The majority of complaints made to the Press Complaints Commission, which raise a possible breach of the Code of Practice, are resolved directly between the Commission's staff, editors and complainants.

These are either settled to the express satisfaction of the complainant following some remedial action by the editor or are not pursued by complainants following an explanation or other response from the publication.

Below are summaries of the latest complaints involving the regional press which fall into the first category.

The Comet
Sarah Bissett Scott of Hertfordshire complained that articles in several newspapers, including the Comet, describing an alleged relationship between her and John Prescott were inaccurate in a large number of respects and used misleading terminology. She also said that some articles had misquoted her. (Clause 1)
Resolution: The matter was resolved when the newspaper noted the complainant's position as being: that there was no affair between her and Mr Prescott, that she was never his mistress, and she has neither taken nor been offered any advantage for herself, her professional or political standing nor for her business in this matter; and that reports that she "claimed to have had an affair with Mr Prescott" are untrue. The newspapers agreed to place a warning on their internal databases to the effect that a complaint to the PCC had been made and that details of the complaint could be found in the legal department, managing editor's office or elsewhere.

Herald & Post
Mrs Ahmed of Luton complained that an article reporting on the ordeal suffered by her husband was misleading and contained inaccuracies. She was particularly concerned over the headline, which – in her view – was inappropriate and had ridiculed her husband's ordeal. (Clause 1)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper sent a personal letter of apology to the complainant and her husband and published the following letter: On March 30 you published a front page report headlined "A Barrel of Laughs" reporting that a taxi driver had been held at gunpoint. My husband, who was the taxi driver involved, and I felt that the headline was inappropriately worded, and could be misinterpreted. The article caused a great deal of upset to me and my family, and did not show enough empathy over what was a terrifying ordeal for my husband. However, I am pleased that the editor has since apologised personally to me and my husband for the distress caused by the article. The editor added the following note: We considered the incident serious enough to put on the front page, but on reflection the headline could have been misinterpreted and we apologise for any untended distress caused.

Camden New Journal
Boo Byrd, brother of Robert Byrd, complained that an article reporting on the inquest into Mr Byrd's death had contained a number of inaccuracies, both in the strapline and the text of the article. Moreover, the article had intruded into the grief and the privacy of the family at a very difficult time. (Clauses 1, 3, 5)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published an apology with the following wording: In an article published on 2 March headlined "Double life of the addict who took 10 times fatal drug dose" we incorrectly stated in the strapline that Robert Byrd's death had been blamed on a "lethal strain of heroin that has already claimed three lives". This was not in the Coroner's report, neither was it discussed at the inquest. In fact, this was a suggestion made by Edward Kellman. We have been asked by the Byrd family to correct this, and also to point out that Mr Kellman did not attend the inquest, neither was he Mr Byrd's drug counsellor. Moreover, Mr Byrd did not lead a double life as his family and friends were aware of his troubles and his fight to be free of drugs. We regret the distress this publication has caused and apologise unreservedly to the Byrd family.

Press & Journal (Aberdeen)
Belinda Cunnison, of Edinburgh, complained that an article had reported the inaccurate comments of Marjory Burns, the Scottish director of the British Heart Foundation, with reference to the risk for non-smokers working in smoky environments. (Clause 1)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following letter from the complainant: Earlier this year the following appeared on the British Heart Foundation website, and the online version of the Press and Journal, thisisnorthscotland: "We know that regular exposure to second-hand smoke increases the chances of developing heart disease by around 25 per cent. This means that, for every four non-smokers who work in a smoky environment like a pub, one of them will suffer disability and premature death from a heart condition because of second-hand smoke."
This is incorrect, since it confuses relative risk with absolute risk, and very much exaggerates the dangers that non-smoking bar staff are likely to suffer as a result of exposure to tobacco smoke. Were it not for the vigilance of a few members of the public this astonishing distortion of the truth might still be in the public domain.
Following representations from members of The Big Debate, Freedom to Choose and Boston physician Professor Michael Siegel, amongst others, the press statement was retracted from the website and taken offline. The BHF retracted the press release but felt there was no need to draw the mistake more clearly to the public's attention.