 per night. The real figure, which was only published at the end of the piece, was £58 per night.
Resolution
The newspaper said that, despite putting the allegation to the BBC before publication, the BBC had informed it of the actual price only after the online article had been published. Upon receipt of the actual price, the newspaper had updated its online article, and later published a footnote to the article:
The headline in this article originally stated "BBC's Lambing Live criticised after 65-strong film crew stayed at luxury £279-a-night hotel for week". The price was deleted from the headline to reflect the cost referred to in the story, which the BBC did not supply until after the article was published. Consequential amendments have also been made to the text. (Cl 1)
Hesselmann v Daily Mail
Complaint
Mr William Hesselmann complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had published inaccurate information in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant said that the newspaper had misled readers by suggesting that the BBC accommodated the 65 person crew of Lambing Live in hotel rooms costing £279 per night. The real figure, which was only published at the end of the piece, was £58 per night.
Resolution
The newspaper said that the article had included the BBC’s response, which had not mentioned the actual price of the rooms. It had been informed by the BBC only after the publication of the actual price; it had published the BBC’s letter addressing this point. It has amended the online article and published the following footnote:
The BBC asks us to point out that in fact the BBC paid £58 per night, not the £279 quoted. This rate amounted to a discount of around 50% off the standard rate, substantially less than other hotels in the area and within the BBC expenses policy. Having the team stay in one location simplified travel arrangements to and from the farm. They also say that a crew of 65 is typical for a production of this kind. The article was updated after the BBC provided further comment on the price of rooms following publication. (Cl 1)
Li v Metro
Complaint
Mr Simon Li complained on behalf of Ms Nia Price to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, that the newspaper had used a stock image to illustrate an article about students’ sexual, drinking and drug taking habits. The complainant was concerned that the article gave the misleading impression that the individuals featured in photograph were relevant to content of the story.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the removal of the article from the newspaper’s website. (Cl 1)
Giles v The Sun on Sunday
Complaint
Ms Annabel Giles complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper published an article which included private information about her personal life in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy), and included discriminatory and irrelevant references to her sexual orientation in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the removal of the online article and an assurance from the newspaper that it would not reprint the article. The newspaper also offered the complainant an ex-gratia payment. (Cl 3 and 12)
Portes v The Daily Telegraph
Complaint
Mr Jonathan Portes, Director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had published inaccurate and misleading information in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant said that the following statement was incorrect: “Migration Watch said official figures show about 150,000 employees from Eastern Europe pay around £1 a week in net tax, while some on shorter hours pay nothing but still receive benefits”. The report said a single person on the minimum wage would pay around £1 per week in net tax. It did not, however, state how many of the 150,000 single Eastern European migrants earned the minimum wage. The statement was therefore inaccurate. Furthermore, the reference to “net tax” was misleading; it did not take into account indirect taxes, including VAT.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the newspaper accepted it was not possible to state that 150,000 Eastern European workers were paying £1 a week in tax. It amended the online article to make clear that some, rather than 150,000, migrants paid £1 in income tax, and published the following footnote:
This article has been amended since it was first posted. The original reported MigrationWatch saying that a quarter of eastern European workers, around 150,000 people, on the minimum wage pay £1 a week in net tax. However, other data in MigrationWatch's analysis says that some people - childless couples where both partners earn the minimum wage - will in fact be paying more. The article has therefore been amended to reflect this. (Cl 1)
Kaufmann v The Mail on Sunday
Complaint
Ms Flo Kaufmann complained to the Press Complaints Commission about an article which she considered to have been inaccurate and misleading in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant objected to the claim that Shechita – the Jewish method of animal slaughter – was a “ceremony”.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the amendment of the online article’s headline (“Meat from cattle slaughtered in ‘cruel’ kosher method is in your high street burger”) (Cl. 1).
Murphy v The Daily Telegraph
Complaint
Mr Danny Murphy complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, that the newspaper had reported that Gerry Adams had been released on police bail, when in fact he had been released without charge.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of the following correction:
"Freed Adams: The IRA has gone, the past is past", May 5) mistakenly recorded that Gerry Adams had been released on police bail when he had been released without charge. We are happy to set the record straight.
The newspaper also amended the reference in the online article and appended the following wording:
Update: When this article was first posted it mistakenly reported that Mr Adams had been released on police bail. This reference was removed on 7 May 2014. The Police Service of Northern Ireland said he had been released pending a report to the Public Prosecution Service. (Cl 1)
London Probation Trust v Evening Standard
Complaint
The London Probation Trust complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper has published inaccurate information in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice and had not published the Trust’s letter responding to the article in breach of Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) of the Code. The complainant said that the headline of the article, “My son was sent back to jail because he missed a meeting we hadn’t been told about”, was inaccurate. The man referred to had in fact been informed in his license conditions, which he was issued with on his release from prison, that he was required to attend a probation office the following week. The newspaper had failed to publish a letter from the Trust correcting the claim.
Resolution
The newspaper had been restricted by on-going legal proceedings from publishing further coverage relating to the man’s case, including the letter from the London Probation Trust. The complaint was resolved when the newspaper agreed to publish an article about the Trust’s EXIT programme, which assists those who have been involved in gangs by offering opportunities to develop life skills, pursue interests that develop their personal independence and help to move them away from crime and offending. (Cl 1 and 2)
Nischal v Sunday Mirror
Complaint
Mr Paul Nischal complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had published inaccurate information about him and his company in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant was concerned that the article, which was an interview with the complainant’s tenant, included a number of inaccurate claims about the complainant’s upkeep of the property which the tenant rented from him. In particular, it incorrectly claimed that the complainant’s company had failed to address the tenant’s complaints about the heating and damp in the property.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the removal of the online article and the publication of the following correction in print and online:
Following our article of January 26 "Millionaire Tory cashes in on TV Benefits Street" in which we reported the comments of a tenant who lived on James Turner Street (also known as Benefits Street) we have been asked to make clear that contrary to the tenant's claims British Gas have visited the house on numerous occasions to fix the boiler, over £1,000 of work has been done during 15 visits and the landlord, Mr Paul Nischal, claims that the tenant has caused condensation in the house by refusing to open the windows. We are also happy to make clear that Mr Nischal does not own "run down houses". (Cl 1)
Humpherson v Daily Mail
Complaint
Mr Paul Humpherson complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, that an article published by a newspaper had inaccurately reported information relating to barristers’ fees paid through legal aid.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the publication of the following letter:
The claim that 1,000 lawyers are paid at least £100k a year from the public purse and that criminal barristers on legal aid are paid an average of £72k is misleading. The figures came from a Ministry of Justice release which is now being reviewed.
Aside from flaws in the numbers, the amount barristers take from public funds has to pay for professional expenses and tax, including VAT. If a criminal barrister really were lucky enough to take £72,000 a year in fee income, about a third of it would be deducted for rent of office space, payment for clerical support staff, IT and stationery equipment, etc, and another 20 per cent would be paid straight back to the public purse in VAT, leaving a pre-income tax figure of more like £36,000.
Any ‘average’ income figure is skewed upwards by the small number of senior barristers who are paid a large amount (in excess of £100k) from legal aid. Most barristers on legal aid take home significantly less than £36,000 a year.
Criminal barristers working for, and paid by, the state criminal justice system, are self-employed, with no pension provision, holiday, maternity or sickness cover. Of course, barristers in commercial and other private work earn very large amounts but they aren’t generally the same people who work hard for comparatively modest reward on legal aid. (Cl 1)
Vennix v The People
Complaint
Mr Dirk Vennix, on behalf of the Association of British Bookmakers, complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, that the newspaper had published inaccurate, misleading and distorted information in an article about betting machines, and had failed to promptly correct the inaccuracies once notified, or provide the ABB with a fair opportunity to reply.
Resolution
The newspaper denied any breach of the Code, or that the article had contained any inaccuracy. The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the publication of the following letter, as a gesture of goodwill:
The issue of problem gambling and betting machines is complex and one which the gambling industry takes extremely seriously. As a responsible industry, we fully understand that some may have concerns about the machines and that is why the industry has adopted the Association of British Bookmakers’ voluntary Code of Conduct which promotes responsible gambling and player protection – particularly with regard to machines, including mandatory and voluntary limits on money and time spent. However, we believe there are still a lot of misconceptions about betting machines currently percolating in the media. We therefore want to set the record straight in relation to a number of statements contained in the article “The crack cocaine of gambling” on 24 November 2013.
• Betting machines “cost punters £8.5bn a year” This statement suggests that the industry generates £8.5bn in profits per year from the machines. However, statistics collated by the Gambling Commission clearly indicate that profit from the machines is in fact around £1.5bn annually.
• “Gamblers can put in cash or bank cards then enter their stake and play”
As prescribed by law, betting shops cannot and do not allow customers to insert debit or credit cards into the machines.
• “The terminals calculate the results and pays out, or more often, doesn’t”
In fact, the average return to player rate on the machines is between 92% and 97% and is published on the machines.
The industry is committed to minimising gambling related harm and is proud that due to the efforts taken the levels of problem gambling in the UK remain low. In fact, the level has remained relatively constant for over a decade despite the introduction of machines in 2001. We hope that these levels will decrease still further following full implementation of our Code of Conduct. (Cl 1)
Dean v The Mail on Sunday
Complaint
Mrs Angela Dean and Mr Richard Dean complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, about an article which reported the contents of an interview with Mrs Dean’s daughter.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated a private letter for the complainants as well as amendments to the online article. (Cl 1, 3, 4)
Delaney v Hull Daily Mail
Complaint
Ms Aisha Delaney complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, about an article which contained a headline description of her as a “demonic woman”.
Resolution
The newspaper explained that the description had been taken from an interview with a police officer. The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated assurances from the newspaper about the circumstances in which it would use the description, in relation to the complainant, in the future. (Cl 1, 12)
Kirkham v The Guardian
Complaint
Mr Peter Kirkham complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article, published online only, had inaccurately reported the law in relation to strip searches by the police, in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated amendments to the article, and the publication of the following footnote:
This article has been amended to make clear that strip searches can be used in circumstances other than an arrest and to make clear that they do not always mean that all clothing has to be removed. (Cl 1)
Rogers v Daily Mail
Complaint
Mr John Rogers complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had misleadingly altered a photograph of a football match, in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
Resolution
The newspaper explained that it had apologised to the agency which provided the photograph, reprimanded the staff member concerned and issued a reminder and warning about the alteration of images to all staff. The complainant said he considered that the correct outcome, and the complaint was resolved accordingly. (Cl 1)
A woman v Dunfermline Press
Complaint
A woman complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had published information likely to contribute to the identification of a victim of sexual assault, in breach of Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, in a court report.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated assurances from the newspaper about future coverage of the proceedings. (Cl 11)
A man v Hull Daily Mail
Complaint
A man complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had identified him, without his consent, in a story that related to his private life in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
Resolution
The newspaper said the information had been provided by the complainant’s partner, and that it had not been asked to withhold the information from the article. The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the removal of the complainant’s surname from the article. (Cl 3)
