A regional daily newspaper has apologised to a Sikh temple after publishing a three-page advert which contained claims of racism.
Last month the Leicester Mercury carried an ad feature which contained allegations of racism against a named volunteer at the Guru Nanak Gurdwara, a Sikh temple in the city.
However the Trinity Mirror-owned newspaper has now accepted that the feature, headlined ‘Racism at Sikh Temple in Leicester,’ broke its advertising terms and conditions and should not have been published.
In its Wednesday 31 August edition, the Mercury published an apology to the temple making clear that the allegations in question are denied and that the paper remains on good terms with its management.
The apology, pictured above, reads: “On August 6, the Mercury published a three-page advertisement relating to claims made about the Guru Nanak Gurdwara in Leicester.
“The advert contained a series of assertions, made by a third party, which contravened our terms and conditions of acceptance. In particular, the advert made anonymous allegations of racism at the temple.
“The allegations contained in the advert are denied absolutely both by members of the Temple’s management committee and by the volunteer who was named in it.
“They stress that racism of any form or description is neither practiced nor condoned. Rather, the Temple has always welcomed respectful non-Sikhs of all religions.
“For this reason, we accept that the advert should not have been published, and the Mercury apologises for any distress caused.
“The management committee has also requested that we publish confirmation that the Temple and the Mercury continue to have good relations.”
David Simms, Trinity Mirror’s regional managing director for the East Midlands said: “The copy we published was clearly an advertisement and should have been labelled as such.
“We should not have accepted the advertisement as it clearly was in breach of our conditions of acceptance of advertising.
“We have met with the people concerned and are now working with them collaboratively to put things right. They have accepted our apology.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
There are missing pieces in the story here which I suspect the editor, his manager, and m’learned friends are looking at closely. How does such a dangerous piece of advertising, headline and all, get through the process at a paper like the Mercury? This is not a corner shop weekly. Who was responsible for checking? How are we to believe that the temple and the individual concerned have accepted the apology and moved on? A slim, stuffy apology on an inside page will clearly not be enough. And perhaps more seriously, if the allegations are not true, as everyone now says, what was the motive of the person or people who placed the advertisement? This is the sort of thing where the boys in blue like to get involved. Somehow I don’t think this sorry saga is over.
Report this comment
An advert??!? Being used to carry claims!!! What’s going on with this industry?
I haven’t felt this distressed since I was four years old and lost my mum at the market, fortunately she was wearing a yellow coat.
Hurry up and die newspaper industry so we can start again.
Report this comment
Another example of cost cutting? Did no-one check the contents. Have no proof as to how it happened but even with advertorials the content should have been checked by editorial for potential libel/mistakes etc. Ironic that in this ever increasing litigious age the newspaper managements are cutting costs which often means getting rid of experience.
Report this comment
I am simply speechless. Did no alarm bells ring? Incredible. This could be very expensive. There could also be a large number of Sikh run businesses in Leicester who may well take their advertising custom elsewhere.
Report this comment
Strange one, and as others have said it is baffling that it has gone into print like this. Smacks me as an instance where the editorial department has perceived the pages in question to be advertising and not looked at them properly (if at all), but it would be very worrying if during the whole process not one person flagged up concerns. The headline alone should have set alarm bells ringing.
Report this comment
While it is distressing, let’s not forget that most advertising bods haven’t had the legal training we lowly journalists have.
I keep reading there are too many chiefs in this business, but why didn’t the editor, deputy et al check all the pages as used to happen?
We’ve been predicting events like this for years – and they keep on coming, and getting worse.
Report this comment
This is incredible. At the risk of trumping Jeff Jones’ excellent analogy, I ain’t pulled a face like this since I sucked Peter Mandelson’s lemons. Long story . . .
A three page advertorial? What the hell sort of advertorial was it?
Report this comment
I think there’s deep confusion all round.
The regional head honcho first says the offending piece “was clearly an advertisement and should have been labelled as such.”
And in the next sentence he says: “We should not have accepted the advertisement as it clearly was in breach of our conditions of acceptance of advertising.”
For a statement aimed at providing clarity to a truly shocking debacle, it’s really not very good, is it?
Report this comment
Defies belief from any professional that such a piece did not raise questions.
Or does it in today’s paper industry?
Report this comment
Wonder if it came as camera ready copy and was dropped into the pages after they left subs?
Report this comment
Obviously this should never have remotely been accepted for publication, but, if it was three full pages of “advertising”, legally trained editorial staff never set eyes on it before it appeared. I bet the editor spat his coffee out when he saw it!
Report this comment
Unfortunately the modern thinking among advertising staff is that their pages are nothing to do with editorial. Wrong! But editors these days seldom, if ever, pronounce on the suitability of adverts. Money rules and ad managers have what they have always wanted: power without responsibility.
Report this comment