Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 12648-22 Grandon v hadleigh.nub.news
Summary
of Complaint
1. Cllr Kathyrn Grandon complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that hadleigh.nub.news breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 3 (Harassment) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the following articles:
2. The
complainant and the Editor of the publication under complaint are both serving
councillors for Babergh District Council.
3. The
first article – which appeared online only – reported on a meeting of the
council, during which a motion was approved to support the Local Government
Association's (LGA) campaign against the abuse of politicians. The article
stated that the complainant and another councillor “were known to have taken
part in [a] protest, which led to a Hadleigh Conservative being arrested and
handed a suspended sentence”.
4. The
second article – which also appeared online only – was a satirical comment
piece that focused on the “virtue signalling behind the [LGA’s] Debate not Hate
campaign, recently endorsed by Babergh councillors”. While condoning the “use
of threats and intimidation”, the article referenced an incident “when
'Footsie' Grutchfield led the likes of Councillors 'Queenie' Dawson and
'Grandone' Grandon to remonstrate with 'Generalissimo' Ward and some [by]
joining a convoy and ended up scaring [the child of the Council’s leader], who
was home alone at the time.”
5. The
complainant said both articles were inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1. She
denied that she had been involved in the protest. While she accepted that she
had been present at the assembly point for the demonstration – a car park – she
said she had done so unknowingly. She said that once she had been informed of
the purpose of the demonstration, she had departed; confirming to those present
that she would not be attending the protest.
6. The
complainant also said that the Editor of the publication had breached Clause 3.
She said that on 22 November 2022 – and the day before the first article was
published – she had informed the Editor that she had been asked not to invite
him to attend a charity event due to concerns by other attendees about recent,
unspecified coverage by the publication. The complainant said that the Editor
became “loud and angry” on hearing this, stating that he “would not be
attending [the event] with his Editor hat [on] but [rather] as Vice Chair”. The
complainant said that she then explained he was viewed by some as being too
“closely associated” with the publication and even the publication itself by
others. In response, she said that the Editor alleged her actions were part of
a party-political scheme, telling her that he would ensure she would not serve
as Chair of the council again and in doing so stated: “I will destroy you. You
will regret this. I will finish you”. She then said that she told the Editor he
was “threatening” her to which he responded: “I’m not threatening you; I’m
advising you”. The complainant said his tone while delivering this sentence was
“menacing”, and his conduct throughout the exchange had been threatening and
“out of control”.
7. The
complainant said that during this exchange the Editor had threatened to destroy
her career as a local politician, and felt he was “weaponising” the publication
against her. While the complainant accepted that the Editor did not make
explicit reference to the publication and/or his role as Editor during this
exchange, she said that such a reference was unnecessary: he was the Editor and
regularly referenced the publication and his position during council meetings.
8. To
support this position, the complainant said that the reference to her attending
the protest had been added to the first article by the Editor. She supplied an
email from the reporter which said that the disputed statement had not appeared
in the original copy of the article, but had instead been added in by the
Editor; and noted that the disputed statement did not appear in other articles
syndicated to sister publications.
9. The
complainant had contacted the publication shortly after the first story was
published to express her concern that the article was inaccurate. She addressed
her concerns directly, via e-mail, to the reporter and the Editor and requested
that the online article be corrected.
10. While
it accepted the challenges presented by the Editor’s dual role as a councillor
and a journalist, the publication denied a breach of Clause 3. It noted the
context of the exchange between the Editor and complainant: it related to the
workings of the local council and represented a continuation of political
antipathy between the two individuals. Though it accepted that there may have
been a “lack of tact” on part of the Editor, it said that there was clearly
historic and personal animosity involved on both sides.
11. The
publication provided to IPSO a written statement by the Editor, who maintained
that the coverage was accurate, and that his actions did not constitute
harassment or intimidation. He denied threatening the complainant. He
considered that the complainant’s contention that his comments during the exchange
had been menacing and threatening as a distortion: he had explained that her
demands were unreasonable and without justification as he had a duty to attend
the council event in his capacity of vice-Chairman; and left the meeting
immediately after the complainant said she thought he was threatening her.
12. While
it recognised that the complainant was best placed to comment on her active
involvement with the protest, the publication also denied a breach of Clause 1.
It maintained that its coverage was accurate: it was not in dispute that the
complainant had been present in the car park where the protest assembled, and
from which the convoy commenced, which led to criminal offences taking place.
It noted that her presence had been noted by a number of individuals and said
it was therefore reasonably assumed that she was part of the demonstration.
13. In
its first response during IPSO’s investigation, and 64 days after it had first
been notified of the complaint through direct correspondence from the complainant
(the day the first article was published), the publication suggested that it
would have considered amending the online articles had its “formal complaints
handling process” been followed. Notwithstanding this, the publication then
offered to publish a clarification and invited the complainant to propose
wording that would resolve her complaint; the complainant did not accept this
offer, and the publication did not offer any specific wording for this item or
specify where it would appear – either at the time or during IPSO’s
investigation when explicitly asked to do so.
Relevant
Clause 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 3
(Harassment)*
i)
Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They
must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing
individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave
and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom
they represent.
iii)
Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and
take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.
Findings
of the Committee
14. The
Editor’s conduct in his role as a Councillor fell outside the scope of IPSO
regulation. His dual role as a councillor and a journalist therefore required
the Committee to consider to what extent he was acting in his capacity as an
Editor in his interactions with the complainant.
15. The
Committee considered first the complaint with respect to the complainant’s
conversation with the Editor about his potential attendance at the charity
event. It noted that the two parties had differing accounts of what was said
and the meaning of the Editor’s comments. The Committee noted that the
interaction had occurred after a council meeting – which both parties had
attended respectively in their capacity as councillors. The complainant
acknowledged that the Editor had not made express reference to his role at the
publication, although in her view it was implied by his comments. While it was
accepted that the Editor had made amendments to the first article after the
interaction, there was no evidential basis to suggest a direct causal
relationship between these two events. While the Committee acknowledged the
complainant’s concerns about the Editor’s conduct, it concluded that there was
an insufficient basis to establish that the Editor had been speaking in his role
as Editor during this interaction or that his actions could reasonably be
considered part of the newsgathering process. The Committee did not find a
breach of Clause 3 in relation to this interaction.
16. The
Committee next considered the concerns raised under Clause 1. Both articles
reported that the complainant took “part” in / “join[ed]” a protest which led
to criminal offences taking place. While the complainant maintained that she
did not actively participate in the demonstration, it was not in dispute that
she had been present at the location where the protest assembled and from which
the convey commenced. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider
that the articles were inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause
1.
Conclusion(s)
17. The
complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
action required
18. N/A
Date
complaint received: 28/11/2022
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/05/2023
The Independent Press Standards Organisation C.I.C. is a Community Interest Company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with registered number 02538908.
