Resolution Statement – 00248-20 Greany v Mail Online
Summary of Complaint
1. Chris Greany complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors' Code of Practice in an article headlined "Ex-Scotland Yard
commander slams Surrey force for jokingly suggesting on Twitter that Harry and
Meghan should become COPS", published on 13 January 2020.
2. The article reported that a former Scotland Yard
commander had "slammed" Surrey Police for suggesting on Twitter that
the Duke and Duchess of Sussex should join the force as police officers. The
article itself included the tweet from Surrey police and the complainant's
tweet in response to the post, which read "im not sure this tweet is very
3. The complainant, the ex-Met police commander referenced
in the article, said that the headline was misleading and exaggerative. He said
that his tweet did not "slam" the force, which would suggest severe
or heavy criticism.
4. The publication denied a breach of the Code. It said that
the matter came down to interpretation, specifically the strength of his
criticism of Surrey Police, and noted that his tweet was not supportive; his
tweet which was also published in full in the article, had criticised the
tastefulness of the tweet by Surrey Police. It said that the term
"slams" is habitually used by newspapers synonymously with
"criticises" for reasons of brevity and readers would not have been
misled by the extent of the criticism, not least in circumstances where the
complainant's full tweet featured in the article.
Relevant Code Provisions
5. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where
appropriate – an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies
should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
v) A publication must report fairly and accurately the
outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an
agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.
6. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence
between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
7. During IPSO's investigation, the publication offered to
amend the headline to read:
"Ex-Scotland Yard commander criticises Surrey force for
jokingly suggesting on Twitter that Harry and Meghan should become COPS"
8. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter
to his satisfaction.
9. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the
Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been
any breach of the Code.
Date complaint received: 14/01/2020
Date complaint concluded: 25/02/2020
Back to ruling listing