Decision
of the Complaints Committee – 16942-23 Hood v dailyrecord.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Garry Hood complained to the Independent
Press Standards Organisation that dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Ayrshire
bowler kicked off Commonwealth Games team after alleged racist message”,
published on 20 July 2022.
2.
The article reported that the complainant had
been “kicked off the Scotland Commonwealth Games team for posting allegedly
racist remarks on social media” and that he had “post[ed] controversial remarks
about Prime Minister hopeful Rishi Sunak and Scottish health secretary, Humza
Yousaf”.
3.
The article reported that the “controversial
post has since been deleted”; however, it included a screenshot of a follow-up
post the complainant had made. The screenshot included in the article said:
“Been kicked out of Commonwealth Games by
Bowls Scotland for posting this on my Facebook.
[REDACTED]
Anyone who knows me will know I speak my mind.
This transcends everything in life as free speech. A basic right of every
individual.
For clarity I’ve given no opinion on the post,
or indeed said I’d be against Rishi Sunak being our next PM, Islamist or not.
My support for him can be found on my social media, and my support started soon
into the Covid19 pandemic, as he supported many thousands of people and
businesses throughout the pandemic.
Since Boris Johnson resigned, Rishi has been
favourite for PM, and all I’ve done is re-iterated this, no matter his colour,
creed or religion.
I post this to let my friends know what’s
going on, as my phone hasn’t stopped ringing & pinging since yesterday.
I wish my colleagues all the very best at
Birmingham 2022. Bring back the gold yins!
Feel free to share.”
4.
The article went on to say that:
“a spokesperson for Bowls Scotland said they
were still in the middle of a disciplinary process and were limited as to what
they could say. However, a statement read: ‘Bowls Scotland is aware of messages
which have been posted on social media. We are working with Commonwealth Games
Scotland to investigate the issue further. Bowls Scotland is firm in our belief
that we welcome participants from all communities, nations and backgrounds and
there is no room for racism in our sport or in society. We will make no further
comment on this incident at this time.’”
5.
The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1
(Accuracy) as it implied that he was racist, and that he had been investigated
in relation to allegations of racism. He said that the complaint against him
actually related to allegations of Islamophobia in a Facebook post – which he
accepted – and that Bowls Scotland had told him that they had not claimed that
he was racist. He provided an email from Bowls Scotland, which said as follows:
“You were not accused of racism by Bowls Scotland.
Bowls Scotland was approached by the Daily Record regarding your disciplinary
case and declined to comments on the specifics. Bowls Scotland provided a
general comment to the Daily Record underlying our commitment to equality and
inclusivity within our sport but made no comment about you personally.”
6.
The publication did not accept that the article breached the Code. It said that
the article made clear throughout that it was “alleged” that the message was
racist; no claim of fact was made as to whether the message was racist or not.
It said that the complainant was suspended from all bowling activity for three
months from July 2022 and told to undergo equality and diversity training after
posting the following message on his Facebook page: "We're about to see
the final moves in our country folks. Sunak (Islamist) & Yusaf (Islamist)
about to run our UK!"
7.
The publication also noted that the statement from Bowls Scotland, which referenced
“racism”, was clearly attributed to the organisation and had been accurately
reported.
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.
Findings
of the Committee
8.
The complainant did not dispute that he had posted “controversial remarks”
about two politicians, nor that this post had resulted in an investigation into
the remarks. What was in dispute was whether the post had been alleged to be
Islamaphobic only – which the complainant accepted – or whether it could also
be described as “racist”, which was what the article had said had been
“alleged” about the post. Where the article – by way of including the
complainant’s follow-up post – made clear the original comment related to the
politicians being “islamist”, and where the statement from Bowls Scotland
included a reference to “racism”, the Committee did not consider that it was
significantly inaccurate to describe the post as an “alleged racist message” –
it was clear that the allegation and complaints arose from the original posts’
assertion that the politicians were “islamist”. There was no breach of Clause 1
on this point.
9.
The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 1 by including Bowls
Scotland’s statement. However, where it was not in dispute that the publication
had accurately reported the statement, and where the statement did not include
any claims about the complainant or the post – and in fact was prefaced by the
fact that “Bowls Scotland said they were still in the middle of a disciplinary
process and were limited as to what they could say” – there was no breach of
Clause 1 on this point.
Conclusions
10.
The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial
action required
11.
N/A
Date
complaint received: 01/03/2023
Date
complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/06/2023
Independent
Complaints Reviewer
The
complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process
followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints
Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request
for review.