A row has erupted after police refused to release the name of a man who was swept to his death in the Cumbria floods earlier this week.
Cumbria Police issued a statement on Tuesday afternoon saying it would not be releasing the 78-year-old man’s name, as his death was “non-suspicious.”
But the move has led to a flurry of criticism from local media organisations and from the Society of Editors.
SoE executive director Bob Satchwell has now written to Gareth Morgan, chief constable of Avon and Somerset and chairman of the Police Communications Advisory Group to voice his concern.
The initial press release from the Cumbria Police press office stated: “Please note that we will not be releasing the identification of the man who died in a tributary leading to the River Kent, near Staveley, as it is being treated as a non-suspicious death.
“We can confirm that the man, who was pronounced dead yesterday after his body was recovered from the water, was a 78-year-old from the Staveley area.”
James Higgins, editor of the North West Evening Mail, then wrote to the press office querying the move, saying the incident was “a matter of public record” and pointing out that it would be subject to an inquest.
“As a press office, you name on a frequent basis people who have died in non-suspicious circumstances. I therefore cannot understand why you are working in a less than transparent way with regards to this matter,” he said.
However despite James’ protestations the force stuck to its line, claiming it was “unable” to release the identities of people who died in non-suspicious circumstances.
An email from the force’s commications manager stated: “Our officers did speak to relatives of the deceased, they were and still are extremely upset and very traumatised by their loss and the terrible circumstances, they were very clear that they did not want us to release his identity – therefore we do not have their authority to do this.”
Evening Mail publisher the CN Group subsequently raised the issue with the SoE along with other media organisations.
Bob is now asking for the matter to be discussed as part of a forthcoming review of national communications guidelines and has requested a meeting with Mr Morgan in the New Year.
He wrote in his letter: “I find it rather surprising that details of unexpected deaths of this kind are not released. While I can appreciate that it may quickly be decided that the death is not suspicious, I fail to appreciate why it appears that the police do not recognise the clear public interest in such events.
“Accidental deaths following from the extraordinary circumstances of last weekend’s storms, and indeed from recreational activities, obviously have huge public interest not least because of the significant public resources that are deployed, the implications for other people and lessons which may need to be learned.
“I find it extremely difficult to understand why there should be a policy of not releasing names of those who have died or been injured in such circumstances and why there is apparently national policy that names should not be released as quickly as possible after relatives have been informed.
“Cumbria Police pointed to a family request that the victim’s name should not be released. I can understand that they might not want to talk to the media but the police are best placed to provide this information and, rather than the media chasing it through their own sources, that can help avoid intrusion into grief.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
An important factor is that the man’s family asked police not to release name.
Report this comment
Did a story very recently where I asked police press office for confirmation of the information I had received.
Reply: “We have no knowledge of this incident.”
Then I stood up story from another source and went back to police.
I suggested the press officer concerned got in touch with area chief inspector urgently as it was a very contentious story which did not paint the police in a particularly good light and when it became public they would receive a lot of flak.
Police reply:”Yes, incident did occur and we were involved.”
Complacent or what? Police press offices turn up for work thinking they are doing us a favour for…..turning up for work!
Report this comment
Aren’t there other sources too? Coroner, getting out on the street and asking people. Too reliant on being spoon fed information maybe?
Report this comment
Trust Bob Satchwell to get involved. Why not call the Home Secretary while you’re speed dialling everyone else, Bob? Is it not beyond the capability of the Mail to despatch someone to Staveley village to nose around and get the name? Hang around the bar of the (superb) Eagle and Child for a start. I thought this was what media folk did when their usual sources clammed up. Or are they so dependent on PRs these days?
Report this comment
The family did not want his name released. Respect their wishes. Who knows, your act of kindness during their distress may make them think again when “normality” returns to their lives.
Report this comment
I would have thought the local paper would allow the family to make this decision at such a difficult time. You’re not The Sun; you have to live and work and operate in that community and sometimes a bit of sensitivity can go a long way.
Report this comment
As a journalist I understand the frustration of trying to eek information from the police particularly when the story is of obvious interest to the public. However, I fail to see how the name of a deceased man is so important to the story in this case. Surely the public interest aspect is the natural disaster?
As per many of the points above, I find it cringe worthy that a supposedly well respected local paper is behaving in such a manner. Particularly considering that the man’s family specifically requested anonymity.
Report this comment
It’s typically short-sighted and petty as it will come out when the inquest is opened for ID purposes and adjourned.
Report this comment
Some papers seem to lack old style gumption. A house in my area was badly damaged by a gas explosion a few weeks ago and three occupants were taken to hospital with two still there. Big drama and two page splash in the short-staffed local paper in the first week with pix and quotes from neighbours, fire service, police and the man down the chip shop. And now – Still no names of the explosion victims published after three weeks. I’m told the police would not release names. Anyway – No condition check reports or other follow-ups. Truly amazing. In years gone by reporters who failed to go asking, and editors who failed to send them back to the street to get names, would have been crucified, spat on or at least cast into the office bear pit. No doubt that with a bit of a push and a shove, and asking neighbours, the victims’ names could have been found.
The end is nigh for some dwindling circulation papers, I tell you.
Report this comment
As Stan suggests, reporters really ought to try a bit of legwork sometimes. However a press officer with common sense would have advised the family that the name would be made public very soon and it would be far better to issue a short tribute and a photo. That way they would be far less likely to be bothered by reporters. And let’s not forget there are agencies and nationals out there as well as locals.
Report this comment
If it’s so important to the paper, send someone out on patch. Also, are the police really there to be concerned about public interest, or is there job to deal with crime and incidents? Why does the public have a right to know and intrude on family grief?
Report this comment
Our local police force routinely bases its decisions regarding what information it releases on whether families of victims give them permission. It is deeply disturbing – but there’s nothing we can do. There is no recourse.
Local coroner’s office is exactly the same. Staff actually describe the inquest process as a ‘bereavement service’ which is there to ‘help the families’.
Report this comment
I am shocked by some of the comments in this thread.
It’s not about whether the name is ‘important to the story’. It’s about the fact that this is a matter of public record and therefore we all have a right to know this information.
It should be the editor’s decision as to whether he or she feels it is the newspaper’s place to publish that public record information, weighing many considerations, including the potential to distress the family.
It is not the job of civil servants with a legal obligation to operate transparently and to share public record information to make arbitrary decisions about which public record information the editor should or should not be communicating. That is the start of an extremely slippery slope.
Report this comment
” In years gone by reporters who failed to go asking, and editors who failed to send them back to the street to get names, would have been crucified, spat on or at least cast into the office bear pit. No doubt that with a bit of a push and a shove, and asking neighbours, the victims’ names could have been found.”
Out of interest is that a world people enjoy being part of?
Report this comment
LNH . matter of public record? Not until the inquest. Insisting the media must have a name is arrogant. Those who need to know will know already. The media and rest of world have no right. I write as someone who did 30 years of death knocks and hated every one, even though I followed house rules.
Report this comment