Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 13241-21 Wood v Helensburgh Advertiser
Summary
of Complaint
1. David
and Roanna Wood complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that
Helensburgh Advertiser breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of
Practice in an article headlined “Two more 'missing children' at nursery/ Care
watchdog confirms two more ‘missing children’ nursery incidents”, published on
11th November 2021.
2. The
article appeared on the front page and appeared again in a longer form on page
7 under the headline “Care watchdog confirms two more ‘missing children’ nursery
incidents”. It reported that “FURTHER safety concerns have been raised at a
Helensburgh nursery [owned by the complainants] after it was revealed that
THREE missing child incidents have been recorded in the last 12 months”. It
stated that two members of staff had been suspended and an investigation had
been instigated “after a child was ‘found on the street’ having gone missing
from the from the Churchill facility’s ‘forest school’ at the end of October”.
The article also reported that “[t]he Care Inspectorate confirmed that they had
been notified by management of two incidents at the nursery, and a further
incident - reported in last week’s [newspaper]- at the nursery’s
recently-opened forest school”, and that this was “in addition” to an incident
covered by the publication a week earlier.
3. It
continued by stating that after this incident was covered and shared by the
publication, it “attracted a string of comments from readers when shared on
social media”. The article included examples of these comments made by named
individuals, such as one that said, “’This isn’t the first time a child hasn’t
been safe at this nursery. A staff member’s child got out the back gate’” and
another who said, “my nephew is in this nursery and was found out on the street
by another parent who took him back into the nursery very recently”. The
article further said it had been contacted by another individual who asked to
remain anonymous who said “’A toddler went missing in August from the nursery
building itself and was returned by a member of the public’.” It also referred
to a “Care Inspectorate spokesperson [who] said they had been notified by the
nursery of three incidents” and that the “Nursery did not respond to a request
for comment”.
4. The
complainants said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. They
said that, although they did not dispute one incident relating to the school,
which had been reported in an earlier edition of the newspaper, the two
additional incidents raised in this article did not involve two children going
“missing”. They said two incidents had been reported to the Care Inspectorate
where children had gone off-site but that the location of the children involved
was always known. It provided screenshots of the incident reports it had sent
to the Care Inspectorate. The first incident involved a child exiting the
nursery garden to see their parent during morning drop-off. The second incident report said a child had
left “unnoticed” whilst a parent was speaking with a staff member. Staff had
been looking for the child for less than a minute when they were found in the
foyer area. During IPSO’s investigation, the complainant clarified that a
second staff member had seen the child leave but had assumed the other staff
member was also aware. When the other staff member started doing a headcount
and searching for the child in the room, the second staff member went after the
child where they saw a parent bring the child to the front door. The whole
incident lasted approximately one minute.
5. The
complainants also said the article was inaccurate because it implied the
Nursery and the forest school were the same entity, even though they were
separate. They said the article was further inaccurate because it included a
picture of the Community Centre, which is run by the Royal Navy. The
complainants said that while the buildings were physically joined, the Nursery
was a distinct entity from the Community Centre.
6. The
publication said it did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the
article it had published about the first incident had prompted various other
sources to come forward with information. One source, who had not confirmed
their connection to the nursery had said a child “went missing in August after
they somehow got out of the nursery building, and they had to be brought back
by a member of the public who was walking by and found them on the street.” A
further, anonymous, source had told them about a child that had “got out.”
These claims were supported by a number of comments made on Facebook: one
comment referred to a staff member’s child having “got out the back gate” and a
second post said a child that was known to them had been “found out on the
street by another parent… [having] got out unnoticed”.
7. The
publication provided a translation of some of the shorthand notes it had taken
during follow-up phone calls as well as the text of the abovementioned Facebook
comments. The publication also stated that some information it disclosed to
IPSO came from the reporter’s recollections. After receiving these allegations,
the publication contacted the Care Inspectorate to confirm whether it had been
notified of these incidents. The Care Inspectorate provided a statement that
said, “The Care Inspectorate has been notified appropriately by the care
provider of two incidents at Drumfork Nursery and Family Centre”. After
receiving this, the publication contacted the nursery on the day before it went
to print for comment. This email included allegations made by members of the
public as well as confirmation that the Care Inspectorate had “been notified of
two incidents and the nursery and family centre, as well as the most recent
incident at the forest school”.
8. The
publication said that the sources had implied that the children’s whereabouts
were unknown as they were not under the supervision of nursery staff when they
were in the care of the nursery. It asserted that the Care Inspectorate had not
disputed that the children were missing when asked directly and, as such, it
had no reason to believe “missing children” was an inaccurate characterisation.
In addition, the publication said it had seen the incident reports provided by
the nursery to the Care Inspectorate, giving its account of the two events, for
the first time during IPSO’s investigation. It stated that the account about
one of the incidents said the child had left “unnoticed” and staff had been
trying to find them for nearly a minute. Where this was the case, the
publication argued it was not inaccurate or misleading to characterise the
incidents as children going “missing”.
9. Regarding
the image that was used in the article, the publication asserted it was not
significantly inaccurate or misleading. It said that the nursery premises and
the Drumfork Community Centre were part of the same complex and that the
nursery’s address was given on its website as the “Drumfork Community Centre”.
It also said it was not inaccurate to refer to incidents at the forest school
and the nursery as the complainants managed both services.
10.
Notwithstanding the above, prior to IPSO’s involvement, the publication had
offered to work with the complainants to write a follow up article or to change
the article before it was published online. During IPSO’s investigation, the
publication also offered to work with the complainants to publish a statement
on page four of the newspaper. This would be further forward in the newspaper
than the bulk of the original article, which appeared on page seven:“On November
11, 2021 the Advertiser published a news article about the Drumfork Nursery and
Family Centre in Helensburgh headlined ‘Care watchdog confirms two more
‘missing children’ nursery incidents’.
The
nursery’s owners, David and Roanna Wood, state that in the first of those
incidents a child was able to exit the nursery garden and reach their parent at
the other side of the nursery gate/car park area.
Mr and
Mrs Wood say that in the second incident a child left the nursery building for
just under a minute after getting through an open door unnoticed while their
parent was speaking to a member of staff.
They say
that the door, a second internal door, had been left open to ensure ventilation
while the parent was in, and that the child was met by the parent and a staff
member in the outdoor foyer area, where the child was returned to the service.
The Care
Inspectorate was notified on each occasion and each of the incidents
investigated. The nursery’s procedures and risk assessments were amended where
appropriate and staff reminded of the importance of the welfare and safety of
children. The Advertiser is happy to make the nursery’s position clear.”
11. The
complainants did not accept the publication’s offer as a resolution to their
complaint.
Relevant
Code 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.
Findings
of the Committee
12. The
Committee first considered the point of complaint regarding whether there had
been “Two more 'missing children' at nursery” and that “THREE missing child
incidents have been recorded in the last 12 months” at the nursery. One
incident, previously reported by the publication, was not in dispute regarding
whether a child had gone “missing” and so the question for the Committee was
whether it was accurate to say there had been “[t]wo more ‘missing children’”.
The Committee noted that the publication had received information from two
sources, which accorded with accounts on social media, that two further
incidents had taken place. After receiving the allegations, the newspaper
contacted the Care Inspectorate to confirm the details of the allegations.
Whilst the Care Inspectorate did not explicitly confirm that there had been
incidents involving “missing” children, it also did not dispute the
allegations. The publication also approached the nursery for comment, with the
allegations set out in relative detail, but the nursery had not responded.
Given this, the Committee
considered
that the publication had taken sufficient care not to publish inaccurate or
misleading information and there was no breach of Clause 1(i).
13. The Committee then considered whether,
despite the care taken, it was significantly inaccurate or misleading to report
that there had been “[t]wo more ‘missing children’ at nursery” and that “THREE
missing child incidents have been recorded in the last 12 months”. The
Committee wished to make clear that it was not taking a view on the nature of
the incidents themselves and it recognised that the use of the term “missing”,
particularly in relation to children, could be suggestive of a range of scenarios
of differing severity. However, it was not in dispute that in both incidents
young children had, however briefly, been able to leave the nursery building
when they should not have been able to do so. It was therefore not
significantly inaccurate for the publication to characterise these as incidents
of “missing children”. There was no breach of Clause 1(ii).
14. The
Committee then considered whether the photograph of the Community Centre
represented a breach of Clause 1. The Committee noted that the image did not
show the nursery specifically. However, where the nursery was located at the
centre, it was not significantly inaccurate or misleading to include an image
of the Community Centre as a whole. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this
point.
15. The
Committee then turned to whether the article had inaccurately conflated the
forest school with the nursery and where the reported incidents took place.
Where the complainants operated both services and where the article accurately
reported which incidents had taken place at which service, the Committee
considered that it was not inaccurate or misleading to also refer to an
incident at the school. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point
Remedial
Action Required
Date
complaint received: 18/12/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/09/2022
Back to ruling listing