Resolution Statement – 04181-21 Thompson v
dailyrecord.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Jim Thompson complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Anger as £650m contract
for SNP donor approved after Nicola Sturgeon meeting she failed to declare”,
published on 4 April 2021.
2. The article reported that a named construction firm had
“received permission to construct the 3000-home Durieshill village in
Stirlingshire after it was rubber-stamped by Stirling Council.” The firm, “an
SNP donor”, had this application approved “after a meeting with Nicola Sturgeon
[which] she failed to declare”. The article reported the reaction of “Labour
MSP Neil Findlay [who] said: “There are serious questions to be asked with
reference to the ministerial code”.
3. The complainant said that the article was misleading as
it linked the Durieshill case with the undeclared meetings, and gave the
impression that the Scottish Government had interfered in the approval of the
application for the Durieshill village. In fact, the application was considered
and approved by the independent planning committee of Stirling Council. He also
said it was inaccurate to claim that the application was “rubber-stamped” as
the council had considered it thoroughly over a period of several years and had
not simply granted permission without proper consideration. Finally, the
complainant queried whether anyone really was “angry” at the approval of
Durieshill village as the headline implied.
4. The publication said it had used the word
“rubber-stamped” to simply convey the fact that the council had approved the
application. It said that there was “anger” directed at the undeclared meeting
by the Labour MSP Neil Findley, and the headline was reflecting this fact. Finally,
it did not consider that the article implied that the Scottish Government
interfered in the Durieshill decision: it simply reported that the planning
permission had been granted “after” the undeclared, and thus controversial,
meetings.
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.
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. During IPSO’s investigation the newspaper offered to amend the reference to the application being rubber-stamped and offered to add the following correction as a footnote to the online article:
A previous version of this article reported that the
application for the 3000-home Durieshill village in Stirlingshire was
'rubber-stamped' by Stirling Council. In fact, the application process was
considered for over 3 years and reached the conclusion in December 2019. We are
happy to clarify this.
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: 20/04/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/06/2021