09537-19 The Sunbed Association v thesun.co.uk

Decision: Breach - sanction: action as offered by publication

Decision of the Complaints Committee – 09537-19 The Sunbed Association v thesun.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. The Sunbed Association complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in a series of articles:

  • An article headlined “Sunbed cancer left me with a ‘Harry Potter’ face scar”, published on 19 August 2019.
  • An article headlined “DYING FOR A TAN Using sunbeds left us with craters in our faces, holes in our noses and bloody gashes all over our bodies”, published 19 August 2019.
  • An article headlined “TAN TRAUMA I’ve been using sunbeds since I was 13, now cancer has left me with a rotten foot and I’ve put on 3 stone because I’m too terrified to leave the house”, published online on 22 August 2019.
  • An article headlined “DYING FOR A TAN We were addicted to sunbeds – but our vanity may mean we won’t see our kids grow up”, published on 21 August 2019.
  • An article headlined “DESPERATE TAN Tan addict ‘refused mortgage for £500-a-month tanning habit’ says it’s ‘discrimination at its very worst’”, published on 21 August 2019.
  • An article headlined “'BAN THEM' I’m petrified I’ll get skin cancer after using sunbeds when I was at school – they’re so dangerous they should be banned”, published on 24 August 2020.
  • An article headlined “SUNNY COFFIN ‘We slathered ourselves in baby oil and coke to bake like rotisserie chickens on home sunbeds – now we’re paying the price’”, published on 25 August 2019.

2. The first article reported an account of a woman who had over used sunbeds and did not wear sun cream whilst on holiday, and had gone on to develop basal cell carcinoma. She characterised this as “sunbed cancer”. The article also contained a fact box titled “Dying for a tan” which stated that “sunbeds are as dangerous as smoking, according to the World Health Organisation”; that “Sunbeds pelt the skin with such strong UV rays that 20 minutes on one is comparable to four hours in the sun”; that “there are around 7,000 tanning salons in Britain”; and that using sunbeds before the age of 35 increases your chances of developing melanoma by 87%.

3. This article also appeared in print under the headline “'PERMANENT REMINDER' Tanning addict left with ‘Harry Potter’ scar after having cancer cut from her face” and was substantially the same as the online article.

4. The second article reported on three women from the US who had developed skin cancer after using sunbeds. The article reported that the “Dying For a Tan” campaign had been launched in order “to raise awareness of the devastating impact sunbeds can have on users’ health.” It also stated that prior to 2010 there were no restrictions on who could use sunbeds; that using a sunbed at any age can increase your risk of developing cancer by up to 25%; that children as young as eight are using sunbeds, and that sunbeds “pelt the skin with such strong UV rays” which increases the risk of skin cancer.

5. The third article was a first-hand account of a woman who had used sunbeds and then been diagnosed with cancer. The article repeated the claims that 20 minutes on a sunbed is comparable to four hours in the Mediterranean sun and that using sunbeds before 35 increases your chances of developing melanoma by 87%.

6. The fourth article reported the accounts of three women who battled cancer after using sunbeds. One of the women was quoted as saying "As far as I am concerned, sunbeds need to be banned. Mexico and Australia already have - and they've seen a drastic decrease in skin cancer cases”. The fact box titled “Dying for a tan” from the first article was also repeated in this article.

7. The fifth article reported the first-hand account of a man who stated he was addicted to tanning. The man blamed his tanning habits, which amounted to £500 a month, for the fact he was refused a mortgage. The article included a statement from the mortgage company which said: “’We would never reject an application on the basis of someone’s lifestyle choices or a Google search. We factor in a number of components to determine an individual’s eligibility and apply a rigorous and fair assessment process to each application.’ It could not discuss the named person’s specific application due to client confidentiality.” This article also contained the text box titled “Dying for a tan” from previous articles.

8. The sixth article reported on a celebrity’s own account of her insecurities about being pale, and how she dealt with this by using sunbeds, sunbathing and fake tan and how this had led to her being petrified that she will get skin cancer in the future. The article opened by reporting that the celebrity was speaking out on behalf of Fabulous’ “Dying For a Tan” series on the “risks of using sunbeds”. The celebrity was quoted as saying "In the last decade there has been an influx of skin cancer cases. It stems from people in the eighties and nineties spending hours on sunbeds. Now it's coming back to harm them later in life” and that "I do worry about getting skin cancer in the future - you only have to use a sunbed a handful of times.” The article also reported that around 50% of girls aged 15-17 in certain areas still use sunbeds. This article also contained the text box titled “Dying for a tan” from previous articles.

9. The seventh article reported on several women who had sunbeds in their own homes. The article opened with the claim that sunbeds were “as deadly as asbestos and can increase your risk of skin cancer by almost 90 per cent.” It also characterised sunbeds as “cancer timebombs”. One of the women featured described her struggle with Bowen’s disease and how she is currently battling a “potentially fatal cancer”. She described her disease as a “pre-melanoma form of skin cancer that forms squamous cell carcinoma” and that the “little lumps can go from a mark the size of a pinprick to a tumour the size of a grapefruit in no time - and it spreads around the body, fast.” She said her illness was caused by her use of sunbeds. Another of the women said seeing a doctor saved her life as she was diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma. The article repeated the claim that using sunbeds before the age of 35 increases your chances of developing melanoma by 87%.

10. The complainant, the association for the sunbed industry which represented tanning salon operators, as well as manufacturers and distributors of sunbeds and lamps, said that all of the articles were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as sunbeds, when used properly in regulated salons within the regulations set by the complainant, are not carcinogenic, as suggested in the articles.

11. The complainant said that the first article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 for numerous reasons. It said that using a case study of a woman who had basal cell carcinoma whilst using the headline “sunbed cancer” was inaccurate, as the woman in the case study had abused both sunbeds and the sun and it was not certain that using a sunbed was the sole cause of her basal cell carcinoma. It also said it was inaccurate to describe basal cell carcinoma as a “cancer” and that it would be more accurate to call this a skin lesion.

12. The complainant also said that stating in the first, second, third and fifth articles that the World Health Organisation classed sunbeds as “as dangerous as smoking” was misleading, as they did not mention the other carcinogens that the World Health Organisation had listed, such as the sun, alcohol and the contraceptive pill in Group 1. Group 1 carcinogens are classified by the World Health Organisation where there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. The complainant said that the publication had chosen smoking as it was the most sensational.

13. The complainant further said that reporting in the first, second, third and fifth articles that “Sunbeds pelt the skin with such strong UV rays that 20 minutes on one is comparable to four hours in the sun” was inaccurate and based on outdated research that did not take into account EU regulations, which had been introduced in the UK in 2009, and stated that one minute on a sunbed must be equal to one minute in the Mediterranean sun. The complainant said that the EU regulations had been introduced in 2009 and that the industry had 1-3 years in order to implement them before they were enforceable. The complainant said that the research that the newspaper had supplied had collected its data between 2010 and 2011, and therefore the EU sunbed restrictions had not been fully introduced at this point. The complainant said that this, in addition to the fact that the data had been collected over nine years ago, meant that it could not be considered to be accurate contemporary data.

14. The complainant also said that stating in the first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh articles that there were 7,000 tanning salons in Britain was inaccurate. It said that all the UK’s major sunbed suppliers sat on its board, and together they held the relevant data which confirmed that there were only 2,000 tanning salons in the UK. The complainant said, however, that they could not provide evidence of this as it could not be shared with third parties.

15. The complainant also said that the assertion that using sunbeds before the age of 35 increased your chances of developing melanoma by 87%, in the first, third and seventh articles, was inaccurate as the sources of this data were not included and the complainant felt that they were therefore unsubstantiated.

16. The complainant said that the second article also breached Clause 1 because the case studies were from the US and related to people abusing sunbeds. It said that this was misleading as the regulations and output are different from those in the UK and were therefore irrelevant to readers in the UK.

17. The complainant also said that it was inaccurate to state in the second article that prior to 2010 there were no restrictions on those under 18 to use sunbeds. The complainant said that since 1995 the Sunbed Association has not allowed anyone under 16 to use sunbeds, and health and safety guidelines also recommended no one under 16 to use them.

18. The complainant also said it was misleading to state in the second article that using sunbeds had a “devastating impact” on the user’s health, that using a sunbed at any age increased the risk of skin cancer by up to 25%, that children as young as eight were using sunbeds and that sunbeds “pelt[ed] the skin with such strong UV rays”. It said that the sources to these claims were not included and that they were therefore unsubstantiated.

19. The complainant said that the third article was also inaccurate as the person in the case study had abused sunbeds. It also said that reporting that the person’s cancer was caused by sunbed use was inaccurate as this was based on that person’s self-diagnosis.

20. The complainant said that the fourth article was inaccurate as, although the case studies were from the UK, they referred to people who had used a sunbed at a young age, at home without guidance and too frequently, rather than following the complainant’s guidelines.

21. The complainant said that it was inaccurate for the fourth article to quote one of the people in a case study as saying that sunbeds should be banned and that they had been in Mexico and Australia and that these countries had seen a decrease in melanoma since. The complainant said that Australia had not banned home sunbeds, just those in salons. It also provided documents from the Australian government’s website which said that the estimated number of incidents of melanoma was estimated to be 13,280 in 2016 and in 2019 it was estimated to be 15,229. It said this showed that melanoma incidence had increased in Australia since the country-wide ban at the end of 2014. It also said that Mexico had not banned sunbeds.

22. The complainant also said that the fifth article was misleading as the person in the case study had overused sunbeds and had used tanning injections, which the Sunbed Association did not support. It also said it was misleading to say that his tanning obsession resulted in his alleged mortgage application being denied, as the article had included a statement from the mortgage company which denied that his tanning habit had any part in their decision to reject his application.

23. The complainant said that the sixth article was misleading as the person the article was about had very pale skin and should not have used a sunbed. It said that stating that there are “risks” to using sunbeds was inaccurate. It also said that a quote from the woman interviewed in the article in which she said that the increase in skin cancer in the past decade was due to people using sunbeds in the eighties and nineties and that you can get skin cancer after using a sunbed “a handful of times” was inaccurate as the journalist had not asked her for medical evidence to back up her claim. The complainant also said it was misleading not to mention that skin cancer can also be caused by the sun after an anecdote in which the woman interviewed got sunburned and was left “laid in bed crying and in agony”.

24. The complainant said that the sixth article also breached Clause 1 as it referenced research that said 50% of girls aged 15 to 17 use sunbeds in certain areas such as Liverpool and Sunderland, but did not report the source.

25. The complainant also complained that the seventh article, which said that sunbeds are as deadly as asbestos and can increase the risk of skin cancer by 90%, because it did not quote the evidence for these claims. It also said that describing a sunbed, but not normal sunlight, as a “cancer timebomb” was inaccurate as it said that sunbed’s are not carcinogenic if used responsibly.

26. The complainant also said it was inaccurate for the woman in this article to describe her Bowen’s disease as “potentially fatal” in the seventh article as Bowen’s disease is not life-threatening and is a skin lesion that can be easily removed and does not metastasise. It also said that the woman in the case study saying that “If I hadn’t gone on the sunbeds, I’d have had perfect skin and would never have gone through all this pain" was misleading as it was a self-diagnosis and did not factor in exposure to sunlight.

27. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1 in any of the articles, as there was a wealth of information from a variety of sources that sunbeds cause cancer. For example, the publication noted: Cancer Research UK has reported that the “IARC (The International Agency for Research on Cancer [an intergovernmental agency forming part of the World Health Organization]) agrees sunbeds are an established cause of melanoma” and that “sunbeds can increase your risk of melanoma skin cancer by 16-20%”; advice from the NHS website which stated that “sunbeds give out ultraviolet (UV) rays that increase your risk of developing skin cancer”; a statement from the British Photodermatology Group which stated “sunbeds should not be used as they significantly increase the risk of skin cancer”; a study in the British Medical Journal which reported that first using sunbeds before the age of 35 increased the risk of getting melanoma by 87%; and that the World Health Organisation has classified sunbeds as Group 1 carcinogens.

28. The publication disagreed with the complainant’s definition of basal cell carcinoma in the first and seventh article as not a true cancer, as this condition is a form of cancer and those who are diagnosed with it face the same fears.

29. In relation to the first, second, third and fifth articles, the publication considered that as the complainant had agreed that the World Health Organisation classed sunbeds as a Group 1 carcinogens, there was no inaccuracy to report this and that it was within the same group as smoking.

30. The publication asserted that it had taken care when it reported in the first, second, third and fifth articles that “Sunbeds pelt the skin with such strong UV rays that 20 minutes on one is comparable to four hours in the sun”. It referred to a 2013 study in the British Journal of Dermatology which stated that nine out of ten sunbeds in England emitted ultraviolent radiation levels which exceeded current EU safety limits. It acknowledged that in 2009 EU regulations had been introduced which set sunbed safety limits, however it contested the complainant’s suggestion that these safety limits had a four year implementation period, and therefore all sunbeds in salons should have met the EU standard at the time the study was conducted. However, it said it would be happy to clarify this point both online and in print.

31. The publication said that the complainant had told another publication that there were between 6,000 and 7,000 tanning salons in the UK in an article in 2009. It said that it was therefore entitled to rely on this in the first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh articles. A further publication also contained a quote from the complainant estimating that there were between 3,500 and 4,000 tanning salons in the UK in 2019. The publication also said that the first article had reported that there were “around 7,000” salons, rather than stating it as fact. The publication offered to clarify the complainant’s position in a correction.

32. The publication also provided an article from the British Medical Journal as the source for the claim in the first, third and seventh articles that using sunbeds before the age of 35 increases your chances of developing melanoma by 87%.

33. The publication said that research reported on by Cancer Research UK said that people who had ever used a sunbed were 20% more likely to develop melanoma, and where other skin cancer causing factors were controlled for this rose to 29%. It therefore said that reporting that using a sunbed at any age increases the risk of skin cancer by up to 25% was not misleading in the way the complainant suggested.

34. The publication said that the quote in the fourth article, which referred to sunbeds being banned in Mexico and Australia and that these countries had seen a decrease in melanoma as a result, was a quote from an interviewee and was clearly attributed to her. It recognised that the interviewee may have mistakenly referred to Mexico when they meant to refer to Brazil, and the online article was amended to reflect this. However, it stated that this was clearly attributed to the woman in the case study and that this was her point of view. The publication also said that whether there had been a decrease in melanoma in Australia after the ban was not significant to the overall thrust of the article, and the complainant had not disputed the quote with respect to Brazil. The publication did, however, remove the quote from the article.

35. The publication said that the claim in the sixth article that cases of skin cancer had increased in the past decade due to people using sunbeds in the eighties and nineties was directly attributed to the celebrity who was the focus of this article. Nevertheless, it said that this was supported by Cancer Research UK, which stated that over the past decade melanoma rates had increased by almost two-fifths (38%) in the UK. Rates in females have increased by almost a third (30%), and rates in males have increased by almost half (47%) (2015-2017).

36. The publication also provided information from Cancer Research, the British Photodermatology Group and the NHS which demonstrated the link between sunbeds and skin cancer.

37. Whilst not accepting a breach of Clause 1, the publication offered to publish the following correction in print in the Corrections & Clarifications box on page 2 of the paper and online as a footnote to each article under complaint, and it said that it would remove the relevant sentences:

In a series of articles in 2019 we reported that 20mins on a sunbed was comparable to 4hrs in the sun. A 2013 study published in the British Journal of Dermatology found that 9 out of 10 sunbeds in England exceeded safety limits, emitting an average of 2.3 times more radiation than the Mediterranean midday sun. Sunbeds are carcinogenic, but there is no robust data showing 20mins on one is similar to 4hrs in the sun. We also reported that there were around 7,000 tanning salons in the UK. The Sunbed Association now estimates that there are around 2,000.

Relevant Code Provisions

38. 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.

Findings of the Committee

39. The publication had relied on the findings of multiple sources, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer, medical journals, the NHS, the World Health Organisation and cancer charities, that sunbeds do cause cancer as they emit UV rays which cause skin cancer, often stronger than natural sunlight. There was no breach of Clause 1 with regards to this in any of the articles under complaint.

The publication had not been able to provide contemporary evidence which demonstrated its claim that 20 minutes on a sunbed was comparable to four hours in the sun, which was reported in the first, second, third and fifth articles. On this basis, the Committee found that it had failed to take care under Clause 1(i). As this claim was repeated throughout the campaign, and could be found in a fact box, it was held to be a significant inaccuracy requiring correction under Clause 1(ii). The publication had initially relied on the fact that the assertion regarding the 20-minute statistic had been widely cited, however once it recognised that there was no robust data to support it, it had promptly offered to publish a correction. The wording identified the inaccuracy and set out the correct position, and the publication had offered to publish it on page 2 and as a footnote to the articles under complaint, which was duly prominent. The Committee considered that this was sufficient to meet the terms of Clause 1(ii).

40. The Committee noted that multiple websites and the NHS describe basal cell carcinoma as a cancer, and it was not inaccurate for the publication to characterise it this way in the first and seventh article. Additionally, the first article made clear that the basis for describing the person’s basal cell carcinoma as “sunbed cancer” was that the person giving the account attributed it to her abuse of sunbeds and the fact that she went in the sun without high factor sunscreen. The headline was clearly attributed to the woman giving the account of her skin cancer, and the basis for this was made clear. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

41. The Committee noted the complainant’s concerns that multiple articles had reported that the World Health Organisation classed sunbeds as “as dangerous as smoking” without including the other Group 1 carcinogens as identified by the World Health Organisation. As the complainant did not dispute that both smoking and sunbeds are classed as Group 1 carcinogens and publications are free to choose which facts they cite, there was no inaccuracy and there was no breach of Clause 1.

42. The first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh articles had reported that there were 7,000 tanning salons in Britain. The Committee noted that the newspaper had relied on a ten-year-old article for this information, while the complainant said the true figure was 2,000 tanning salons, but had been unwilling to provide any data to support this. However, in the context of the articles, which related to people’s personal negative experiences of using sunbeds, and where the complainant declined to provide evidence of the correct figure, this was not a significant inaccuracy and there was no breach of Clause 1. The Committee did, however, welcome the publication’s offer to put the complainant’s position on the record in a clarifying footnote.

43. The publication had demonstrated that the British Medical Journal had published a study which stated that using sunbeds before the age of 35 increased your chances of developing melanoma by 87%. It found that it was not a breach of Clause 1 to report this in the first, third and seventh articles without explicitly reporting the source within these articles. There was no failure to take care over the accuracy of the articles on this point.

44. The Committee noted the complainant’s concerns that the second article was published in a British newspaper, yet featured case studies from the US of people who had abused sunbeds. However, the country that the people featured lived in and their habits did not mean that the article was misleading, particularly where the article made clear that the people mentioned were from the US, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

45. The Committee found that in the second article, it was not inaccurate to state that there were no restrictions for under 18s using sunbeds. Whilst there may have been guidelines in place, there were no specific laws and the publication was entitled to characterise this as no restriction. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

46. In the second article, the Committee found it was not inaccurate to report that using sunbeds had a “devastating impact” on users’ health, as this was supported by the NHS, Cancer Research UK and the British Medical Journal’s reports that sunbeds can cause cancer as well as the World Health Organisation classifying sunbeds as a Group 1 carcinogen. The publication had also provided a blog from Cancer Research UK, which reported on a British Medical Journal article, which supported the assertion that using a sunbed at any age increases the risk of skin cancer by up to 25%. It was also not misleading to report that sunbeds “pelt the skin with such strong UV rays” as sunbeds, by nature, emit UV rays. “Pelt” was not a misleading word for this. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

47. The Committee also found that in the second article, the complainant was not in a position to dispute that children as young as eight were using sunbeds. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

48. The Committee noted the complainant’s concerns that the third article reported the experiences of a person who had used sunbeds without following the complainant’s recommendations, and that the link between the person’s cancer and sunbeds was based on that person’s self-diagnosis. However, the article was clearly a first-hand account from the person, and the publication was not in a position to know why the woman in the article’s cancer had developed, and the publication was entitled to report her own account of her illness. Further, the publication was entitled to report the sunbed habits of the subject of the case study – even if they were not what the complainant advised. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

49. Similarly, the fourth article was not inaccurate for reporting on people using sunbeds outside of the complainant’s guidelines, where the article had reported their sunbed habits accurately. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

50. The fourth article contained a quote from one of the case studies in which she said “As far as I am concerned, sunbeds need to be banned. Mexico and Australia already have - and they've seen a drastic decrease in skin cancer cases”. The woman was a layperson, and was interviewed in the article in order to give her first-hand account and opinion of sunbeds and their risks. It was accepted that the person had inaccurately stated that Mexico had banned sunbeds; in fact, Brazil had done so. In addition, the complainant had expressed concern that the woman had been wrong to assert that cases of skin cancer had fallen in Australia following the 2014 countrywide ban on sunbed use, and it had supplied information which demonstrated that estimated melanoma rates in Australia had increased between 2016 and 2019. However, the publication had taken care to accurately report the woman’s comments and it had correctly attributed them to her. On receipt of the complaint, the publication had amended the quote to refer to Brazil, rather than to Mexico, and the whole quote was later deleted during IPSO’s investigation. The Committee welcomed the amendment, but it did not consider that, in the context of the article, which detailed a woman’s personal experience, these represented significant inaccuracies which warranted correction under the terms of Clause 1.

51. Again, in the fifth article the Committee did not find it misleading to report a person’s first-hand account of their experiences of using sunbeds and tanning injections. The Committee also noted that it was clear from the article that it was the interviewee’s opinion that his tanning obsession resulted in his mortgage application being denied, it was not stated as fact. The article had also included a comment from the mortgage company which had denied his tanning was the reason he was denied a mortgage. On this basis, there was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

52. It was not misleading to report a person’s first-hand account of using a sun bed because she had pale skin in the sixth article. It was also not inaccurate to report that there are “risks” associated with sunbeds, when this is overwhelmingly supported by data. Furthermore, in an article about sunbeds, it was not misleading to omit to mention that being burned from natural sunlight can also cause cancer. There were no breaches of Clause 1 on these points.

53. The sixth article also contained a quote from the celebrity which said that the increase in skin cancer in the past decade was due to people using sunbeds in the eighties and nineties and that you can get skin cancer after using a sunbed “a handful of times”. The publication had demonstrated that there has been a significant increase in the number of skin cancer cases in the past decade. The Committee found that this person was entitled to cite sunbeds as a cause, when the publication had provided evidence that sunbeds have been established as a cause of cancer by organisations such as the WHO. In addition, where skin cancer is caused by over exposure to UV light, it was not inaccurate to report that a person can get skin cancer after using a sunbed “a handful of times” where this formed part of a quote attributed to an interviewee. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

54. The sixth article had referenced research that said that 50% of girls aged 15 to 17 use sunbeds in areas such as Liverpool and Sunderland. The complainant did not dispute the statistic but was concerned that the source had not been made clear. The Committee found that it was not inaccurate not to report the source of this research within the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

55. The Committee noted that the seventh article had not given the sources for the claims that sunbeds are as deadly as asbestos and can increase the risk of skin cancer by 90%. However, the publication had provided evidence from the British Medical Journal to support the fact that sunbeds can increase the risk of skin cancer by 90%, and both sunbeds and asbestos are Group 1 carcinogens as defined by the WHO. Omitting to mention the source of this information did not render the article inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

56. The Committee found that the publication was entitled to characterise sunbeds as a “cancer timebomb”, and omit to mention natural sunlight in the seventh article, due to the authoritative amounts of evidence provided by the publication that sunbeds are carcinogenic. In addition, the basis for this characterisation made clear in the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

57. The Committee found that the complainant was not in a position to dispute a woman’s first-hand account of her battle with Bowen’s disease. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

58. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1(i).

Remedial Action Required

59. The correction 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: 16/12/2019

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/06/2020

Back to ruling listing