AddThis SmartLayers

Watchdog clears city daily over drunk airline passengers story

A regional daily has been cleared of wrongdoing over a story about drunk passengers being escorted off a flight to Ibiza.

The Bristol Post reported on 15 July that a group of holidaymakers had been escorted off a flight from Bristol by police after being accused of abusing the cabin crew for attempting to restrict them to one alcoholic drink.

But the story gave rise to a complaint to the press watchdog by the captain of the aircraft, Philip Howell, who was pictured in an accompanying photograph watching police as they dealt with the incident.

Mr Howell said the publication of his image could result in his being targeted by the accused men, and claimed the Post had breached Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

The image that gave rise to the complaint, with the captain's face pixelated.

The image that gave rise to the complaint, with the captain’s face pixellated.

The complainant told the Independent Press Standards Organisation that his image had nothing to do with the story and added nothing to it.

While he acknowledged that the newspaper had subsequently pixellated his image, he questioned why it had not done so in the first instance.

The Post said that it pixellated the faces of the cabin crew in the online image at the airline’s request shortly after publication.

It said the photographs were amended as a courtesy, not because the newspaper accepted that the staff shown in the image had a reasonable expectation of privacy when the photograph was taken.

In its ruling, IPSO said that Mr Howell did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy as the image had “not shown the complainant doing anything private.”

“It had shown him standing in the main cabin of the aircraft, in clear view of passengers and crew, as he carried out his professional duties as captain. He did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such circumstances,” it stated.

“As the image had not disclosed any private information about the complainant, the complaint under Clause 3 was not upheld. However, the Committee welcomed the newspaper’s pixelation of the image in response to the complainant’s concerns.

“Clause 9 is intended to protect friends or relatives of individuals accused or convicted of crime, or children who witness or are victims of crime from identification in the press. The complaint did not engage the terms of this Clause.”

The complaint was not upheld.

4 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • November 23, 2015 at 12:28 pm
    Permalink

    Seems to be a sensible ruling. If the complaint had been upheld, the logical conclusion would make it difficult for newspapers to carry pictures of anyone. For example, if a goalkeeper lets in a simple goal, could he try to prevent newspapers running a pic on the grounds that it would hold him open to ridicule and abuse?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(2)
  • November 23, 2015 at 4:15 pm
    Permalink

    “The complainant told the Independent Press Standards Organisation that his image had nothing to do with the story and added nothing to it.”

    Other than that he was in command of the aircraft and
    presumably made the decision to have the police called to it?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(3)
  • November 23, 2015 at 6:47 pm
    Permalink

    All this will be irrelevant when papers are filled entirely with snaps, supplied by readers, of sunsets, cute pets and odd shaped vegetables.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • November 26, 2015 at 2:16 pm
    Permalink

    Had no ideal airline pilots were quite so sensitive.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)