AddThis SmartLayers

Newspaper apologises over ‘school drugs raid’ splash

A weekly newspaper which wrongly claimed that police had carried out drugs raids at two local schools has issued a front page apology.

The 2 May edition of the Yellow Advertiser reported that two schools in Rainham, Essex, had been raided by ‘drug cops’ accompanied by sniffer dogs.

In fact the schools were being visited by the police as part of a regular anti-drugs initiative carried out in local schools.

The current edition of the Advertiser, dated 16 May, carries a front-page apology together with a lengthy explanation for the original article.

The original front-page story read:  “Drug cops with sniffer dogs raided two Havering schools after morning assembly on Friday, but found no illegal substances.

“Hundreds of students at The Chaffords School, Lambs Lane, and Brittons Academy, Ford Lane, were checked and searched by Met Police as part of two announced swoops, dubbed Operation Twister.”

However as the subsequent apology made clear, the ‘raid’ simply involved pupils filing past sniffer dogs as they left morning assembly to check they had no drugs on them.

The operation was welcomed and supported by the headteachers at both schools and is designed to reassure staff, pupils and parents that the schools are drug-free.

The apology read:  “On May 2 the YA reported on its front page that Chafford School, Rainham, and Brittons School, Rainham, had been raided by drugs police.

“The schools were in fact visited by the Metropolitan Police as part of Operation Twister – an anti-drugs initiative led by the borough’s Safer Schools police offers and supported by the dedicated ward officers.

“Operation Twister is a regular operation run jointly with schools and the police to reassure all staff, students and parents that neither school tolerates substance abuse within the school and that the school will continue to support Havering Police in the combat against drugs.

“The Yellow Advertiser wishes to apologise to both schools for any misunderstanding that may have arisen as a result of our original article.”

20 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • May 20, 2014 at 8:02 am
    Permalink

    Well, the reporter/news desk/subs/editor certainly left no stone unturned to make sure they’d checked out all the facts and the story was correct! What a disgraceful advert for our profession.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 20, 2014 at 10:13 am
    Permalink

    Two basic questions: Where did the paper get their information from and did they check it out with the police? (Can’t really make out the print on the photo above). I know police press offices are not the most helpful, but I’m sure they would have clarified the situation a little.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 20, 2014 at 11:01 am
    Permalink

    At first, I thought the info must have come from a parent, who misunderstood what was happening at the schools.
    Then though, you can see an apparent quote from a PC in the original story, explaining what was happening after the assembly.
    Maybe just a naive and untrained reporter who was given a press release about a community police initiative and thought it was a drugs raid … but as Observer50 says, it is to the shame of the news desk, editor and subs that no-one asked what the Met’s press office, or the heads, or parents thought on the subject

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 20, 2014 at 11:36 am
    Permalink

    Oh dear.

    This is like a celebration of incapable journalism.

    What makes it worse is that the same story, written in a very confusing manner, in the previous week’s edition of the Romford Recorder.

    It wasn’t even the Yellow Advertiser’s own screw-up.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 20, 2014 at 11:50 am
    Permalink

    Cops with sniffer dogs turned up unannounced and searched the pupils for drugs?

    Sounds like a raid to me, whether the headteachers thought it was a good idea or not.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 20, 2014 at 12:48 pm
    Permalink

    Can’t actually see the story but I wonder if it’s just a sensationalist headline that’s not gone down too well with the headteachers (who, lets face it, are always pretty quick to start tubthumping if a story isn’t about their 101% GCSE pass rate at grades A-G)

    The above article says: “The subsequent apology made clear, the ‘raid’ simply involved pupils filing past sniffer dogs as they left morning assembly to check they had no drugs on them”.

    So it was an anti-drugs action, whether it was pre-planned/invited or whatever, the fact remains police with sniffer dogs were attempting to see if schoolchildren had drugs on them. If so, and if – IF – the story doesn’t make out it was an un-announced raid, then this is just a case of an OTT attention grabbing headline, and we’ve all seen a few of them in our time I’m sure.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 20, 2014 at 1:18 pm
    Permalink

    It’s not a raid, but the police were checking for drugs.
    Did the pupils know that this “operation” was taking place, as opposed to just the head teacher and senior staff?
    I’d like to know a few more facts about this public relations exercise.
    Ps I having nothing to do with the newspapers concerned or the local area.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 20, 2014 at 2:23 pm
    Permalink

    Agreed that it is not a raid but no matter how the police and school dress it up there was targeted drug searches at two schools.

    I have no links to the yellow advertiser etc etc

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 20, 2014 at 2:51 pm
    Permalink

    “…to the shame of the news desk, editor and subs that no-one asked…”

    It’s a Tindle paper, do you really think there’s that many editorial staff members there?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 20, 2014 at 8:45 pm
    Permalink

    Don’t sneer. It could happen at a weekly paper very near you. Cheap naive staff and one hasty check on copy if you are lucky is common on weeklies.
    Not sure whether to laugh or cry, this one is so pathetic in its lack of professional standards.
    If anyone deserves dismissal it is the management. A girlfriend at a group in South told me an HR hit man firing subs said reporters would be expected to always file perfect copy. I think the name was Walter Mitty…

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 20, 2014 at 9:38 pm
    Permalink

    HSounds like a news editor deciding what the story was before it was written. Close to deadline and no splash was it?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 21, 2014 at 7:22 am
    Permalink

    I’ve attended many police ‘raids’ in my time and the vast majority involved the police knocking on the door asking the occupant to open up. It’s only when they get no response that they bust the door. However, the ‘knocking’ counts as a raid because, as others have pointed out, it is unannounced action to determine whether a crime has been committed.

    It’s the same when they say so-and-so has been arrested and is ‘assisting police with their enquiries.’ It’s still an arrest.

    I’ve not seen the full original article but judging from the p1 grovel it seems like it could have been a matter of interpretation as to what constitutes a ‘raid’.

    If it is then why on earth did the paper not stick to its guns?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 21, 2014 at 10:29 am
    Permalink

    In reply to Heart of all Things Frugal:
    As someone who has worked for Tindle (as well as other media employers) I would say that you can’t expect any support from the Tindle group when things go wrong.
    They want to bask in the glory of being fearless champions of free speech, but if there are any negative comebacks about an article you are completely on your own, irrespective of where the blame lies.
    In the broader context, sometimes it is inevitable that slip-ups are made when uncovering some dark secret in the public interest.
    Happily, not many newspaper managements have been that bad in my experience.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 21, 2014 at 11:00 am
    Permalink

    That, Brown Cardigan, is probably where the real, more interesting story lies.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 22, 2014 at 1:23 am
    Permalink

    A few facts, followed by a question:

    1) specialist police teams with drugs sniffer dogs searched classrooms unannounced
    2) pupils were either sniffed by dogs or swabbed for drugs
    3) parents were informed my letter in March that police with dogs would check their children for drugs ‘at a date in the future’ and they were advised that anyone allergic to dogs would be swabbed
    4) The Met Police carry out these checks, which they call Operation Twister
    5) The Met described the operation referred to in the YA as a ‘drugs sweep’
    6) This is the link to the press release: http://content.met.police.uk/News/Students-are-given-top-marks-by-Havering-Police/1400023425893/1257246745756
    7) ACPO guidance states that these operations should not happen in schools ‘where there is no evidence for the presence of drugs on school premises’.
    8) The letter sent to parents in March by The Chafford School stated: “Several local schools have already hosted Operation Twister to good effect. We do not expect any of our students to be detected as having been in contact with drugs.”
    9) This is a breach of ACPO guidance
    10) Parents were not informed that their children could opt out of the tests
    11) Drugs guidance to schools states that using sniffer dogs without ‘reasonable grounds’ and / or consent could lead to challenge under Human Rights Act: http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=6924
    12) From what I can see of the original YA story, the newspaper repeated most of the press release from Met Police and schools but inserted one new word: “raid”
    13) One of the schools described the Yellow Advertiser and the Romford Recorder as reporting the school being ‘raided in an unannounced operation’ as a ‘gross misrepresentation': http://www.thechafford.havering.sch.uk/news/?pid=0&nid=1&storyid=66
    14) The school chooses to define an unannounced ‘drugs sweeps’ as educational, but guidance from Department for Education states that ‘educational visits’ by police should not be used for searches
    15) The school is furious with the use of the word ‘raid’. Fair enough. No problem with that. But here’s the question. Based on all of the above:

    As Brown Cardigan has said, why the hell did YA publish a front page apology?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 22, 2014 at 7:42 pm
    Permalink

    The original Yellow Advertiser story says the ‘raids’ were announced.

    Most odd.

    Still doesn’t explain why it plashed on a story that had been towards the back of the previous week’s Recorder, though.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 23, 2014 at 12:00 am
    Permalink

    Having now read Joker, I would call it a drugs raid.
    PC Drew Heath said it was fantastic news that no drugs were found at either school.
    What is fantastic about that? It’s a play on words by the police to let the school off the hook of having to have such a search in the first place.
    The apology should be retracted.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 23, 2014 at 1:00 am
    Permalink

    Well-researched, Joker – those are all extremely enlightening points.

    So it boils down to this: Police entered the schools unannounced, with sniffer dogs, and searched the pupils for drugs. The pupils had not consented to the search, could not opt out of the search, and ACPO guidelines say the search would not have been allowed unless police already had reason to believe drugs were being dealt or used on the premises. The Met Police press release described the event as a ‘drugs sweep’.

    It is perfectly legitimate, therefore, to term the event ‘a raid’. More importantly, it is completely dishonest to portray it as some sort of happy-clappy ‘come and meet the sniffer dogs’ community event.

    Thus, it appears that the only error the YA made here was to apologise. The story was entirely fair and accurate.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • May 27, 2014 at 8:54 am
    Permalink

    The power of the press – diminished to almost nothing.
    Apologising for stories that are true but dont look great for a school on the front page.
    Nice one Leveson.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)