AddThis SmartLayers

Weekly says sorry to nightclub over inaccurate toilet row story

Kellie StubbingtonA weekly newspaper has apologised to a nightclub’s staff after running an inaccurate story about a woman who claimed she was told to leave the venue’s toilets “because she looked like a man.”

The Essex Chronicle has issued the apology to Chelmsford club CTZN after it ran the allegations made by 19-year-old Kellie Stubbington, pictured left.

The Chronicle reported Ms Stubbington’s claims that “a male member of staff forced his way into a locked toilet cubicle and asked her to leave, believing she was a man”, but CTZN has since presented the Chronicle with CCTV evidence showing a different version of events.

The original article was published by the newspaper last week, and was also picked up by the national press.  It has since been taken down from the paper’s website.

The apology, published on the Chronicle’s website, reads: “The CCTV seen by the Chronicle shows a different version of events to those presented by Ms Stubbington.

“The male member of staff did not force his way into the locked toilet cubicle as claimed by Ms Stubbington. He did not speak directly with Ms Stubbington, who was at all times spoken to through the locked cubicle door by a female toilet attendant.

“Ms Stubbington did not protest to the female toilet attendant as she claims, having emerged from the locked toilet cubicle sometime after the male member of staff had left.

“On that basis, the Chronicle accepts that the article was inaccurate and has withdrawn the article from its website. The Chronicle apologises to CTZN and the staff referred to in the article for any distress caused.”

One comment

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • August 9, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    One thing that puzzles me about this is did the newspaper approach the club for a comment before the original article appeared? Or was it one of these situations where an approach was made but no comment was received in time so the story went in anyway? The club’s operations were being criticised so it would seem odd if they weren’t offered the right to reply.

    Not a pop at the newspaper, just seems odd that such a different version of events would come to light from the club after publication if the usual channels were followed. I’ve certainly known plenty of instances in my career where the seemingly great scoop we were given by a member of the public would be heavily contradicted by another source.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(6)