A regional daily was entitled to reported a man’s arm had been “ripped off” despite objections by a waste management company, the press watchdog has ruled.

Recycling facility owner Viridor claimed the Manchester Evening News inaccurately made the claim in a headline on its front page, adding it had not been backed up by any statements in the accompanying story on details in a police press release.

Viridor, which owns the centre where the incident happened, said instead the term “serious injuries”, which had been used in the police statement, should have featured in the headline instead.

Complaining to the Independent Press Standards Organisation under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, the company admitted there were serious injuries to the man’s arm, but that it was not “ripped off”.

The recycling centre where the incident happened

In response, the MEN said the information that the man’s arm had been severed originally came from a confidential source, and it had then asked the police for its response to this claim.

The police source told the newspaper that what was what was recorded in the police log, but they did not want the word “severed” in the police press statement.

Following the receipt of Viridor’s complaint to IPSO, an MEN reporter emailed the police, who confirmed the use of the word “severed”.

The paper added it would be happy to correct any information which turned out to be inaccurate, but did not have the contact details of the man concerned to consult him on his wishes.

Viridor maintained that the arm was not “ripped off”, or completely severed, and said that due to the need to preserve the individual’s privacy, and ongoing investigations, it could not provide further medical information.

The company said that due to data protection, privacy concerns, and the fact it would be insensitive to put the injured man in touch with the MEN, it was not willing to provide his contact details.

The MEN said that as the complainant did not appear to be acting for the injured person and, given the evidence it had already provided, it would not be appropriate to risk any unintended further concerns by publishing more information without the consent of the person directly involved.

IPSO said it was appropriate to consider the complaint, given the injury occurred on Viridor’s premises, but found it was reasonable for the MEN to rely on the information provided by its source and the police given it had taken specific steps to verify this.

The complaint was not upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.

Other recent IPSO cases involving regional newspapers include:

Whyte v Daily Record

The Daily Record issued a clarification on several points made in an article about former Rangers Football Club owner Craig Whyte.

Mr Whyte complained to IPSO under Clause 1 (Accuracy) over the piece which claimed he “pocketed £18m on day of Rangers takeover”.

After IPSO launched an investigation, the Glasgow-based Record agreed to publish a clarification which resolved the matter to his satisfaction.

The full resolution statement can be read here.

Neta v The Argus, Brighton

Porfiria Neta complained Brighton daily The Argus breached Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) after she was photographed by the newspaper leaving court with her husband, who had been convicted for using threatening and abusive words and behaviour with intent to cause fear of unlawful violence.

Mrs Neta said she had been identified, without her consent, in an article which she had no genuine relevance to.

The Argus responded that the photograph was taken in public place outside of court; it do not accept that the complainant had any reasonable expectation of privacy in the place and circumstances in which the picture was taken.

However, it offered to pixelate her image in the photograph, which resolved the matter to her satisfaction.

The full resolution statement can be read here.

Jones v North Wales Daily Post

Mark Jones complained that the North Wales Daily Post breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) in a series of articles about a boundary dispute involving him and his wife.

The Daily Post denied a breach of Code, but offered to remove the articles from its website and publish a clarification., resolving the matter to the satisfaction of Mr Jones.

The full resolution statement can be read here.