A weekly newspaper which accused ‘gypsies’ of destroying a local football pitch was forced to backtrack after a complaint to the press watchdog.

John Eglin complained to the Press Complaints Commission over a story in the Border Counties Advertiser under Clause 1 of the Editor’s Code of Practice, which covers accuracy.

He claimed the article, which referred to “gypsies” having destroyed a football pitch, would have misled readers into believing that the group was from the Romani community.

The damage had in fact been done by a Christian group which had been attending a religious gathering.

The complaint was resolved when the newspaper published a clarification stating:  “An article of 5 July stated that a youth football pitch had been destroyed by gypsies.

“We have been asked to make clear that the group was not ethnically Romani but was in fact a Christian group who had been attending a religious ceremony in the area.”

Here is our regular round-up of other recent PCC cases involving local and regional newspapers.

Crowther v The Journal, Newcastle

Keith Crowther complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) about a story on planned improvement works to Durham Market Place.

The complainant – who was cited as the chairman of Durham City Chamber of Trade – was quoted as having stated that he was ‘delighted that common sense [had] eventually prevailed. It’s a shame it’s taken so long’.  According to the complainant, he was not the chairman of the Chamber of Trade, had not been asked for his comments on the revamp of the market place, and the quote in the story was a “total fabrication.”

The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of the following apology:

“In a report in The Journal on August 25, 2012 in an article headlined ‘Revamp to Durham market place to be revamped’ we published a quote that was wrongly attributed to Mr Keith Crowther. This was a mistake and we would like to apologise to Mr Keith Crowther for any embarrassment caused. We would also like to make it clear that Mr Crowther is no longer chairman of Durham City Chamber of Trade.”

Holmes v Ilkeston Advertiser

Avril Holmes complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) that the newspaper had published an inquest report into the death of a baby which did not make clear that the baby’s mother was in hospital at the time.

Prior to the PCC’s involvement, the newspaper had published the following correction and apology, and the complaint was resolved on this basis:

“In the story Baby Death Inquest Opens in last week’s Advertiser it was wrongly stated that Finnley Braisby’s parents Danny Braisby and Kirsty Holmes called for an ambulance.  Danny Braisby alone called the emergency services.  We apologise for any confusion.”

Boseley v Express & Star (Walsall Edition)

Paul Boseley complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) about an article on a 2007 trial in which he was convicted of rape which failed to mention a subsequent retrial in which he was found not guilty.

The complaint was resolved when the newspaper removed the online article from its website.

A man v Belfast Telegraph

A man complained under Clause 3 (Privacy) that the newspaper had linked his marriage to the activities of Creationist Bible groups.

The complaint was resolved when the newspaper agreed not to publish a reference to the complainant in connection with the groups in future articles.

A man v Alloa Advertiser
A man v Stirling News

A man complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) about articles reporting allegations which the complainant had faced relating to his conduct as a police officer.

The complainant argued that the articles had presented these allegations as having been proved, when this was not the case.

While the newspapers did not accept the complainant’s position, the complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the removal of the online articles.

Walton v Evening Telegraph & Post, Dundee

Karen Walton complained under Clauses 3 (Privacy) and 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) over an inquest report into er brother-in-law’s sudden death. She claimed the article had been published against the wishes of the deceased’s family after their feelings had been made clear to a representative from the newspaper.

The newspaper acknowledged the concerns raised but did not accept that any breach of the Code had occurred.

The complaint was resolved when the newspaper provided an explanation for the approach made; agreed to discuss the issues raised in the case as part of its training of reporters in dealing with bereaved families; removed the contact details for the complainant and her family from its records; and made a donation to a bereavement charity as a gesture of goodwill.

Simcock v Southern Reporter

Iain Simcock complained under Clauses 1 (Accuracy), 2 (Right of Reply) and 3 (Privacy) over article reporting his dismissal by Glasgow Cathedral which had appeared on its website through a centralised news freed from Press Association.

The complaint was resolved when the newspaper removed the article from its website.

Wade-Weeks v The Press, York

Susan Wade-Weeks complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) over two historical articles on its website that wrongly attributed offensive Facebook comments to her.

As the complaint was submitted more than two years after publication, the newspaper said it was unable to respond in detail to the concerns raised.  However, as a gesture of goodwill it arranged for both online articles to be deleted and the complaint was resolved on that basis.

Bloomer v Herald Series (Oxfordshire)

Naomi Bloomer complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) over an online article reporting on Oxford University’s dress code for transgender students whose headline inaccurately referred to being transgender as being “gay.” The newspaper said that the article was from an automated news agency feed over which it had no direct editorial control.

The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated an amendment to the headline.

Clark v Liverpool Echo

Callum Clark complained under Clause 6 (Children) over a report of a school trip which included a photograph that he considered to intrude into the pupils’ time at school.

The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the removal of the photograph from the online article.

Halliday v South Wales Evening Post

Craig Halliday complained under Clause 1 (Accuracy) over an article headlined ‘Pervert painted room pink to lure girl, 12, into sex activity’.  He said this was misleading, as the allegation that he painted a room in his house pink related to a previous allegation; furthermore, the complainant said that it was inaccurate for the article to have reported – in relation to his latest case – that he spent the night in a hotel room with a 15 year old girl.

The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of the following clarification:

“The Evening Post published a report on Friday, May 18, on the trial of Craig Simon Halliday under the headline ‘Pervert painted room pink to lure girl, 12, into sex activity’. This headline was inaccurate because it combined two separate offences by Mr Halliday. We apologise for the error.”