00322-24 A complainant v swindonadvertiser.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. A complainant complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that swindonadvertiser.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “[Named school] allegations spark council response”, published on 8 August 2023.

2. The article, which appeared online only, opened:

“Wiltshire Council are looking into allegations of racism and bullying levelled at a local primary school. [Named school] has found itself at the centre of a racism row after [a different publication] reported headteacher [the complainant] used the N-word to describe a group of black children in November 2021. It is understood that the group of children the headteacher is accused of talking about were not pupils at the school. [A different publication] claim that in recent years the school has lost 22 members of staff and around a third of its pupils after parents pulled them out due to a number of concerns”.

3. Further to the above, the article reported: “An interim board of governors is currently in place after seven governors resigned simultaneously in June, claiming their relationship with the school’s senior leadership had become ‘strained.’ The departing governors had urged the council and Clifton Diocese to investigate a range of issues over the past year but felt no action had been taken”.

4. Toward the end of the article were statements from a Council official and a spokesperson for the Interim Executive Board of the school. It also reported that the “school was contacted for comment and did not respond”.

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because they had not used the n-word to describe any specific individual – they had used it when “referring to when groups of people and rappers use it amongst themselves”. They stated that the matter had been investigated externally, it had been found that they had “no case to answer”, and no further action had been brought against them. In support of their position, the complainant supplied a summary report, written by the new Chair of Governors, of an external investigation into a series of allegations against them.

6. Further to the above, the complainant said that the article inaccurately and misleadingly suggested that all staff and pupils who had left the school had done so due to their actions – since 2019, 21 staff had left the school, and not all of their departures, the complainant said, could be attributed to them. The complainant also stated that the governors at the school had not resigned due to their actions, and that the article was inaccurate to suggest this. They also said that the article only reported one side of the story.

7. Further to this, the complainant also expressed a number of additional concerns regarding the accuracy of a separate article, published by a different publication.

8. The complainant stated that the article breached Clause 2 because it reported their name without their permission. The complainant also stated that the article had reported internal allegations against them which should not have been in the public domain, and which they considered had been maliciously leaked to another publication as part of an ongoing dispute.

9. In addition, the complainant stated that the “very nature” of the article breached Clause 3 – they said the allegations against them had been reported without due diligence, and this had led to bullying and harassment in their local community. The complainant also stated that the conduct of a journalist who had written an article for a separate publication had breached Clause 3.

10. Finally, the complainant stated that the article breached Clause 6 because of the impact it had had both on children at the school and on their own children.

11. On 21 February, IPSO informed the publication that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code. On 28 February, the publication contacted the complainant via email; the email included the following:

Focusing on the story our reporter […] wrote, would it be possible to specify which statements are inaccurate. Then I can look at them each in turn and see what we can do.

I should say that I find nothing wrong with what we have written ourselves, as there’s a clear public interest in doing so and every statement is based on fact, but as mentioned please raise specific issues.

You have mentioned that since this article there have been various investigations. Would it be possible to get sight of these reports? Obviously this would help give a more thorough understanding of what has taken place and what is now happening at the school.

It might be that you find a story about the conclusion of the investigation into the issues at the school would help clear the matter in your favour”.

12. Following the commencement of IPSO’s investigation, the complainant made a further complaint under Clause 3. They said that the publication’s email, quoted above, was “rude in tone”, and they believed it was an attempt to obtain material for a further article on the matter.

13. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Turning first to Clause 1, it stated that the article was factually correct, and made clear the allegation had initially been reported by a different publication. It added that the fact a report had been published after the article’s publication was “irrelevant” – in any event, the publication noted that it was not in dispute that the complainant had used the n-word.

14. In support of its position, the publication supplied the original article from the different outlet, which its article was based upon. Published on 30 July, under the headline: “EXCLUSIVE Headteacher 'used N-word to describe black pupils' at 'toxic' primary school at centre of racism and bullying storm: Third of pupils have now been pulled from lessons by their worried parents”, the previous article included the following extracts:

“EXCLUSIVE: Pupils leaving [the school] in droves

Headteacher [the complainant] allegedly used the N-word to describe black children

Teachers, governors and pupils are leaving a 'toxic' primary school in droves over allegations of 'commonplace' racism, bullying and serious failings.

[The school in its location], has lost around a third of its pupils as parents pull their children out amid a plethora of concerns.

Causing the most consternation is an allegation that in November 2021, the headteacher [the complainant] - who took over headship in late 2019 - used the N-word to describe a group of black children.

[…]

The whistleblower isn't the only teacher to have walked out, with about 22 staff leaving since the new head's arrival. In the past three months alone, three staff members have resigned including the assistant headteacher.

Many of them cited [the complainant’s] behaviour as the reason in exit interviews and at least two staff members were close to taking their own lives, according to an insider.

Over the past four years, the school has seen a dive in pupil numbers. Before [the complainant’s] takeover, the school had around 150 pupils and was regularly oversubscribed.

In September this year, the reception class will host just four children. The rapid fall in pupil numbers has resulted in a reduction of classes from five to four, with the loss of a teacher and teaching assistant post.”

15. Further, the publication stated that it had contacted the local authority prior to the article’s publication, and the authority had confirmed that the allegation was under investigation. It supplied IPSO with this correspondence. On 2 August, it asked:

“Secondly, as I'm sure you're aware [the school] has recently appeared in national newspapers amidst several allegations. Among these was the allegation that several governors resigned after allegedly being blocked from investigating alleged incidents by the council. Could you please provide a comment in response to this and confirm if any further action will be taken by the council?”

In response, the authority provided the following statement:

“It is not appropriate to comment on individual allegations. However, we can assure the community that we are working with the school and partners to formally address any issues and concerns raised. We have robust policies and processes in place to deal with any incident reported to us. We are confident that the Interim Executive Board will ensure that governance is robust and rigorous with all appropriate processes being followed."

16. The publication also said that its sister publication had put the allegation to the complainant prior to the article’s publication. It supplied IPSO an email sent to an admin email address for the school on 2 August – six days prior to the article’s publication. The email, which was not responded to, read as follows:

“As I'm sure you're aware there have been some allegations made against the school/staff in recent days in the national papers.

A summary of these can be found here: [link to the original article].

We wanted to offer you the chance to respond to these, if you would like to do so could you please respond by the close of play tomorrow”.

17. The publication did not accept that the article suggested in an inaccurate or misleading manner that staff or pupils had left the school due to the complainant’s actions. It said the original article, published by the other publication, reported that staff and pupils had left the school, and its own article simply highlighted this.

18. In addition, the publication did not accept that the article suggested that the governors had resigned due to the complainant’s actions in a way that would breach the terms of Clause 1. It noted that the article under complaint linked to an article published by its sister publication in June 2023 which, it said, reported that the governors had resigned and included a statement from the governors outlining their reasons for resigning. It said this statement was relevant to the article under complaint “as recent significant news at the school”.

19. The publication provided the previous article in question. Under the headline “SEVEN governors at [school] resign simultaneously”, it read as follows:

“MORE than half the governing body at a primary school in [location] have resigned simultaneously.

Seven governors at [the school] - including the chair and vice chair - handed in a joint resignation letter earlier this month. In it they say they have 'reached the point where we feel we can no longer discharge our statutory function with any true meaning'.

[…]

In the letter, the governors go on to say: ‘We have not reached this decision lightly but regrettably our relationship with the senior leadership of the school has strained over the last few years. ‘

[…]

The governors have urged Wiltshire Council and the Clifton Diocese, the school's church governance, to investigate a range of issues over the past year but feel no action has been taken. “

20. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It stated that “no invasion” of the complainant’s privacy had taken place; it had simply contacted them prior to publication with a summary of the allegations, seeking comment.

21. The publication did not accept that either the article or its pre-publication conduct, breached the terms of either Clause 3 or Clause 6.

22. The complainant disputed that the allegations had been put to them prior to publication. They said that the request for comment had been sent to the school itself, via the school’s business manager, and not to them personally. They also added that 24 hours was not an appropriate deadline for a response, especially during the summer holidays. They noted that their own school email address was accessible online and the publication could have emailed them directly for comment.

23. In response, the publication stated that the complainant had not proven any information in its article was inaccurate. It noted that, while the complainant had pointed to the summary report’s assertion that their use of the n-word was “not aimed at any individual”, the article did not claim otherwise.

24. On 24 May, during IPSO’s investigation, the publication offered to update the article to reference the outcome of the investigation against the complainant.

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 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 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.

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

25. The complainant had said that the allegations against them had been leaked “maliciously” as part of an ongoing dispute. The Committee was clear that this was not something it could rule on. Newspapers are entitled to report information as they see fit, provided reporting and pre-publication conduct is undertaken in a manner consistent with the Code. The Committee’s remit was to consider the actions of the publication under complaint, and the article under the complaint. Further, the complainant had also expressed a number of concerns regarding the conduct of a different publication, and a separate article – the Committee was clear that the actions of a separate publication, or any journalists acting on their behalf, were not under consideration in this decision.

26. The Committee noted the complainant’s contention that they had not used the n-word when speaking about any specific individual, and that therefore it was inaccurate to report that another publication had “reported” that the complainant “used the N-word to describe a group of black children in November 2021”. The Committee also had regard for the summary report they had provided. However, it recognised that the article did not report, as fact, that they had used the n-word to describe a specific individual. Rather, it had reported that a different publication had reported that they had used the n-word to describe “a group of black children”.

27. It was not in dispute that another publication had reported that the complainant had been accused of using the n-word to describe black children; the publication had provided the article in question, and the Committee noted that the article under complaint clearly attributed the claim to the original publication. The article under complaint also made clear that it was reporting on “allegations”: it said so in both the headline and the opening sentence. In all, the Committee did not consider the article to be inaccurate or misleading in the way suggested by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

28. The Committee then turned to the complaint that the article inaccurately suggested staff and pupils had left the school due to their actions. The article read said that another publication had “claim[ed] that in recent years the school has lost 22 members of staff and around a third of its pupils after parents pulled them out due to a number of concerns”. The article did not claim that all of the staff and students had departed as a result of the complainant’s actions. Rather, it attributed their departures “to a number of concerns”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

29. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concern that the article inaccurately reported that the governors had resigned due to their actions. The article did not report that the governors had left the school due to the complainant’s actions. Rather, it reported that “seven governors resigned simultaneously in June, claiming their relationship with the school’s senior leadership had become ‘strained.’ The departing governors had urged the council and Clifton Diocese to investigate a range of issues over the past year but felt no action had been taken”.

30. The complainant had not disputed that the governors had made the comments attributed to them in the article, and the Committee further noted that the governors in question would be best placed to know the reasons for their departure, rather than the complainant. At any rate, the reasons for the governor’s departure was clearly attributed to them and therefore distinguished as their comment on the reasons why they had resigned. In such circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 1.

31. The Committee next considered the complainant’s concerns that they had not been contacted for comment prior to the publication of the article. The Committee noted that there is no standalone requirement under the Code to contact someone for comment – although it can form a part of their obligations, under Clause 1(i), to take care over the accuracy of an article. In this instance, although the Committee noted the publication could have gone to greater effort to contact the complainant directly, where the publication had not reported any inaccurate or misleading information, the Committee did not consider that not reaching out to the complainant directly constituted a lack of care taken over the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

32. Finally, the Committee noted the complainant’s concerns that the article was not balanced, and only reported one side of the story. Under the Editors’ Code, articles do not need to be balanced, as long as publications take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. Where the Committee did not consider the article to be inaccurate or misleading, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

33. Next, the Committee considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 2, given that the complainant had expressed concern that the publication had breached this Clause by reporting their name and the allegations against them. Clause 2 is clear that the Committee will consider to what extent information is already in the public domain when considering to what extent an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy over information under complaint. The allegations, at the time of the article’s publication, were clearly in the public domain, given they had been the subject of an article published by another newspaper. The article under complaint did not report any additional information beyond what had already been disclosed in the earlier article.

34. The Committee noted that someone’s name is not generally considered private information. A name, in and of itself, is simply an identifier, which will be known by many different organisations and individuals, and there is no need to seek consent before publishing someone’s name.

35. In some cases, however, naming an individual in conjunction with private information may represent a breach of Clause 2. The Committee therefore considered whether naming the complainant in the context of this specific article represented an intrusion into their private and family life.

36. In this case, given that another newspaper had already identified the complainant by name in relation to the allegations against them, the Committee did not consider that naming the complainant represented an intrusion into their private life. There was no breach of Clause 2.

37. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 3, beginning with their complaint that the article had caused difficulties for them in their local community. IPSO regulates the conduct and editorial content of publications and those acting on their behalf in a professional capacity; publication are not responsible for the conduct of the general public. While the Committee appreciated that the publication of the article had caused difficulties for the complainant, these concerns related to the actions of members of the public, and were therefore not within its remit. There was no breach of Clause 3.

38. The Committee next considered the email correspondence between the complainant and the publication, which the complainant said breached Clause 3. The publication had requested information from the complainant for the purposes of responding to a complaint made under the Editors’ Code, and had suggested that a follow-up article updating readers may be advantageous for the complainant. While the Committee recognised the complainant objected to this, this did not reach the bar of intimidation or harassment. There was no breach of Clause 3 on this point.

39. Finally, the Committee considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 6. It was sorry to hear that the article had caused difficulties for the complainant’s child. However, Clause 6 generally relates to intrusions into specific children’s school lives; approaches journalists make to children; photographs and interviews of children without parental consent; payments made to children in relation to news stories; and the publication of details about children’s private lives. It does not prevent publications from reporting on individuals who have children, in either a negative or positive light, and the Committee noted that the article had not referenced or identified the complainant’s child. The Committee was also clear that it could not consider the complainant’s concerns regarding the impact on children at the school itself – it would be for the parents or legal guardians of these children to complain themselves. There was no breach of Clause 6.

Conclusions

40. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 15/01/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/09/2024

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.