Below are summaries of the latest complaints involving the regional press which have been resolved between the parties involved, with help from the Press Complaints Commission.

Gloucestershire Echo
Zoe Hadden of Cheltenham – whose husband had recently died – complained that the newspaper had published a photograph of her husband and their three-year-old son without her consent. She was also concerned that the newspaper had taken and published a photograph of the mourners at her husband’s funeral. (Clauses 5, 6).

Resolution: The editor apologised for the distress caused to the complainant, and explained that the complainant’s mother-in-law had provided the newspaper with the photograph and given permission for a photographer to attend the funeral.

While he did not accept that the newspaper had breached the Code, the editor accepted that it would have been better to have sought the explicit permission of the complainant for publication of a photograph of her husband and her son; the newspaper undertook to make such endeavours if a similar situation arose in the future.

It also removed the articles from its website. The complaint was resolved on this basis.

Cumbernauld News
Stuart Mason, managing director of The Ink Shop Group, complained that the newspaper had published a photograph of his business accompanied by an inaccurate caption that claimed “there was substantial damage to the Ink Shop premises”. He said that, although there had been a small fire at the premises, the blaze had been contained and no damage was caused to the production areas. (Clause 1).

Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published a follow-up article headlined “Businessman offers £10k reward if factory firebug is convicted”. The piece set out that the fire had caused considerable damage to the exterior and offices of The Ink Shop, but did not affect the printing plant and machinery.

The piece also set out the complainant’s position on the incident and detailed a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the arsonist.

Southend Echo
John Cross, the owner of Seaking Boatyard, complained that a court report had contained the inaccurate claim that his boatyard was owned by Don Ladell, who was facing fraud charges. (Clause 1).

Resolution: The complaint was resolved by the publication of the following clarification:

“Further to our article dated 23 October 2008 (‘Boatyard owner faces list of fraud charges’), we would like to clarify that the owner of the Seaking Boatyard is John Cross and not Don Ladell as reported. We accept that Mr Cross is not in any way implicated in the present fraud charges outstanding against Mr Ladell. We are happy to clarify the matter.”

The editor also undertook to clarify the involvement of the boatyard itself at the conclusion of the court case.

Wiltshire Times
Paul Sturgess, of Caldecotte Consultants, complained that the newspaper claimed that his business had pulled out of a deal to build Trowbridge Rugby Club a new ground when this was not the case. (Clause 1).

Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published a suitably prominent clarification in the following terms:

“Paul Sturgess has asked us to clarify that his company Caldecotte Consultants has not pulled out of a deal with Trowbridge Rugby Club to buy its Green Lane ground, as was suggested in an article in the Wiltshire Times on August 22 2008. The company is currently in discussions with the club’s trustees about signing an extension to their existing option agreement. We are happy to clarify this and apologise for possible misrepresentation of the facts.”

The Chronicle (Mid Cheshire)
Councillor Pamela Price and Councillor Neville Price complained that an anonymous letter by a “concerned resident” made a number of inaccurate claims about them. (Clause 1).

Resolution: The newspaper indicated that it had published two of Councillor Neville Price’s letters in response, addressing the complainants’ concerns over the accuracy and anonymity of the coverage. While the complainants had outstanding concerns that the letter writer should be named, they accepted the newspaper’s response as a resolution to their complaint.

Nottingham Evening Post
Councillor SJ Boote, of Rushcliffe, complained that the newspaper had published a photograph of him holding a letter, the details of which it had undertaken to blur. It had not blurred these details, and the caption to the photograph had inaccurately identified the letter as relating to a thermal survey, when it was clearly legible as being related to a planning application, in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy).

Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper offered an explanation of how the error had occurred, and implemented changes to its editing and checking procedures to ensure that such an error could not occur again.