Decision of the Complaints Committee 00184-15 Tameez v
The Sunday Telegraph
Summary of
complaint
1. Sajjad Tameez complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation on behalf of the Wycombe Islamic Society (WISE) that The
Sunday Telegraph had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Opportunity to
reply) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “High Wycombe,
jihad central”, published in print and online on 9 November 2014.
2. The article was a report of concerns about the
radicalisation of young Muslim men in High Wycombe. It reported that Yousaf
Syed had been arrested in connection with an alleged plot to mount a terrorist
attack in Great Britain, and that Omar Hussain and Shabaz Suleiman were thought
to have travelled to Syria to fight for Islamic State. The article went on to
repeat concerns expressed by community leaders, that eight men aged 18-27 were
missing, and believed to be in Syria fighting for IS.
3. The article claimed that these men had formerly
attended the WISE mosque. It reported that Mr Syed had previously distributed
propaganda leaflets outside this mosque. It had included comment from local
people, and the Imam at WISE, who had said that Mr Syed had been banned from
the mosque six months previously. The article had included statements from the
Imam and WISE condemning extremism, with the Imam stating that “we don’t want
extremists, we are against them. We do all we can to stop them”, and WISE
asserting that “we work with the authorities to protect the young people of
High Wycombe from the lies which turn some from Islam into an anti-religion of
hate and brutality”, and that “the mosques and Islamic associations of High
Wycombe reject the ideology of groups such as [IS] who terrorise and kill those
who oppose their beliefs, including other Muslims”.
4. The complainant said that, contrary to claims made in the
article, no former students of WISE were missing. He said that this assertion
would suggest to readers that WISE had been responsible for the radicalisation
of the young people who were allegedly missing. He also said that it was
inaccurate to state that Yousaf Syed had distributed “radical leaflets” outside
WISE. The complainant contended that the newspaper could not have obtained its
information from “community leaders” as stated in the article. He also said
that one of the sources cited, “Zaf Hussain”, did not exist. While the
newspaper had interviewed Sheikh Abu Suhaib, the Imam at WISE, prior to
publication, he was not the official media spokesperson for the
organisation. Furthermore, the newspaper had not put the specific
allegation that students were missing to any representative of WISE; the Imam
had been asked about missing “youths”, but not “students”. The complainant
considered this to be a breach of Clause 2.
5. The newspaper defended its coverage. It said that it
had spoken to the founder of Islamix, a well-known community interfaith
organisation. This individual served on the local police and crime panel, and
was well connected in the local community. He had told the reporter that “there
have been a number of local students go to Syria from the WISE mosque”, and
that “eight ex-WISE mosque students are missing at the moment”. This individual
had been in contact with the parents of some of the students who were believed
to be missing, and had originally suggested that they might be willing to speak
to the newspaper. However, they had later declined to do so for fear of
jeopardising their primary aim of getting their children home safely. The
newspaper maintained that it was entitled to rely on this individual as an
authoritative source. The reporter had contacted the Imam at the WISE mosque to
seek comment on what she had learned from her source. Each of the points that
related to the mosque had been put to him in turn. The Imam had said that a
number of young people had recently stopped attending WISE. He could not be
sure whether the eight missing youths had ever attended WISE mosque, but
insisted that no current students were missing. The reporter had then spoken to
a number of other local people, including Zaf Hussain, who had confirmed that
the missing students had attended the WISE mosque. Mr Hussain lived close to Mr
Syed. He had given his name to the reporter, and confirmed that he worked for
the local council. The newspaper provided extensive notes of all conversations,
in support of its position.
6. The newspaper noted that at the time of preparing the
report, Mr Syed was being held in custody, and it was not therefore possible to
contact him directly for comment. However, two of his neighbours had told the
reporter that Mr Syed had distributed leaflets outside the mosque. The mosque’s
Imam had confirmed that Mr Syed had been banned from attending the mosque six
months earlier, due to fears that he was seeking to radicalise other
worshippers.
7. The newspaper emphasised that the report had made
clear that WISE’s only connection to the eight missing youths was that they had
attended the WISE mosque but had left some months previously, when Mr Syed had
been banned.
Relevant Code Provisions
8 Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and – where appropriate – an apology published.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply)
A fair opportunity to reply to inaccuracies must be given
when reasonably called for.
Findings of the Committee
9. The article was a report of concerns about the
radicalisation of young Muslim men in High Wycombe. It had not suggested that
WISE was responsible for this radicalisation, and had included extensive
comment from the mosque, condemning extremism. The newspaper had received
information that eight former students of WISE were missing. In light of the
nature of the claims, it was appropriate for the reporter to then seek direct
comment from WISE. While WISE maintained that the Imam was not their official
media spokesperson, given his position at the mosque, it was reasonable for the
newspaper to rely on information provided by him. There was evidently some
dispute over the newspaper’s assertion that all claims relating to the mosque had
been put to the Imam. Nonetheless, the complainant did not deny that the Imam
had been contacted for comment prior to publication. The journalist had then
spoken to members of the local community, to gain a further source for its
article. The complainant noted that one community source cited by the newspaper
had denied making the claims attributed to him. Regardless, the newspaper had
provided details of a number of sources which had been approached to
corroborate the claims in the article, and the quotations included in the
article were supported by detailed notes provided by the publication. The
Committee was satisfied that there had been no failure to take care not to
publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information in breach of Clause
1(i).
10. While the complainant disputed that eight former
students from WISE were missing, and that Yousaf Syed had previously
distributed propaganda leaflets outside the mosque, these claims had originated
from a number of sources in the local community, and had been put to the Imam
of the mosque. While the Imam may have been asked about missing “youths”,
rather than “students”, he had not explicitly disputed that men who had
attended the mosque were now missing. The Committee had not established that
there had been a failure to take care not to publish inaccurate information,
and did not consider that the article had included significant inaccuracies
meriting correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii).
11. The terms of Clause 2 do not relate to the seeking of
comment prior to publication, but provide the opportunity to respond to
published inaccuracies. In this instance, the complainant had not raised
concerns as to the action taken by the newspaper following publication. As
such, the terms of Clause 2 were not engaged.
Conclusions
12. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 10/01/2015
Date decision issued: 08/05/2015