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.

The Courier
Pamela Scott complained on behalf of Brenda Low that a journalist had acted in breach of Clause 4 (harassment), Clause 5 (intrusion into grief or shock) and Clause 10 (clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Code.

The complainant said that the journalist – who was wearing a RNLI jacket – had made an unsolicited visit to her house in the aftermath of her husband’s tragic death, and that he had claimed to be from the RNLI in order to gain admittance.

She also complained that, after his identity as a journalist had been revealed, he continued to question her, and did not handle the situation with sensitivity. (Clauses 4, 5, 10).

Resolution: The editor explained that the journalist was a volunteer member of the RNLI, but said that he had not intended to use his jacket to mislead the complainant. He contended that the journalist had immediately identified himself as such to the complainant, and – once it became clear that she did not wish to speak – had apologised for the intrusion and misunderstanding.

The editor wrote a letter of apology to the complainant, acknowledging the differing accounts and making clear that he had told the journalist that it was inappropriate for him to have worn his RNLI jacket when making such a visit. The complaint was resolved on that basis.

The Cornishman
Alex Rutherford, licensee of The Studio Bar in Penzance, complained that a court report of an incident where three gang members had assaulted a man had stated incorrectly that the perpetrators had been drinking at the former Studio bar prior to the incident. (Clause 1).

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

“The Studio Bar

“In our front page article on 16 July about a violent attack by three teenage gang members in Market Jew Street, we incorrectly reported that the incident happened following ‘a drink-fuelled night at the former Studio Bar’. This information was mistakenly provided by the police.

“It has since been confirmed that the attackers had been to the Edge nightclub prior to the offence and not to the Studio Bar. The Studio Bar continues to trade on Bread Street. We are happy to make the position clear.”

Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser
A woman complained that the newspaper had wrongly stated that she had been suspended by her local council, following reports that she had appeared on adult websites. In fact, she was absent from work on sick leave. The article also described her as a classroom assistant when she was an additional support needs assistant”. (Clause 1).

Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper amended its records to reflect the points of complaint.

Wimbledon Guardian
Christopher Barnett, representing the Merton and Wandsworth BNP, complained that the newspaper inaccurately stated that police had warned it could not guarantee the safety of those attending an anti-fascist meeting due to threats from the BNP. (Clause 1).

Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper – which made clear that organisers had cancelled the meeting due to concerns about safety, following discussions with police – undertook to contact the local branch of the BNP for comment in future, rather than the national branch.

The Herald, Glasgow
Naveed Rashid, of Arisaig Restaurants Limited, complained that an article about the effect of the recession on restaurants in Glasgow contained the inaccurate claim that Arisaig restaurant had closed. In fact, the restaurant had moved to a new location. (Clause 1).

Resolution: The complaint was resolved when the newspaper offered to publish a review of the new restaurant, making clear that it was unaffected by the closure of the St Vincent premises.

Evening Standard
Jeff Parks of London complained that an article had referred inaccurately to Superintendent David Hartshorn as the top police officer responsible for public order and had claimed misleadingly that he headed the Met’s public order branch. (Clause 1).

Resolution: The newspaper explained that Superintendent Hartshorn was a senior figure in the public order branch and was effectively in charge of public order operations. However, it annotated its databases and amended the online version of the article to reflect the correct position. The complaint was resolved on this basis.