00390-25 Oliver v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Tommy Oliver complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Divestment call prompts claims of antisemitism”, published on 28 January 2025.

2. The article appeared on page 13 of the newspaper. It opened by reporting:

“Activists have been accused of being antisemitic after they submitted a petition on Holocaust Memorial Day calling for a council to divest from companies supplying the Israeli military.

The petition demanding that Sutton council divest from businesses operating in the occupied Palestinian territories, supplying the Israeli military or ‘complicit in the ongoing human rights violations in Gaza’ was passed to the pensions committee on the back of Labour and Liberal Democrat support.

The appeal, which had about 2,000 signatures, called on the Lib Dem-dominated council to adopt an ethical investment policy that aligned with its ‘commitment to social responsibility and human rights’.

The petition, started by Tommy Oliver of the Sutton Friends of Palestine (SFOP) campaign group, was criticised by the Tory opposition council group, who believed it was poorly timed.”

3. Further to the above, the article reported that the “leader of the Tory group […] said his constituents ‘expressed complete shock’ after learning that the appeal would coincide with Holocaust Memorial Day. ‘A lot of them are saying, ‘why choose that day of all days?’ he said. ‘It’s just not the right thing to do. I’m a great believer in democracy [but] to bring a petition that is frankly at its core antisemitic on today of all days is an absolute disgrace.’”

4. The article closed by reporting that Sutton Friends of Palestine were “approached for comment”.

5. The article also appeared online, under the headline: “Council to debate ‘antisemitic’ petition on Holocaust Memorial Day”. It also had a subheadline, which read: "A petition urging Sutton council to divest from companies supplying the Israeli military, which garnered almost 2,000 signatures, will be discussed". This version of the article was published on 27 January 2025, at 7.16pm.

6. The online article opened by reporting:

“Activists have been accused of disrespecting Holocaust Memorial Day after they put forward a petition calling for Sutton council to divest from companies that supply the Israeli military.

A petition calling for the council to review its investment strategy and divest from companies operating in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), supplying the Israeli military, or those ‘complicit in the ongoing human rights violations in Gaza’ will be heard on Monday evening after 8pm.

The appeal, which garnered almost 2,000 signatures, also called on the council to adopt an ethical investment policy that ‘aligns with the council’s commitment to social responsibility and human rights’.

[…]

The petition, started by Tommy Oliver, was criticised by the Conservative opposition group who believe that it was poorly timed and singles out Israel. Oliver is a member of Sutton Friends of Palestine.”

7. Further to this, the online article also reported: “[The Conservative councillor] said that one or two Tory councillors would walk out of the chamber as they did not feel it should be debated. He also said that Israel was being singled out in the petition”. It also reported: “The petition started in November and finished on January 12, but it is to be heard for the first time on Monday night during a full meeting of the council.”

8. On 27 January, the article was updated. The headline was amended to read: “Council debates ‘antisemitic’ petition on Holocaust Memorial Day” – the tenses in the article were updated, in light of the fact that the debate had by then taken place. The article was also updated to reference the outcome of the debate.

9. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 for a number of reasons. Firstly, the complainant disputed that the petition had been put forward on Holocaust Memorial Day – rather, he said, it had been submitted weeks prior, on 6 January. He noted that it is up to councils when they schedule their meetings, and the fact the petition was heard on Holocaust Memorial Day was purely coincidence.

10. Further, the complainant said that the headline and article were inaccurate as they insinuated that he, the petition, and the Sutton Friends of Palestine organisation, were antisemitic. He disputed this - the petition in question, he said, “merely asked that Sutton Council divest from companies complicit in Israel's decades-long occupation, apartheid and human rights violations against Palestinians”. Further, he said that nothing in his speech, or in the petition, was antisemitic – indeed, in his speech, he had paid respect to Holocaust Memorial Day and condemned antisemitism.

11. Additionally, the complainant disputed that the Sutton Friends of Palestine organisation were “approached for comment”. He said no approach had been made, and stated that the organisation “can be contacted by their web form”, a link for which he supplied to IPSO.

12. Furthermore, the complainant said the article was inaccurate to report that Israel was “singled out”, but that, in his view, “it makes sense for activists to pressure the UK to use its influence to stop Israel's crimes against humanity.”

13. On 11 February, IPSO made the newspaper aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Code. It subsequently began a formal investigation into the article. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code.

14. The publication did accept, however, that the print article inaccurately suggested that the petition was submitted, and heard, on Holocaust Memorial Day. It said this was an error introduced in the editing process of the print article specifically – and not replicated in the online article - which it became aware of when contacted by a Sutton resident after publication, on 29 January. It had subsequently run the following correction in print in its Corrections and clarifications column, on page 20, on 3 February:

A petition urging Sutton council to divest from companies supplying the Israeli military was not submitted on Holocaust Memorial Day as we said (news, Jan 28). It was heard at a scheduled council meeting that day but had been submitted earlier.

15. The publication did comment, however, that it believed it “improbable” the complainant would have been unaware that the petition was likely to be debated on Holocaust Memorial Day - the dates of meetings are published in advance, and it said that, given the first scheduled meeting after the petition was submitted was on Holocaust Memorial Day, there was a strong likelihood it would be held on, or near to, that day. It said it was likely this may appear insensitive, and noted that the Sutton Friends of Palestine had not asked for the petition to be deferred.

16. The publication did not accept that Sutton Friends of Palestine had not been “approached for comment”, as contested by the complainant. It said that the organisation had a contact form on its website, which its reporter had used, and to which it had not received a response. It said the statement in the article was therefore accurate.

17. In support of its position the publication supplied two screenshots, which it said showed its reporter’s attempt to use the form. The images showed the website form, which appeared under the title: “Contact”, and the headline: “Get in Touch”, and included options for: “Name”, “Email address”, “Phone number” and “Message”. In the first screenshot, the visible part of the “Message” section read: “My deadline for receipt of comment in 5pm”, followed by the reporter’s name and job title. The second screenshot showed the following message, seemingly sent in response: “Thank you for your message. It has been sent”.

18. The publication also supplied the metadata of the screenshots, which demonstrated that they were taken on 27 January at 2.26pm.

19. In response to the complainant’s concern that the article had inaccurately referred to himself, the petition and the Sutton Friends of Palestine organisation as “antisemitic”, the publication said that the term was placed in single quote marks in the headline of the online article – it was not a statement of fact, but rather, a summary of the criticisms set out, and attributed, in the accompanying article.

20. In response, the complainant stated that, just because the term “antisemitic” was placed in quotes marks, this did not mean it was not accurate. He said it was an incendiary headline, which biased the audience, and did not make clear it was attributed to one Conservative councillor - he considered the headline would appear as a statement of fact to a reader. The complainant also stated that the online article had been published before he had had the chance to present the petition to the Council.

21. Further, the complainant maintained that Sutton Friends of Palestine were not contacted by the organisation. He said “nothing on [the organisation’s] website works”, and the reporter should have gone to greater lengths to contact the organisation – such as via social media, or email.

22. Moreover, he said that to imply Sutton Friends of Palestine deliberately scheduled their petition to be heard on Holocaust Memorial Day was “a reach to say the least”. He said that no-one at the organisation knew when Holocaust Memorial Day was – and that the organisation was not responsible for the Sutton Council meeting timetable.

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

23. The complainant had complained that the article inaccurately reported that the petition had been submitted on Holocaust Memorial Day. The Committee began with the print article. which opened by reporting that “[a]ctivists have been accused of being antisemitic after they submitted a petition on Holocaust Memorial Day”. This directly reported that the petition had been submitted on Holocaust Memorial Day itself, as opposed to being submitted prior and heard on the day. It was not in dispute that this was inaccurate, and the Committee also noted that, given the error was not replicated in the online copy which had been published the day prior, the correct position was clearly known to the publication at the time.

24. The Committee noted the publication’s position that the inaccuracy was a result of human error during the editorial process of the print article, particularly given that the online copy did not include the inaccuracy. It also noted that the print article went on to report that the appeal would “coincide” with Holocaust Memorial Day. Nevertheless, where the error had led to the publication of inaccurate information, the Committee considered that this constituted a failure to take care on the part of the publication. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i) in respect of the print article.

25. The online article, however, opened by reporting that “[a]ctivists have been accused of disrespecting Holocaust Memorial Day after they put forward a petition calling for Sutton council to divest from companies that supply the Israeli military”. This did not report that the petition had been submitted on Holocaust Memorial Day specifically, just that the petition had drawn criticism in relation to Holocaust Memorial Day. Likewise, the article subsequently reported that the petition had been criticised for being “poorly timed”, and that the appeal “would coincide with” Holocaust Memorial Day. As the online article had not stated that the petition had been submitted on Holocaust Memorial Day, it was not inaccurate or misleading in the manner contended by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1 in respect of the online version.

26. Having established a breach of Clause 1 (i) in respect of the print version of the article, the Committee then turned to Clause 1 (ii). The Committee noted the publication’s contention that it was foreseeable that the petition would be heard around the time of Holocaust Memorial Day, as the upcoming meeting dates were available online. It considered, however, that there was a significant difference between this, and directly reporting that the petition was submitted on Holocaust Memorial Day – the timing of the petition was central to the thrust of the article, given it directly related to the criticism it had later received. The inaccuracy was significant, and required correction as per the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

27. The newspaper had published a correction on 3 February, prior to IPSO informing it of the complaint. Where the correction was published less than a week after the publication of the article, and five days after the publication said it was informed of the error by a separate party, the Committee was satisfied that this represented prompt corrective action.

28. The correction had appeared in the publication’s established Corrections and clarifications column, and the Committee was satisfied this represented due prominence, given it is the position in which a reader would expect a correction to appear.

29. Finally, the Committee considered the wording of the correction. In its view, it identified the inaccuracy the publication had printed – it made clear that the petition “was not submitted on Holocaust Memorial Day as we said” – and put on record the correct position: “It was heard at a scheduled council meeting that day but had been submitted earlier”. The wording of the correction was sufficient, therefore, to correct the record.

30. For these reasons, the Committee was satisfied that the action taken by the publication had put the correct position on record, and sufficiently addressed the terms of Clause 1 (ii). There was no further breach of Clause 1 (ii) in respect of the print article.

31. Following this, the Committee turned to the complainant’s concern regarding the reported line that Sutton Friends of Palestine were “approached for comment”.

32. The publication had supplied two screenshots which appeared to demonstrate that the reporter had attempted to contact the organisation – he had, seemingly, sent a message through the complainant’s website’s contact form. The metadata from the images demonstrated that the screenshots had been taken prior to the article’s publication.

33. The Committee appreciated that the complainant may have not have received the message due to technical issues with their website. However, on the basis of the information provided, the Committee considered it clear that the reporter had attempted to contact the organisation via what it considered to be an appropriate method - the website form appeared under the title: “Contact”, and the headline: “Get in Touch”. Indeed, in his complaint to IPSO, the complainant had also linked to the webform on the organisation’s website, and stated that the organisation could be contacted this way. The Committee did not consider it inaccurate or misleading, therefore, for the publication to have reported that the organisation were “approached for comment” – the publication had demonstrated that this had occurred. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

34. Further, the complainant had complained that the article had referred to the petition as “antisemitic” as a statement of fact. He had also stated that the article insinuated both him, and the organisation, were “antisemitic”.

35. The Committee noted that the headline of the print copy referred to “claims of antisemitism”, while the online version used inverted commas around the term “‘antisemitic’ petition”. This clearly distinguished the reference to antisemitism as a view, and a claim, as opposed to a statement of fact. Further, the Committee recognised that the article went on to make clear the basis for this characterisation, and attributed the claim to a specific individual. In particular, it reported that a Conservative councillor had said his constituents had expressed “complete shock” at the timing of the petition. It also included his view that: “It’s just not the right thing to do. I’m a great believer in democracy [but] to bring a petition that is frankly at its core antisemitic on today of all days is an absolute disgrace”.

36. The Committee appreciated that the complainant disputed this description. However, it considered that this was sufficiently distinguished as the view of an individual, which the newspaper was entitled to report, rather than a statement of fact. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

37. Finally, the complainant had complained that the article inaccurately reported that Israel was “singled out” by the petition. As before, the Committee recognised that this statement was clearly attributed to the Conservative councillor – it was identified as his opinion on the matter, as opposed to a statement of fact. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

38. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1(i).

Remedial action required

39. The published correction put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.

Date complaint received: 03/02/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 20/06/2025