Decision of the Complaints Committee – 27841-20 Dainton v
Bristol Post
Summary of Complaint
1. Hayley Dainton complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that Bristol Post breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2
(Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an
article headlined “Wrong uniform Pupil sent home on first day back”, published
on 7 September 2020.
2. The article reported on a mother who had criticised her
son’s school for sending him home for wearing the wrong uniform. The mother was
quoted in the article as saying “It is a real struggle for parents on a budget
to be able to afford this expensive school uniform and shoes, and I’ve been
saving up as much as I could all summer. In the end, when I went to buy [the
child’s] uniform I found there’s a ten-day delivery time, and it didn’t come in
time.” The article named the mother, her son and the school, and contained a
photograph of the mother and her son in the outfit he had been sent home in.
3. The article also appeared online in substantially the
same format with the headline “Mum's fury as boy sent home from secondary
school after 15 minutes because he wasn't wearing the right clothes”.
4. The complainant, the woman quoted, said that the article
was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She considered that the article suggested
inaccurately that she had financial difficulties and denied having said that
“It is a real struggle for parents on a budget to be able to afford this
expensive school uniform and shoes, and I’ve been saving up as much as I could
all summer.” She said that the point she had tried to make was that the shop
had not been open to the public during the summer, and that she had not
discussed any financial matters with the reporter.
5. The complainant also said that the article breached
Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) because it intruded into her son’s
privacy. She said that her son had asked the photographer to keep his face
blurred in the photographs. Initially the complainant said that the
photographer had responded that he would ask his manager what could be done
about that, and later in IPSO’s investigation stated that the photographer had
said his manager would “sort it out”. She said that her son was embarrassed to
attend school as a result of the article, and that when he did attend, other children
referred to the article. The complainant said that this led to her son’s
permanent exclusion and made her, and her son feel embarrassed and ashamed. The
complainant said that the publication had not expressly asked for her consent
for her, her son, and the school to be named.
6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
said that the complainant had approached it about running a story on the issue,
and it provided a copy of the email she had sent to its news desk. A reporter
had subsequently had a telephone conversation with the complainant, and
provided contemporaneous notes of this that reflected what had been written in
the article. The relevant passage of the notes stated that “Because of
coronavirus (they were) only doing online orders (and to) allow at least 10
days. I saved up all summer for this (but) they've got a massive backlog. I
have looked elsewhere; ”I put it in 10
days on Tuesday I thought I could go in and buy it“... ”The teacher rang me
last week I told him the uniform hasn’t come. It’s a real struggle for parents
on a budget, I've been saving up as much as I could, it’s black trousers,
school shirt, (he) borrowed her tie, black sweatshirt.”
7. The publication apologised that the publication of the
article had caused the complainant and her son distress, but did not accept
that there had been a breach of Clause 2 or Clause 6. It noted that the
complainant had approached it about the story and had posed willingly with her
son for photographs to illustrate it. It denied any knowledge that a request
had been made to pixelate the photograph. While the photographer no longer
worked for the publication, it provided an account from the reporter. The
reporter said that the photographer had discussed what the photos would look
like with the complainant and her son at the time they were taken, and that it
had received no instruction to blur the photographs from either the
photographer or the complainant. It said that the complainant had not asked for
herself, her son, or the school to be anonymous. The publication did not accept
that the photographs contained any personal or private information about the
complainant or her son and noted that all the information had been provided by
the complainant.
8. At the start of IPSO’s investigation the publication
offered to delete the online article as a gesture of goodwill.
9. The complainant said that this would not resolve her
complaint as she believed the harm had already been done by the publication of
the article.
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.
Clause 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and
family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including
digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any
individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's
reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's
own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material
complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without
their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
Clause 6 (Children)*
i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at
school without unnecessary intrusion.
ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school
without permission of the school authorities.
iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or
photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a
custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.
iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material
involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their
children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.
v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a
parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's
private life.
Findings of the Committee
10. Because of the apparent impact the story had on the complainant’s son, the Committee
considered first the complaints under Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6
(Children) about the publication of the unpixellated photograph.
11. Clause 2 states that editors will be expected to justify
intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent, and that in
considering an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy, the Committee
must take account of the person’s own public disclosures of information. Clause
6 contains special protections for children. Clause 6(i) provides that all
pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary
intrusion. Clause 6 (ii) states that children under 16 must not be interviewed
or photographed on issues relating to their welfare unless a custodial parent
or similarly responsible adult consents.
12. At the heart of the complaint was a dispute that the
Committee could not reconcile: the complainant said that her son had requested that
his face be blurred, and that the photographer had responded that he would “ask
his manager”, and that later in the investigation said that the photographer
had said his manager would “sort it out”, but the newspaper then published the
photograph without further communication. The publication denied any knowledge
of the request. It was not in dispute, however, that the complainant had
approached the newspaper seeking publication of the story and had provided
information about the dispute, including her own name, the name of her son and
the school. The complainant had volunteered this information for publication without any restriction on its use, and
therefore the Committee found she had consented to the publication of this
information, even if she was not expressly asked for written consent.
13. The complainant had also consented to the publication of
photographs of herself and her son by arranging and then posing for the
photographs. While it was a matter of significant regret that the complainant’s
son’s education had been affected by the publication of the story, and that
there was a dispute over whether a request had been made for his face to be
blurred; in circumstances where the complainant had consented to the
publication of information about the dispute, including her name, her son’s
name, and the name of his school, the complainant’s son would have been
identified even if his photograph had been blurred. On this basis, the article
did not breach Clause 2 or Clause 6. Nonetheless the Committee welcomed the
publication’s offer to remove the article, given the distress caused to the
complainant’s son.
14. The Committee then considered the complaint under Clause
1. There was a disagreement between the complainant and the publication as to
whether the complainant had said the quotes which had been attributed to her in
the article. The reporter had taken contemporaneous notes during the interview
with the complainant and supplied these to IPSO during its investigation.
Clause 1(i) requires that publications take care not to publish inaccuracies.
One way in which publications can demonstrate care taken over accuracy is
through the production of contemporaneous notes. In this instance, the
publication had been able to supply contemporaneous shorthand notes that
supported the accuracy of the quotes included in the article. Whilst the
complainant denied that she had made these statements, where the
contemporaneous notes supported what had been reported in the article and no
counterevidence [MR1] undermining the
notes or supporting the complainant’s position was presented to the Committee,
the Committee did not establish a failure to take care over the accuracy of the
article, and there was no breach of Clause 1.
Conclusions
15. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
16. N/A
Date complaint received: 06/09/2020
Date decision issued: 06/04/2021