Decision of the Complaints Committee 09282-15 Berelowitz
v The Times
Summary of
complaint
1. Sue Berelowitz complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Times had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the
Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Children’s chief: my fear of
Kids Co boss”, published on 18 November 2015.
2. The article reported on the complainant’s appearance in
front of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC)
in relation to its inquiry into Whitehall’s relationship with Kids Company. The
article stated that the complainant, the former Deputy Children’s Commissioner,
had admitted that she had “failed to speak out about problems at Kids Company
because she was intimidated by the powerful friends of the charity’s founder”.
It had stated that she had visited the charity three times, but that she had
not informed the PACAC of the dates of her visits. In addition, it said that
“MPs had also criticised three auditors…for overlooking key problems at the
charity”. The article noted that the newspaper had previously revealed that when
her contract as Deputy Children’s Commissioner was terminated, the complainant
had received a severance payment of £134,000, but had been rehired the
following day as a consultant on almost £1,000 a day.
3. The complainant said that the newspaper had distorted the
facts in a number of ways in a deliberate attempt to damage her reputation.
4. She said that at no time during her evidence had she said
or indicated that she had been “in fear” of Camila Batmanghelidjh, the Chief
Executive of Kids Company. She noted the following extract from the transcript
of her evidence in which she explained her reasons for not raising her concerns
about the charity with the government:
Sue Berelowitz: Well, it did not occur to me at the time. It
has occurred to me subsequently and I have thought about why it did not occur
to me at the time, and I go back to the issue that was raised about, in a
sense, the powerful alliances that the chief executive of Kids Company had. I
am a fairly robust and resilient person and I was in a quite substantial
position and I acknowledge that even for me it would have been very challenging
to have gone to No. 10 and said, “I am concerned” because to take a stand
against somebody who was constantly telling you about celebrities or
relationships with people in the very highest places is quite intimidating.
Chair: So you felt intimidated?
Sue Berelowitz: Not in her presence. As I say, I am fairly
robust, but in terms of thinking, “What do I do with this?” yes it gave me great
pause for thought. Yes.
Mr David Jones: So you considered it, but decided against it
or you didn’t even consider it because of the experience you had had?
Sue Berelowitz: I have no recollection now, in hindsight,
that I thought at the time, “I need to tell Government this”. My concern was
that the money was not being well spent, but I was acutely aware that she
occupied a very powerful position and it would be difficult to make those kinds
of representations. Quite frankly, I do not think my voice would have been a
good counterweight.
5. The complainant expressed concern that the phrase “MPs
had also criticised three auditors” had given the significantly misleading
impression that she had been criticised by the PACAC. She said that while it
had been critical of the three previous witnesses, she had not been criticised;
the PACAC had been very appreciative of her evidence.
6. In addition, the complainant considered that the mention
of the fact that she had not specified the dates of her visits to Kids Company
had been a further example of deliberate distortion. She said that her written
evidence to the PACAC had included a date for her third visit to the charity
and explained that she had not had the dates for the previous visits because
she had not had access to her archived diary. She considered that the newspaper
had raised an issue that had not been commented upon by the PACAC in a
deliberate attempt to imply a lack of reliability in her evidence.
7. While the complainant accepted that the newspaper had
accurately reported details of her severance package, it had failed to mention
that the proposal and decision regarding her settlement had been the
government‘s responsibility.
8. The newspaper denied that the headline had been
inaccurate or misrepresented the complainant’s evidence to the PACAC. It said
it was clear from her evidence that she had felt intimidated by Ms
Batmanghelidjh. The transcript had clearly stated that despite the
complainant’s “robust character”, it had been “quite intimidating” to challenge
Ms Batmanghelidjh. It noted that the complainant had said “In my view, there is
no doubt that the Chief Executive used her forceful personality and her friends
in very high places to intimidate people and make sure that she held sway
really, right up to Prime Ministers, celebrities, people in the Lords, people
in the media." The newspaper considered that somebody who felt intimidated
was, by definition, fearful. It said that the word “fear” had not been used in
quotation marks so it had been clear that it was not a direct quotation.
9. The newspaper said that the reference to the MPs’
criticism of three auditors had referred to the fact that earlier in the
hearing, MPs had heard evidence from other witnesses. It considered that a
reader would understand from the article that the complainant had not been
criticised by MPs.
10. The newspaper said it was a statement of fact that the
complainant had not given PACAC the dates of her visits to Kids Company. It
said it had made reference to this in the article because the missing
information may have prevented readers from understanding how the complainant’s
evidence had fitted into the Kids Company timeline. It said this reference had
not been presented as a criticism of the complainant, nor had it imputed a lack
of reliability or trustworthiness on her part.
11. The newspaper said it had not commented on who had
proposed or agreed to the complainant’s severance package. It did not agree
that the reference to the settlement had been misleading.
Relevant Code Provisions
12. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i. The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii. A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the
Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.
iii. The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish
clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
13. In her evidence to the PACAC, the complainant had not
said that she had “feared” the Chief Executive of Kids Company. However, she
had stated that, on reflection, raising her concerns “would have been very
challenging… because to take a stand against somebody who was constantly
telling you about celebrities or relationships with people in the very highest
places is quite intimidating”. The Committee did not consider that it was
significantly misleading for the newspaper to characterise this position as
“fear”. Furthermore, the reference to “fear” had appeared in the article’s
headline. The first line of the article had made clear that she had been
“intimidated by the powerful friends of the charity’s founder”. There was no
breach of the Code on this point.
14. The phrase “MPs had also criticised three auditors” was
ambiguous. While the Committee understood the complainant’s position that it
had implied that she, too, had been criticised during her evidence, it took the
view that this was merely a reference to what had taken place earlier in the
hearing. The article had contained no other possible suggestion that the
complainant had been criticised by MPs during her appearance. In the full
context of the article, the statement that MPs had “also” criticised three
auditors was not significantly misleading in breach of Clause 1.
15. It was not in dispute that the complainant had not
specified the dates of her visits to Kids Company during her evidence. The
article’s reference to the omission of this information to the PACAC was not
significantly misleading.
16. It was also accepted that the newspaper had reported
details of the complainant’s severance package accurately. It was not obliged
to additionally report that the package had been the proposal of the government
which had been accepted by the complainant. The complaint under Clause 1 was
not upheld.
Conclusions
17. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 25/11/2015
Date decision issued: 02/02/2016