Resolutiom Statement: Complaint 00568-16 Jones v Express.co.uk
Summary of
Complaint
1. Peter Jones complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Express.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Now European Union
bureaucrats could make Britons put out SEVEN bins every week”, published online
on 29 January 2016.
2. The article reported that “the latest report from
the European Commission calls for separate bins for different waste”, and that
“meddling Brussels officials could now demand Brits have bins for paper, glass,
metal as well as food”.
3. The complainant said that the article
misrepresented a study commissioned by the European Commission into the
effectiveness of different recycling systems. He said that the article reported
the academic study as if it were a legislative proposal. In fact, it was highly
unlikely that the study would result in legislation. The complainant said that
even if the EU mandated increased sorting of recycling, the most likely way
this would be achieved is by roadside operatives using a stillage vehicle,
rather than by requiring householders to use a greater number of bins.
4. The newspaper said that the article made clear it was
reporting what could happen, and what could be demanded. It did not suggest
that the findings of the study had any legislative weight at all. The newspaper
denied that the article was inaccurate.
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.
Mediated
Outcome
6. The complaint was not resolved
through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an
investigation into the matter.
7. After further correspondence,
the newspaper confirmed it had removed the article from its website.
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: 04/02/2016
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/04/2016