Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 06134-21 Vass v Mail Online
Summary
of Complaint
1. Neil
Vass complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail
Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “British towns that are no-go
areas for white people: Muslim author's study of mosques reveals children
'attacked for being white', parents making families live under Taliban-like
rules and women who can't leave home without permission”, published on 4 June
2021.
2. The
article, which appeared online only, reported on a book published by “[a]n
author who visited mosques across Britain to investigate integration” which
“revealed how parts of Blackburn are ‘no-go areas’ for white men”. The sub-headline also included a reference to
“[w]hite men [who had] revealed ‘no-go areas’ in Blackburn where they would be
‘jumped’”.
3. The
article went on to report that: “A group of white men told [the book’s author
that] they are scared to go into ‘no-go areas’ in [Blackburn], such as Whalley
Range, with one man saying a gang of ‘Asian’ teenagers repeatedly ‘jumped’ his
12-year-old son. They told [the author] the boy was ‘battered in broad
daylight…for being white’. Another man in the group said the area of Whalley
Range […] was a particular area they would avoid. They told [the author]: ‘If
we go to Whalley Range at night-time, we’re guaranteed to get jumped. We won’t
walk out of it. We won’t walk to the other end of the street.’”
4. The
article also included a graphic, which showed four towns and cities –
Blackburn, Didsbury, Bradford, and Dewsbury. The caption beneath the image
showing Didsbury said: “Sharia Court within the mosque – which was once a
church”. This graphic accompanied the headline on the front page of the
publication’s website.
5. The
complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as he
said that – contrary to the headline’s claim – there were no British towns that
were “no-go areas for white people”. He said that Didsbury, which appeared in
the graphic in the article and was also referred to later in the article, “is a
friendly, posh, suburban area where huge numbers of white people live”. He also
said that he had visited, or known people from, several of the areas referenced
in the article, and from his experience these towns were not “no-go areas for
white people”. He said that he believed that crime statistics would demonstrate
that the headline’s claim was inaccurate.
6. The
complainant also said that the article breached Clause 12, as he considered it
to be “clearly aimed at increasing fear and distrust against Muslims and
non-white people in general”; as such, he believed the article to be
irresponsible and in breach of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code
7. The publication said that a number of other
readers had also raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the headline, and it
had replied to each of them individually. To address these concerns, the
publication amended the headline of the article on 28 June, 24 days after the
article’s publication and 13 days after IPSO made the publication aware of the
complainant’s concerns. The amended headline read as follows:
Among
the Mosques: Author's study of Muslim Britain reveals a no-go area for white
people, children 'attacked for being white', parents making families live under
Taliban-like rules and women who can't leave home without permission
The
publication also added the below footnote to the online article on 4 July 2021,
one month after the article’s publication and 19 days after the publication was
made aware of the complainant’s concerns:
Since
publication the headline to this article has been amended to remove the
suggestion that more than one town visited by the author had residents who
reported ‘no-go areas’ for white people.
The
publication noted that the majority of complaints had been resolved by the
above action. However, it said that it would be content to also make a similar
statement in a standalone piece to be published in its regular Corrections and
Clarifications column on the news page, which would be published for 24 hours
and would afterwards be archived and remain searchable for the lifetime of the
website. It proposed the following wording for the separate correction:
The
headline of an article published on 4 June which reported on a book by the
political advisor Ed Husain was amended following publication to remove the
suggestion that more than one town visited by the author had residents who reported
‘no-go areas’ for white people. We are happy to set the record straight.
8. The
publication further said that there was no intention on the part of the
publication to imply that the experiences of the men interviewed in Blackburn
applied to the other towns and cities referenced in the article, and it said it
was regrettable if any such inference was taken. Nevertheless, it noted that
upon reading the article, it would be clear to readers that the author’s
experiences in each town were carefully and individually described, and no
assertion was made within the body of the article that the “no-go areas”
reference was made in relation to all the referenced towns and cities. It also
noted that neither the author of the book the article summarised, or the
publisher of the book, had contacted the publication to flag any issues with
the accuracy of the article. It also said that the theme of segregation was a
running theme of the book, and provided excerpts from the book which it said
demonstrated that this was this case; for instance, an individual was quoted
within the book as having said that: “They chase out the white English
businesses. After the riots in 2001, all the white businesses left. I don’t say
they throw stones at us like the white folk say. I say there is racism and
reverse racism.” It said that it had not referred to these other examples of
segregation due to the length of the article; therefore, only the specific
reference to Blackburn was included in the article.
9. The
publication also noted that it considered it to be “extremely unlikely that
reasonable readers would have taken the impression from the headline that
entire towns in Britain are […] entirely inaccessible to white people” and that
any such confusion would be quickly resolved by a cursory reading of the
article. The publication was therefore satisfied that, while it was happy to
amend it, the original headline was not significantly inaccurate nor
misleading.
10. Addressing
the complainant’s concerns under Clause 12, the publication said that the
article included no prejudicial or pejorative references to either Muslim or
non-white individuals. It also noted that any details referring to race or
religion within the article were clearly relevant, where the subject of the
article was “a book exploring the tensions between communities whose
differences are in their respective religions and race”. It therefore said that
Clause 12 was not engaged by the complainant’s concerns; it also firmly denied that
the purpose of the article was to “increase[e] fear and distrust against
Muslims and non-white people in general”.
11.The
complainant said that the publication’s amended headline and proposed footnote
was not sufficient to resolve his complaint, where he considered that the
original article would have been seen by a large number of people. As such, he
said that an explanation of the correction should be posted on the front-page
of the publication’s website.
12. The
complainant also said that he considered the updated headline to be inaccurate,
by way of its use of the term “reveals”. It said this was inaccurate as the
study cited a single unverified anecdote; he considered that the term “claims”
would be more accurate in place of the phrase ”reveals”.
13. The
publication said that it did not accept that the amended headline was
inaccurate and that any further amendment was necessary. It said it was clear
from the wording of the headline that the statements made were all based on
interviews conducted by the author.
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
12 (Discrimination)
i) The
press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race,
colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical
or mental illness or disability.
ii)
Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual
orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless
genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings
of the Committee
14. Clause
1(i) requires that publications take care not to publish headlines which are
not supported by the text of the article. It does not require a headline to
give the full context of the story in question, but the content of the article
must support the headline, and an accurate article cannot be relied on to
correct an inaccurate, misleading, or distorted headline.
15. In
this instance, the headline claim that there were “British towns that are no-go
areas for white people” was not supported by the article. The article included
no reference to a town or towns which were claimed to be off-limits to white
people, and only one area within a city was described as a “no-go area” for
white people. The publication had sought to support its headline by pointing to
extracts from the book on which the article was based, which it considered
demonstrated that segregation between white and non-white or Muslim people
occurred in multiple towns. However, these extracts had not been included in
the article and in any case did not amount to claims that the towns were “no-go
areas”. As such, the headline was inaccurate and was not supported by the text
of the article, and therefore amounted to a breach of Clause 1 (i).
16. The
Committee noted that, while the graphic beneath the headline included an image
of Didsbury, neither the article or the headline stated that it was a “no-go
town”, and the caption to the image of the area stated only that it had a
“Sharia Court within the mosque – which was once a church”, which the
complainant did not dispute. The article itself did not claim that Didsbury or
any other town was a “no-go area” for white people. For this reason, there was
no breach of Clause 1 arising from the article’s reference to the towns visited
by the author, where the claim that entire towns were “no-go areas” appeared
only in the headline, and not in the article itself or in the graphic.
17. The
Committee did not consider that the use of the term “reveals” in either the
original or updated headline raised a breach of Clause 1. It noted again that
headlines are not required to give the full context to an article, and that,
read in conjunction with the article, it was clear that the terms “reveals”
referred to the information included in the book based upon the author’s
experiences of “visit[ing] mosques across Britain to investigate integration”.
There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
18. The
inaccuracy leading to the breach of Clause 1 (i) was significant, where it
appeared prominently in the headline and on the homepage of the website. It
therefore required correction, under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee
considered that a correction would be sufficient to address the terms of Clause
1 (ii), where the breach of Clause 1 arose from a single breach of Clause 1
(i), and the article itself did not raise a breach of Clause 1 (i).
19. The
publication had amended the headline of the article 24 days after the article’s
publication – and 13 days after IPSO made the publication aware of the
complainant’s concerns – and 6 days after this it had also added a footnote to
the article, signposting the change. The complainant had also offered to
publish a separate wording in the standalone Corrections and Clarifications
column.
20. When
assessing whether the action taken by the publication was sufficient to address
the terms of Clause 1 (ii), the Committee was mindful that the publication was
attempting to address the concerns of all complainants, and that the action
taken did resolve the concerns of a majority of complainants. In light of this consideration, the delay
between publication of the article and the subsequent offer to publish a
clarification, as well as the amendment of the headline and the footnote to the
article, did not raise a breach of Clause 1 (ii) on the grounds that the action
was not undertaken or proposed with sufficient promptness. In addition, the Committee
was satisfied that the proposed locations of the corrective action were
sufficiently prominent. Where the inaccurate headline appeared on the front
page of the website, it was satisfied that a separate clarification in the
Corrections and Clarifications column, linked to on the news homepage, was
sufficiently prominent, in conjunction with the footnote and the amended
headline. It did not consider that a footnote alone would have been a
sufficient remedy to the breach of Clause 1 (i), where the original inaccuracy
appeared prominently in a headline which appeared on the publication’s home
page; however, in conjunction with a standalone correction this was sufficient
to address the breach. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) arising from the
prominence of the actioned and proposed remedial action.
21. Turning
to the wording of the proposed correction and the footnote, on balance, the
Committee considered that it was sufficient to address the breach of Clause 1
(i); it made clear that the original article headline had “suggest[ed] that
more than one town visited by the author had residents who reported ‘no-go
areas’ for white people”, and that this suggestion had been removed. In
conjunction with the footnote to the article and the amended headline, which
made clear that the book had revealed “a no-go area” rather than towns that
were no-go areas in their entirety, the Committee considered that the proposed
action was sufficient. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).
22. IPSO
is able to consider complaints made under Clause 12 from either an individual
who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the
Editors’ Code of Practice, or from a representative group affected by an
alleged breach where there is a substantial public interest. Where the
complainant was not referred to in the article – and was therefore not
personally and directly affected by the alleged breach – and was not acting on
behalf of a representative group, the Committee was unable to consider the
Clause 12 aspect of the complaint.
Conclusions
23. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause
1 (i).
Remedial
Action Required
24. The clarification which was offered clearly
put the correct position on record, and was offered promptly and with due
prominence, and should now be published.
Date
complaint received: 05/06/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/11/2021
Back to ruling listing