Recent resolved complaints by the Press Complaints Commission.
Cowell & Silverman v Daily Mail (Mail Online)
Complaint
Simon Cowell and Lauren Silverman complained to the Press Complaints Commission that Mail Online had published pictures of them taken without their consent in a location where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
Resolution
Following the complaint to the PCC and further correspondence, the complaint was resolved directly between the parties. (Cl 3)
Moss & Parkinson v The Times
Complaint
Mr Craig Moss and Ms Ruth Parkinson complained to the Press Complaints Commission about four articles which they considered to have been inaccurate and intrusive in breach of Clauses 1 (Accuracy) and 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
The complainants were particularly concerned about the suggestion that their late daughter, Sophie Parkinson, died “after being tormented by bullies”.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of the following clarification:
In reporting the death of Sophie Parkinson, a Dundee schoolgirl (Scottish edition, March 5), we referred to a claim made on social media that she had been bullied. We have been informed that neither the police nor Sophie’s school have any evidence of bullying, and that her family believe this claim to have been baseless. We are happy to make this clear and apologise for any distress caused by our report (Cl 1, 5).
Moss & Parkinson v The Sun
Complaint
Mr Craig Moss and Ms Ruth Parkinson complained to the Press Complaints Commission about four articles which they considered to have been inaccurate and intrusive in breach of Clauses 1 (Accuracy) and 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
The complainants were particularly concerned about the suggestion that their late daughter, Sophie Parkinson, died “after being tormented by bullies”.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the following outcome:
The newspaper published two further stories about the complainants’ daughter, and made a charitable donation to the NSPCC. (Cl 1, 5)
Moss & Parkinson v Daily Record
Complaint
Mr Craig Moss and Ms Ruth Parkinson complained to the Press Complaints Commission about four articles which they considered to have been inaccurate and intrusive in breach of Clauses 1 (Accuracy) and 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
The complainants were particularly concerned about the suggestion that their late daughter, Sophie Parkinson, died “after being tormented by bullies”.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the following outcome:
While the publication did not accept a breach of the Code, it apologised for aspects of its article, removed the piece from its website and made a charitable donation to Childline as a gesture of goodwill. (Cl 1, 5)
Moss & Parkinson v Daily Mirror
Complaint
Mr Craig Moss and Ms Ruth Parkinson complained to the Press Complaints Commission about four articles which they considered to have been inaccurate and intrusive in breach of Clauses 1 (Accuracy) and 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
The complainants were particularly concerned about the suggestion that their late daughter, Sophie Parkinson, died “after being tormented by bullies”.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the following outcome:
While the newspaper did not accept that its article breached the Code, it removed the piece from its website as a gesture of goodwill. (Cl 1, 5)
Ewing v The Sun
Complaint
Mr Simeon Ewing complained to the Press Complaints Commission under the terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, about the inclusion of his photograph in an article about alcohol and football.
While the complainant was a proud supporter of the Scottish national team, he objected to the suggestion that he was the type of fan who engaged in “epic booze-ups”.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated a charitable donation to Children’s Ministry Ukraine, a letter of apology and the removal of the photograph from the online article (Cl. 1).
Sartain v The Scottish Sun
Complaint
Mr John Sartain complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, that the newspaper had inaccurately reported that he had advertised a firearm for sale online, following a posting on Facebook, which he explained had been made as a joke.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the removal of the online article, a private letter of apology to the complainant and a donation to charity. (Cl 1)
Pickering v Daily Mail
Complaint
Mrs Debbie Pickering complained to the Press Complaints Commission about an article which she considered to have been intrusive in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
The complainant, who works for Her Majesty’s Passport Office, objected to the publication of a letter which she had sent to an applicant, particularly because her name was visible.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated a letter of apology from the newspaper for any distress the complainant experienced. (Cl. 3)
Wood-Davis v Daily Mail
Complaint
Ms Alex-Wood Davis complained to the Press Complaints Commission, under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, about an article, reporting on the activities of the Police Federation, which included her photograph.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated amendments to the online article. (Cl 1, 3)
A woman v Exeter Express & Echo
Complaint
A woman complained to the Press Complaints Commission under Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, about a report of criminal proceedings in which she was a witness.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated amendments to the article online. (Cl 1, 3)
Curry v Daily Mail (Mail Online)
Complaint
Mr Chris Curry of Rights Watch UK complained that the newspaper had published an inaccurate and misleading article in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant said that an article incorrectly reported that, following the withdrawal of claims by the Iraqi Core Participants in the Al-Sweady Inquiry that Iraqi civilians were unlawfully killed while in the custody of British troops, the inquiry had “collapsed”. The inquiry was in fact proceeding as planned.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the alteration of the online article to make clear that, while one of the key claims had been abandoned, the inquiry was set to proceed. It published the following footnote to record the alterations:
An earlier version of this story stated that the Al-Sweady Inquiry had collapsed. In fact, while the primary strand of the inquiry is no longer proceeding, other parts of the inquiry are proceeding as planned. We are happy to clarify this. (Cl 1)
A man v The Mail on Sunday
Complaint
A man complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had obtained a photograph from his private Facebook page and published in without consent in breach of Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
Resolution
The newspaper demonstrated that the photograph had been publicly accessible at the time it had been obtained. Nonetheless, it removed the photograph from the online article and undertook not to use it again. (Cl 10)
A man v Daily Mail
Complaint
A man 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 incorrectly described the figures for the total number of immigrants received by various European countries in 2011 as representing only the number of EU migrants they had received. The article went on to inaccurately report that Britain had received the greatest number of EU migrants that year; in fact, Germany received the most immigrants from within the EU. The complainant was further concerned that, despite the article reporting the figures for total immigration to countries within the EU, it was illustrated only with photographs showing immigrants from Romania.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the alteration of the online article, including the removal of one of the photographs, and the publication of the following footnote to the article:
An earlier version of this article said that, among EU countries, Britain received the greatest number of EU migrants. The table also stated that it included figures showing the number of EU migrants accepted in 2011. We would like to make clear that the figures in fact reflected the total numbers of immigrants received by those countries. The country that received the greatest number of EU migrants in 2011 was Germany.
It also published the following correction on page 2 of the newspaper:
An article on 19 February said that, among EU countries, Britain received the greatest number of EU migrants in 2011. In fact the figures related to immigrants from all over the world rather than just the EU. (Cl 1)
Mathieu v Ealing Gazette
Complaint
Mr Paul Mathieu complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had breached Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The newspaper had published a letter from the complainant outlining his concerns about the redevelopment plans for Ealing Broadway Station, and had headlined it “Crossrail is bad news for station”. The complainant did not consider this to be an accurate summary of his position, and was further concerned that a letter of response to the complainant’s letter inaccurately attributed the headline to the complainant. He submitted a follow-up letter of his own, which was not published.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the publication of the complainant’s letter, which read:
“Does Crossrail meet our needs?
John Beeston of the Ealing Passenger Transport Users Group says I described Crossrail as ‘bad news’ for Ealing Broadway station. I didn’t.
What I questioned was if its rebuild meets passengers’ needs. The main issues worrying our residents are the absence of escalators, and the lack of a set-down area.
Why were escalators in Crossrail’s original station plans - and why have they been taken out?
Mr Beeston thanks the Council for squeezing a third lift out of Crossrail.
The lifts have a quoted capacity of 16 people each. It’s unlikely they’ll carry half that number.
Consider the twin lifts in the shopping centre. They each have a capacity of 20, but with shopping trolleys and buggies you seldom see more than six or seven people in a lift. At the station, luggage will take up the space.
We’ll have three lifts with a probable shared capacity of 20 to 25. But escalators carry 100 passengers a minute.
As for a set-down point, Mr Beeston says, “The luxury of all and sundry dropping people off at the station entrance cannot continue.” Why? Who are his ‘all and sundry’?
A family with children; a carer with an elderly client; or a person with mobility problems?
The EPTUG website has a Crossrail section. It contains: a short summary, written several years ago; news from February 2009; and a link to Crossrail’s website. That’s all.
However, also on the site is a quote from Boris Johnson: “Crossrail will increase service capacity from Ealing by a factor of four.”
That should be explained before the station development is approved.
I’m sure the EPTUG has good motives, yet its letter promotes the views of the producers [Crossrail and the Council] over the interests of the consumers. Which is odd for a ‘user group.’
Paul Mathieu
Ealing” (Cl 2)
Wood v Bristol Evening Post
Complaint
Mr Ben Wood complained to the Press Complaints Commission about an article which he considered to have been inaccurate and misleading in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
A caption below a photograph in the report stated that the complainant had been ‘restrain[ed]’ by police at a demonstration, something which the complainant did not accept was correct.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of the following clarification:
In a caption accompanying this photograph about protests between the English Defence League and Anti-Fascist Campaigners on College Green in January we stated that Ben Wood (pictured here), was restrained by police. Avon and Somerset Police have since explained that Mr Wood inadvertently walked into the opposing English Defence League demonstration and did not attempt to cross the line of police officers which separated the two groups. We are happy to clarify the situation (Cl. 1).
