Recent resolved complaints by the Press Complaints Commission.
Galloway v Daily Mail
Complaint
Mr William Galloway 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 claimed that flights from Romania to London were full, and that seats were selling for up to £3000. The complainant had been able to find available spaces on these flights at reasonable prices. While some flights did cost up to £3000, these were indirect flights which went via countries outside Europe.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of the following clarification in both the print and online Corrections and Clarifications column:
An article on December 31 reported information provided by local travel agents that there was limited availability on flights and buses to London from Romania and Bulgaria in January this year, despite one airline doubling the number of flights. We have since been made aware that some reasonably priced flights and seats on buses were available from Bucharest and Sofia at that time. We are also happy to clarify that some of the additional flights were put in place before January 1. (Cl 1 )
Jones v Daily Mail
Complaint
Mr Peter Jones complained to the Press Complaints Commission that two articles, which discussed the impact of the EU Waste Framework Directive on recycling in the UK, had inaccurately reported the impact of the Directive, in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. In particular, the complainant was concerned that the articles had inaccurately suggested that homeowners would be obliged to separate waste into five separate bins, and that weekly bin collections would have to be “axed”.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the publication of the following correction, the removal of one of the articles, and amendments (with a correction) to the second article, which had been published online only:
An article on 17 August 2013 reported that, under the EU Waste Framework Directive, local authorities would be required to issue all householders with four separate recycling bins, and that weekly bin collections would be “axed”. In fact, whilst the Directive does enforce the separate collection of recyclates, local authorities can comply without requiring householders to use separate bins for four types of recycling, and are not barred from collecting waste weekly. (Cl 1)
Jones v Daily Mail
Complaint
Mr Peter Jones complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article which discussed the export of recycling from the UK for processing abroad had contained a number of inaccuracies concerning the quantity of household recycling exported, the amount of this which ends up in landfill, and the amount of recyclable material which rejected by processors in the UK, in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the publication of the following correction, and the removal of the online article:
An article (6 April 2013) said that millions of tonnes of household recycling is ‘dumped abroad’. In fact, this figure relates to household and commercial waste purchased by processors abroad, of which the proportion deemed unusable and ending up in landfill is unknown. We are happy to clarify that the claim that ‘most’ recyclable material is rejected was based on a survey of the attitudes of UK processors towards the minority of recyclable material which is collected ‘commingled’, rather than separately. (Cl 1)
Karran v Manx Independent
Complaint
Peter Karran MHK complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had published an inaccuracy in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, and had failed to apologise for its error, raising a further breach. The complainant said that an editorial piece wrongly accused him of editing the Hansard record of a debate which had taken place in the Chamber of the House of Keys.
Resolution
The newspaper published the following clarification before the complaint to the PCC:
Hansard a true record
In a story in last week’s Manx Independent, we reported that Lib Van MHK Peter Karran, during last week’s House of Key sitting, did not give a figure for the number of full-time reporters working at Isle of Man Newspapers – when the official Hansard record showed that he did. Our editorial comment last week was based on that. We’ve been asked to point out that the Hansard record is correct, and had not been amended. We are happy to put the record straight.
In addition, the PCC negotiated the publication of the following apology:
On December 5, 2013, we carried a story relating to Hansard and Mr Peter Karran MHK. That story was wrong and we apologise to Mr Karran for that, and any hurt or distress that we have caused him.
The matter was resolved with the publication of the apology. (Cl 1)
Bashir v Bristol Evening Post
Complaint
Mrs Kalsoom Bashir 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 disputed a claim by the newspaper’s columnist that Bristol University multi faith chaplaincy had failed to respond to email correspondence, and that she was an “official coordinator” for Channel, a government initiative to battle radicalisation.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of the following correction online:
This article originally stated that Kalsoom Bashir was an “official coordinator of ‘Channel’”, a government anti-radicalism initiative. We have since been informed by Ms Bashir that this is not the case, and that she has no connection to “Channel”. Furthermore, Ms Bashir has asked us to make clear that the lead chaplain on behalf of Bristol University multi faith chaplaincy responded to Farooq Siddique’s email about the Qulliam event, explaining why the chaplaincy felt it was important to continue with the event. This response was sent in early December, well before the publication of the article in January.
and the following correction in print:
Following an article by Farooq Siddique in the Bristol Post on January 21 under the headline Thursday Thought Kalsoom Bashir has asked us to make the following points: the article originally stated that was an “official coordinator of ‘Channel’” a government anti-radicalism initiative, but we have since been informed by Ms Bashir that this is not the case and that she has no connection to “Channel”. Furthermore, Ms Bashir has asked us to make clear that the lead chaplain on behalf of Bristol University multi faith chaplaincy responded to Farooq Siddique’s email about the Qulliam event, explaining why the chaplaincy felt it was important to continue with the event. This response was sent in early December, well before the publication of the article in January. (Cl 1)
Kirkwood v Sunday Life
Complaint
Mr Jeremiah Kirkwood complained to the Press Complaints Commission, through solicitors, that an article published by the Sunday Life had inaccurately reported that police had recovered video footage showing him using dogs to attack cats and badgers, in a report of his guilty plea to animal cruelty charges. He considered that this had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
Resolution
The complaint was resolved after the PCC negotiated the publication of the following correction and apology:
Jeremiah Kirkwood: In article on page p10 of our January 19 editon concerning Jeremiah Kirkwood and co-accused who admitted animal cruelty offences we wrongly stated that Jermiah Kirkwood and his sons Christopher and Wayne appeared on video footage seized by police showing them using dogs to attack cats and badgers. In fact it was not the prosecution case that the Kirkwoods were physically present when the footage was taken. We apologise for the error and we are happy to set the record straight. (Cl 1)
