Decision of the Complaints Committee 09541-19 Brown v The
Times
Summary of Complaint
1. Colin Brown complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code
of Practice in an article headlined “Village green opponent tells of abusive
Christmas cards”, published on 11 December 2019.
2. The article reported on the public hearing of a planning
application for land to be recognised as a village green. It reported that
there had been a “decade-long row over the planning application” and that the
hearing had been told that “abusive Christmas cards, graffiti and the police”
had been involved and that “officers were called to Forder”. It explained that
the owner of the land had said that she had been left terrified by threats and
abuse from people “she labelled Saga Louts” and that she claimed that things
started to turn nasty after an interim decision “went in her favour”. The
article reported that the complainant had agreed “to lead the bid” and that he
had submitted the application in 2008 on behalf of “150 villagers”. It reported
that he condemned the abuse and included a statement from him in which he said
that he did not believe any of the applicants were responsible.
3. The article appeared online in substantially the same
terms.
4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1. He said that the objector, the owner of the land, had not
appeared at the hearing and it was, therefore, inaccurate to report that the
objector had “said” or had “told” the hearing about the allegations of abuse. He
said it was also misleading and biased to report on the content of her witness
statement in circumstances where she had not been cross-examined.
5. He said that the article was inaccurate as the police
were not called to Forder in connection with the allegations of abuse, nor was
this said during the hearing. He also said that the hearing was not shown
pictures of the graffiti.
6. He also said it was misleading to describe the
application process as a “decadelong row” as he had never spoken to the
objector, and did not think it was appropriate to use a colloquial term such as
“row” in reference to a legal matter. He also found the term “Saga Louts” to be
insulting and inaccurate. The complainant also complained that the description
of "proper locals" in the article was inaccurate as the applicants
were long-term residents of Cornwall.
7. The complainant said it was inaccurate to report the
objector’s claim that an interim decision of the council had gone in her
favour, as in actuality the inquiry had simply been postponed. In addition, it
was inaccurate to describe the application as submitted “on behalf of 150
villagers” as it was actually 143 Saltash people who had completed a
questionnaire. He said that Forder was a hamlet and only a third of the group
lived there, so to name them all as “villagers” was misleading.
8. The complainant also said that it was inaccurate to
describe him as leading “the bid” as he was an applicant, and there was no
“bid”.
9. The complainant also said that the reporter had asked to
take a photograph of him, and asked the complainant to do this outside. The
complainant said the reporter had deliberately taken a photo of him out in the
rain in order to make him appear angry and to give a misleading impression of
him. This photograph was not published as part of the article.
10. The publication said it did not accept that the Code had
been breached. It said that the fact that the objector’s evidence was given to
the hearing in a witness statement which was not read out and that the objector
did not give oral evidence at the hearing did not affect the accuracy of the
terminology in the article. It said it was not significantly misleading to have
reported that the hearing “heard” or was “told” rather than “read”.
11. It also said that the article was an accurate and
precise report of the allegations of abuse made in the objector’s witness
statement, and that it was balanced with arguments from both sides, including a
statement from the complainant which made clear he condemned the abuse. It said
that it did not believe that it was necessary to set out the entire history of
the application and that the article did not take a position supporting either
side.
Relevant Code Provisions
12. 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
13. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that the
objector had not given oral evidence at the hearing and that her witness
statement had not been read out. However, the Committee did not consider that
it was significantly misleading to describe the content of her written witness
statement, which was provided to the hearing as evidence, as what the objector
had “told” the public meeting or had “said” during the hearing. The selection
of material for publication is a matter of editorial discretion, as long as the
Code is not breached. The newspaper was not obliged to report the evidence from
the applicants which was heard at the hearing, but noted that it had included a
statement from the complainant. The omission of the further information
identified by complainant was not misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1
on this point.
14. The Committee found that it was not inaccurate to report
that “officers had been called” to the area. It noted that the complainant was
not in a position to know whether the police had been called and had visited
the objector’s property, and that he himself had gone to the police station
after hearing allegations of a link between the abusive Christmas card and the
planning application. The abusive graffiti and the Christmas card had formed
part of the objector’s evidence and photographs of the graffiti had been
attached to her witness statement, which had been provided to the hearing as
evidence. In these circumstances, it was not misleading to report that the
hearing had been shown pictures of the graffiti. There was no breach of Clause
1 on these points.
15. The Committee found that it was not misleading to
characterise the planning application as a “decade-long row”; the application
had been submitted in February 2008 and was highly contentious. There was no
breach of Clause 1 on this point.
16. The Committee understood that the complainant found the
term “Saga Louts” to be offensive, however the Editors’ Code does not deal with
issues of offense. There was no breach of Clause 1.
17. The Committee did not find it misleading for the
newspaper to report the objector’s position that an interim decision had “gone
in her favour”. This was her opinion, and was clearly presented as such. There
was no breach of Clause 1.
18. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that the
143 applicants included people from the wider Saltash locality and are not just
the residents of Forder. However, in the
context of an article which was reporting on the hearing of a planning
application affecting the local community, it did not consider that it was
significantly misleading to report that the application had been made “on
behalf of 150 villagers”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
19. The Committee did not find it significantly inaccurate
to describe the complainant as leading “the bid” in circumstances where he had
submitted the planning application and where the nature of the application was
made clear in the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
The Committee noted the complainant’s concern with regards
to the photograph that was taken of him. However, this photograph was not
included in the online or print version of the article and therefore his
concern did not engage the terms of Clause 1.
Conclusions
20. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
21. N/A
Date complaint received: 15/12/2019
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/03/2020