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.

North Wales Daily Post
Christine Jones, of Flintshire, complained on behalf of her sister Mrs A Morris about a front page article which reported on a car accident in which her son had died and her grandchildren were seriously injured. She said that the headline of the report inaccurately stated that she had forgiven the drunken driver of the vehicle which had caused the accident. In fact, she had said "no I do not blame her family we feel sorry for them but do blame the people that did not help her". She said she had not made any comment about forgiving, or not blaming the driver herself. (Clauses 1,5)
Resolution: The newspaper emphasised that it had the greatest sympathy with the complainant and her family. It sought to explain that its staff believed that they were accurately reflecting the complainant's comments but accepted that it was an incorrect interpretation and apologised for the error. The complaint was resolved when the complainant accepted the newspaper's apology, and its offer to publish a follow-up article near to the front of the newspaper with a link to the article on the front page.

Evening Chronicle (Newcastle Upon Tyne)
Gordon Bell of Alberta, Canada complained that an article which reported the outcome of testing conducted at the Ministry of Defence’s chemical and biological warfare site at Porton Down contained inaccuracies. (Clause 1)
Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published the following correction: On 29 May 2006, the Chronicle recalled the events leading to the family of RAF serviceman Ronald Maddison receiving compensation for his death during a test at the Ministry of Defence's chemical and biological warfare site at Porton Down. The feature referred to Gordon Bell, who presented a file to Wiltshire Police calling for an investigation into the testing. The article incorrectly referred to Mr Bell as George Bell, for which we apologise. The article also said Mr Maddison received £15 following the test, which should have read 15 shillings, and that three other servicemen were involved in the testing, which should have read five. Mr Bell has also pointed out that Sarin GB, rather than Sarin B, was used in the test. In addition, our article said that 14 days extra leave was given to those subject to experiment. Mr Bell states that there is no evidence to suggest that 14 days leave was ever given. After he left Porton Down he was allowed to have a 48 hour pass. Mr Bell also questioned the article’s claim that "others like Maddison lost their lives" despite its earlier statement that Mr Maddison was the only person to die in the trials. The relatives of other servicemen involved are reported as believing the tests have caused other premature deaths. We are happy to clarify the situation.

Back to recent stories and adjudications index

Back to the main PCC index