Decision of the Complaints Committee –
01786-21 Brewerton v Mail Online
Summary of Complaint
1. Keith Brewerton, acting on his own
behalf and on behalf of his son Aled Brewerton, complained to the Independent
Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy),
Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or
shock), and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code
of Practice in: an article headlined “'Stop talking!' Is this Britain's
worst-ever Zoom meeting? Chaotic council discussion which sees chairman and
deputy thrown out takes internet by storm”, published on 5 February 2021; and
an article headlined “Handforth Parish Council's Jackie Weaver compares
shouting men in viral Zoom meeting to a 'toddler tantrum' and is hailed an
'icon' by Loose Women viewers”, published on 10 February 2021.
2. The articles, which both appeared online
only, reported on the response to a parish council meeting which had a few days
earlier ‘gone viral’, and had been widely covered by the press. Both articles
included the same video clip of the meeting; the video clip was just over three
minutes long. In addition, both articles included a side-bar which included
brief biographies of some of the call’s participants. Both side-bars referred
to John Smith’s wife as a “pharmacy assistant” and Cynthia Samson as a “retired
accountant”.
3. The article which was published on 5
February reported that the meeting which had gone viral was a “Planning &
Environment Committee meeting” – which was, “its minutes assure us, an
extraordinary meeting” – and that it involved “a clerk overseeing the
proceedings” who had worked with the council “on and off for nine years”. It said that the “acting clerk” in question –
Jackie Weaver – had been “drafted in from the peacekeeping corps of the
Cheshire Association of Local Councils”.
4. The article also included a
tongue-in-cheek summary of the meeting, saying that the “Zoom call [wasn’t] big
enough for two parish council clerks” to explain why tensions had arisen during
the meeting. It went on to refer to the complainant’s son, who participated in
the meeting, as “[s]queaky”. The article then reported that, following a
comment from a “female colleague on the call”, there had been “belly laughs”,
with the complainant “hold[ing] his stomach and rock[ing] back and forth in
glee.” The article ended with a transcript of part of the call, in which one of
the participants was referred to as “Councillor Peter Moore”.
5. The 5 February article went on to
include a comment from a “local council expert”, who said of the meeting that
“it appears something odd [is] going on because they seem to have agreed
something beforehand – perhaps in a bid to control the influence of the chair”.
6. The article which was published on 10
February stated that one of the meeting participants, Jackie Weaver, was an
“acting-clerk” during the meeting and again that she had worked with the
council in question “on and off for nine years”. It also reported on an
interview Ms Weaver had had with a television programme, during which she had
reportedly said that “ultimately, when you see grown men shouting hysterically,
it is a bit like a toddler tantrum.” The article said that she had referred to
her “colleagues” in this manner. It then paraphrased further comments from Ms Weaver,
reporting that “Jackie […] says that the hostility from [a] faction of
councillors was hardly a surprise” before going on to include a further
paraphrased comment: “In a normal parish council meeting, Jackie wouldn't have
the authority to remove someone, but because it was called by two cou[n]cillors
- who risked having the hearing 'hijacked' - she says she did.” The article
also again referred to one of the meeting participants as “councillor Peter
Moore”.
7. The complainant said that both of the
articles were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He first said that the video of
the meeting included with the articles had been altered, with sequences changed
and interactions omitted. He said that these alterations meant that the video
was not an accurate or correct record of what had happened during the meeting.
In addition, he said that all the articles under complaint were inaccurate as
he believed they condoned the actions of one of the participants in the
meeting, and he considered that their actions had been improper; the article
also, he said, omitted the fact that his son and his fellow councillors had
been “illegally evicted” from the meeting and were therefore inaccurate.
8. The complainant also said that both
articles were inaccurate as Ms Weaver was not a clerk and had not worked for
the council “on and off for nine years”. He further said that, contrary to
claims made by both articles, Peter Moore was not actually a councillor.
Rather, he was the husband of a councillor. He also said that John Smith’s wife
was a dispense assistant, not a pharmacy assistant, and Ms Samson had not
worked as an accountant.
9. The complainant also said that the 5
February article had inaccurately referred to the viral meeting as a “Planning
& Environment Committee meeting”, in breach of Clause 1. He said that this
was the case as the meeting was actually an Extraordinary Meeting of the full
council; the Planning and Environment meeting had been the preceding meeting.
He also said that the comment from the “local government expert” was
inaccurate, as there had been no pre-planning or collusion on the part of him
and his associates, and that the article had been disingenuous in describing
his son as “[s]queaky”.
10. The complainant said that he did not
recall that he had laughed during the meeting. Rather, he said, he was unaware
that he was being recorded and had been laughing at something on television
during this part of the meeting. He also said that parts of the transcript
included in the article were out of order, and that events had – according to
his recollection – transpired in a different order.
11. The complainant said that the 10
February article was inaccurate, as the meeting had not consisted of “grown men
shouting hysterically”. He also said that the meeting participants were not Ms
Weaver’s “colleagues”, as she did not work for the council. He further said
that he considered paraphrased comments from Ms Weaver – in which he referred
to him and his associates as “hostile” – to be inaccurate, as the hostility was
motivated by her actions. He also said that the paraphrased comments from Ms
Weaver, in which she said she had the “authority” to remove councillors, was inaccurate
as she did not have the authority to act in the manner she did.
12. The complainant also considered that
the video included in the article breached Clause 2, as he appeared in the
video and said that he had not been informed at the time that the meeting was
being recorded. Both complainants had been in their home when the video was
recorded, therefore the complainant said that the use of the video intruded on
his and his son’s private life; he did accept, however, that the video had been
uploaded to YouTube prior to the article’s publication. The complainant further
noted that, while the public were able to watch the meeting, this was via a
link only, and approximately 5 to 6 members of the public attended the meeting.
13. The complainant also said that ‘The
Mail’ had phoned his home for comment, in breach of Clause 3.
14. The complainant also said that he
considered that Clause 3 had been breached by the article, as it included
material which was not compliant with the terms of the Clause; namely, the
video, which he considered had been recorded illegally.
15. Turning to Clause 4, the complainant
said that he considered this Clause had been breached as he did not consider
that publication of the article had been handled sensitively. He believed that
the publication should have been more sensitive, where the viral video had led
to great shock amongst his close and extended family.
16. The complainant then said that he
considered that the use of the video breached Clause 10, as he believed it had
been recorded illegally on a secondary device, such as an iPad; he said he knew
this was the case as had it been recorded directly from a computer, it would
have shown a recording logo and there wasn’t one present in the video. He said
that the press had a duty to ensure the video had not been recorded illegally, and
that it had not done so in this case.
17. The publication said it did not accept
that either of the articles breached the Code. It first noted that the video
which was included and described in both articles had gone viral prior to
publication and had been widely viewed; it was therefore firmly in the public
domain and there could not be said to be any restrictions on reporting on it;
there could be no possible breach of Clause 1, 2, or 10 arising from reporting
on the contents of a widely available video.
18. Turning to the specific inaccuracies
alleged in the 5 February article, the publication said that the meeting had
been widely described as a “planning and environment committee meeting” and
that, at any rate, the article described the meeting as an “extraordinary
meeting”.
19. The publication then said that the 5
February article made clear that Ms Weaver was not the council’s official
clerk, and that she had been “drafted in from the peacekeeping corps of the
Cheshire Association of Local Councils”. It said that the reference to two
Parish council clerks was intended only to refer to Cllr Brian Tolver changing
his name to refer to himself as a clerk; it was not a statement of fact that
there were actually two clerks in the meeting.
20. Turning to the alleged inaccuracies
arising from the comments of a “local council expert”, which were included in
the 5 February article, it noted that the expert was simply commenting on what
appeared to transpire in the video.
21. The publication amended both articles
to make clear that Peter Moore was not a councillor. However, it considered the
transcript to be a faithful account of what was heard in the video clip, noting
that it could only report on the contents of the video clip and could not comment
on whether the video had been edited prior to it going viral. The publication
also amended the articles to make clear that John Smith’s wife is a dispense
assistant, rather than a pharmacy assistant, and that Cynthia Samson was not an
accountant prior to her retirement. These amendments were made on 28 September
2021 – 25 days after the publication was made aware of the complainant’s
concerns. The publication also offered to publish a footnote to both articles
flagging these complaints on 26 November 2021.
22. The publication then turned to the 10
February article, and the alleged inaccuracies the complainant had identified.
It said that this article again made clear that Ms Weaver was not a clerk, by
referring to her as an “acting-clerk”. It also said that it would be happy to
remove the reference to Ms Weaver having worked with the council “on and off
for nine years”, where the complainant had disputed its accuracy – though it
did not consider this inaccuracy to be so significant as to raise a breach of Clause
1, and further noted that this information came from an interview which Ms
Weaver had given to Mail Online.
23. Addressing the alleged inaccuracies
arising from Ms Weaver’s interview comments, it noted that it was clear that
these were Ms Weaver’s comments and were correctly attributed to her.
24. The publication said that no journalist
working on its behalf had phoned the complainant – therefore, it could not be
said that Clause 3 was breached.
25. Turning to the complainant’s Clause 4
concerns, the publication said that Clause 4 was designed to protect
individuals who have suffered a severely traumatic experience, and that its
provisions did not apply in this case.
26. The complainant indicated that he was
happy with the steps that the publication had taken to attempt to resolve his
complaint, but he did not consider that all his concerns had been addressed and
did therefore not want to resolve his complaint.
Relevant Code Provisions
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.
Clause 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for
their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and
correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify
intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering
an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the
material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph
individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is
a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Clause 3 (Harassment)*
i) Journalists must not engage in
intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They must not persist in questioning,
telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor
remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested,
they must identify themselves and whom they represent.
iii)
Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for
them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.
Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
In cases involving personal grief or shock,
enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and
publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right
to report legal proceedings.
Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and
subterfuge)*
i) The press must not seek to obtain or
publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening
devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or
emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by
accessing digitally-held information without consent.
ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or
subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified
only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained
by other means.
Findings of the Committee
27. The Committee noted first that it was
not in dispute that the three-minute clip of the meeting included with the
articles had been shortened from the original meeting video, which was well
over an hour long. It was clear that it was a representation of the events of
the meeting rather than a precisely detailed breakdown of the meeting, and
neither the articles nor the video claimed that the clip was intended to show
the full context of the meeting. Where the Committee did not consider that
shortening the video rendered it inaccurate, misleading, or distorted, there
was no breach of Clause 1 in relation to the video.
28. While the Committee understood that the
complainant had concerns that the articles condoned the actions of a specific
individual, it noted that concerns that articles are biased or one-sided – in
and of themselves – do not engage the terms of the Editors’ Code. As such,
there was no breach of the Clause 1 on this point.
29. The complainant had said that the
articles were inaccurate as he considered that one of the participants in the
meeting had acted “illegally” – a point omitted by the coverage. The Committee
noted that none of the participants had faced any criminal or civil prosecution
at the time of the article’s publication, and that the allegation of illegal
behaviour was a serious claim which not supported by any publicly available
information at the time of the articles’ publication. The Committee further
noted that the articles and accompanying videos made clear that some
participants believed that the meeting was being held illegally. With these
factors in mind, the Committee did not consider that omitting the complainant’s
allegations from the articles rendered them inaccurate in breach of Clause 1.
30. The Committee understood that the
complainant disputed that Ms Weaver had worked with the council “on and off for
nine years”. However, where this formed a passing reference in the articles, it
was not in dispute that Ms Weaver’s association with the council covered
several years, and the publication had obtained this information from Ms
Weaver, the Committee did not consider that there was a failure to take care
over the accuracy of the articles on this point. The complainant also disputed
that Ms Weaver was a “clerk”; however, where both articles made clear that she
was not the council’s official clerk and the video showed Ms Weaver acting in a
manner that could colloquially be described as clerking – removing meeting
participants and answering questions – the Committee did not consider that the
articles were inaccurate in their description of Ms Weaver as an “acting
clerk”.
31. Both articles had reported details
about some of the meeting participants, and the publication accepted that these
details were inaccurate, had amended the articles on these points, and had
offered to publish a footnote flagging the amendments. However, taking the
inaccuracies in turn the Committee did not consider that they were significant
and represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article. While Peter Moore appeared to not be a
councillor, the focus of the article was not on the formal decision-making of
the Council but on the exchanges among the meeting participants shown in the
video. In the view of the Committee, the publication’s apparently inaccurate
reference to Mr Moore as a councillor did not represent a failure to take care
over the article given that he had been referenced briefly and only in the
context of recording his involvement in these exchanges. While the Committee
welcomed the publication’s amendment of this point and the addition of a
footnote, it did not consider that this was a matter of significance requiring
correction under Clause 1 (ii) given that Mr Moore had been mentioned only in
passing, as a participant in the exchanges reported in the article. In
addition, the Committee did not consider that – in the context of a brief
biographical note – it was significantly inaccurate to refer to Ms Samson as a
retired accountant, rather than a bookkeeper, or refer to a councillor’s wife
as a pharmacy assistant rather than a dispense assistant; these biographical
details did not significantly affect the matters being reported in the article:
the exchanges at the meeting. The Committee also noted that it did not appear
that any of the individuals who were the first party to these alleged
inaccuracies had flagged their concerns with the newspaper. Taking these
factors into account, there was no breach of Clause 1 on these points – though
the Committee welcomed the publication’s amendments and offers to publish a
footnote on both articles.
32. The Committee did not consider that
referring to the parish council meeting as a meeting of the “Planning &
Environment Committee meeting” rendered the 5 February article inaccurate,
where it included several references to the meeting being an “extraordinary
meeting” – including immediately after the sole reference to it being a “Planning
& Environment Committee meeting”. The Committee considered this to be the
case where the two meetings had occurred one after the other, and where the
title of the meeting did not affect the accuracy of the thrust of the article;
it formed a single reference, and the focus of the article was the events of
the meeting and its aftermath.
33. The complainant accepted that he had
laughed during the meeting. Regardless of what prompted the laughter, it could
not be inaccurate to report that it had occurred, and doing so did not
represent a breach of Clause 1. In addition, while the Committee noted that the
complainant considered the description of his son to be inaccurate and
offensive, it considered that the nature of the description – “squeaky” – and
the fact that the description appeared as part of a tongue-in-cheek summary of
the meeting, made clear that this was the publication’s characterisation,
rather than a claim of fact. Clause 1 (iv) makes clear that publications are
entitled to editorialise, and describing the complainant’s son in this manner
did not render the article inaccurate in breach of Clause 1.
34. The Committee understood that the
complainant’s recollection of what was said during the meeting differed from
the transcript included in the 5 February article. However, having reviewed the
full video of the meeting, the Committee was satisfied that the events set out
in the transcript corresponded with the video. There was therefore no breach of
Clause 1 arising from the transcript included in the article.
35. The Committee then noted that the
Editors’ Code of Practice makes clear the press has the right to publish
individuals’ views, as long as it takes care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, and to distinguish between comment,
conjecture and fact. In this instance, the quotes from the local government
expert and Ms Weaver were clearly presented as comment, and attributed to them.
The Committee was therefore satisfied that the publication had distinguished
between comment and fact and had clearly attributed the comments made to those
who had made them, in line with the terms of Clause 1 (iv). The Committee
further noted that the video which accompanied the article demonstrated that
there were opposing views to those held by Ms Weaver, both on the legality of
the meeting itself and on the role of Ms Weaver and her position (or lack
thereof) within the council. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on
these points.
36. The terms of Clause 2 make clear that,
when considering an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy, account
will be taken of the extent to which the information complained of is in the
public domain. In this instance, the complainant considered that the video
included in the article – showing him and his son in their home – breached the
terms of the Clause. However, the video showed proceedings at a public meeting
held by a public body. Further, the video was available on YouTube at the time
of the article’s publication and had been viewed well over a million times. In
these circumstances, the Committee did not consider that the complainant had a
reasonable expectation of privacy over the video. There was, therefore, no
breach of Clause 2.
37.
While the Committee noted the complainant’s concerns that he had been
contacted, via telephone, by ‘The Mail’, it noted that this could refer to a number
of publications. Where the publication denied making any such phone call and
the complainant had not said that it was definitely Mail Online who had phoned
him, there were not sufficient grounds to link to phone call to the
publication, and there was no breach of Clause 3 arising from the phone call.
38. While Clause 3 (iii) makes clear that
Editors should ensure that the principles of the Clause are observed by those
working on its behalf, the principles of the Clause relate to behaviour by
journalists which could constitute harassment. The complainant did not allege
that the video which he considered breached Clause 3 had been obtained by the
publication – or individuals working in its behalf – engaging in harassing
behaviour towards him. There was no breach of Clause 3 arising from the use of
the video.
39. While the Committee understood that the
video going “viral” had caused distress to the complainant, it noted that the
terms of Clause 4 generally relate to cases involving bereavement, injury, and
crime. Where the content of the article under complaint related to a parish
council meeting, the Committee did not consider that the article related to the
complainant’s personal grief or shock, and there was no breach of Clause 4.
40. The terms of Clause 10 make clear that
the press should not seek to publish material obtained by using hidden cameras;
the purpose of the Clause is to regulate the publication acquisition of
material obtained using clandestine devices and misrepresentation. In this
case, the publication did not know exactly how the video had been recorded;
however, neither party disputed that at the time the article was published, the
video was widely available in the public domain. The basis advanced by the
complainant for claiming the video had been obtained using a clandestine
recording device was that it appeared not to have been recorded using the
internal recording mechanism in the computer programme used to host the virtual
meeting. While the Committee could not establish with certainty how the meeting
was recorded, it did not agree that the use of a secondary device to make the
recording amounted to a “clandestine” device for the purposes of Clause 10. The
video depicted a publicly accessible meeting, and whether it had been recorded
using an in-program recording function or a secondary recording device had no
bearing on the content of the video. Explicit reference was made in the course
of the meeting to the fact it was being recorded, when a participant referred
to a copy being sent to a monitoring officer. Furthermore, the minutes of the
meeting stated that a recording of the meeting was available. The Committee did
not consider that the publication engaged in any form of subterfuge or
misrepresentation in the recording of the meeting.
41. Furthermore, at the time the article
was published, the video from which the clip was extracted was widely
circulating in the public domain and had been viewed over one million times;
the newspaper had not, therefore, been engaged, either directly or through an
agent, in making or procuring the recording. It could not therefore be said
that the newspaper had sought to obtain material obtained by using a hidden
camera, and there was breach of Clause 10.
Conclusion(s)
42. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
43. N/A
Date complaint received: 26/07/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/02/2022
Back to ruling listing