Resolution
Statement - 10972-20 Khan v birminghammail.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Asaf
Khan complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
birminghammail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code of
Practice in an article headlined “City politician [named councillor] gets
massive legal bill over bid to silence Twitter claims " published on 8
August 2019.
2. The
article reported on a legal dispute between a named councillor and the
complainant, a Birmingham resident. The article reported that “In February last
year [2018] the Independent Standards Board of Birmingham City Council
concluded an investigation into the conduct of [the named councillor] triggered
by his handling of a controversial row over a schoolgirl relative wearing a
hijab. The inquiry also looked at ‘historical speculation’ and ruled there was
‘no case to answer’”.
3. The
complainant said that the statement that the “inquiry also looked at
‘historical speculation’” was inaccurate as the independent investigation had
been focused on a single matter of complaint in relation to the use of social
media, and had not addressed historic allegations against the councillor. He
also said the claim that the inquiry “ruled there was ‘no case to answer’” was
inaccurate as it had actually found there to be a breach of contract in relation
to the use of social media. He said this was confirmed by extracts from the
independent report and its terms of reference, both of which he had obtained
via a Freedom of Information request. He also said this was confirmed by
council minutes published in February 2020.
4. The
publication said that it had not had access to these documents at the time the
article was published. In addition, it said it had been widely reported in 2017
that the councillor had requested a review into all current and historical
speculation. Nevertheless, it amended the article in light of the new
information contained in the council minutes published in February 2020. It
also published the following as a footnote clarification:
UPDATED:
This article has been updated on 22 July 2020, to reflect the new information
of the release of a public report to Birmingham City Council's Standards
Committee, February 2020, which clarified that the inquiry by the Independent
Standards Board looked at specific allegations relating to one incident, and
did not look into historic allegations against [named councillor]. We are happy to clarify this.
5. The
complainant did not accept this offer as it did not address the allegedly
inaccurate claim that the inquiry “ruled there was ‘no case to answer’”.
Relevant
Code Provisions
6.
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.
Mediated
Outcome
7. The
complaint was not resolved during the referral period. IPSO therefore began an
investigation into the matter.
8. During
IPSO’s investigation, the publication offered to publish the following
correction to appear as a footnote to the amended online article:
UPDATED:
This article has been updated to clarify that an independent investigation into
the conduct of [named councillor] looked only at specific allegations relating
to his handling of a row involving a school uniform policy. It did not look
into historic allegations against him. In addition, the investigation did not
rule that “there was ‘no case to answer’” as originally reported. In fact, it
found that there was a "breach of contract in relation to the use of
social media".
9. The
complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.
10. 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: 29/06/2020
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 08/10/2020