00998-25 Moosun v thejc.com

Summary of Complaint

1. Azeem Moosun complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that thejc.com breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “More Brits killed on October 7 than in any foreign terror attack since 9/11, says new parliamentary report”, published on 18 March 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only – opened by reporting: “More British citizens were killed on October 7 than in any global terror attack since 9/11, according to a landmark new parliamentary report by historian Lord Robertson” [sic].

3. The article reported that “18 British citizens” were “killed by Hamas” on October 7.

4. The article also stated that “1,141 people were killed by terrorists on October 7 – the overwhelming majority of whom were Jewish Israelis, but also included Arab Israeli citizens, [B]edouins and immigrant workers in Israel”. Toward its close, the article said: “Celebrated historians welcomed the publication […]. [A named professor] said it ‘meticulously documents the grisly fates of the 1,182 people killed by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’.”

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported that more Britons died in the attacks on October 7 than any other global terror attack since September 11. The complainant said the article did not provide any comparative data for this claim, and noted the 2002 Bali bombings led to the deaths of 23 British nationals.

6. On 19 March, IPSO made the publication aware that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Editors’ Code. On the same day, the publication contacted the complainant.

7. In correspondence with the complainant, the publication accepted that the article “needed to be clearer about the claim made by the report”. On 19 March, it amended the headline to read: “October 7 was second deadliest foreign terror attack since 9/11, says new parliamentary report”. It also amended the introduction of the article to read: “The Hamas-led attacks of October 7 were among the deadliest foreign terror attacks for British citizens since 9/11 according to a landmark new parliamentary report by historian Lord Roberts.”

8. The publication also added the following to the article: “The report reveals for the first time that 18 British citizens were killed in the attacks, more than any other foreign terror attack other than the Bali bombings in 2002 and 9/11 the year before."

9. The complainant welcomed the amendments to the article – he said, however, that the article included two further inaccuracies. Firstly, he said it included a discrepancy regarding the number of victims of the 7 October attack – it referred to both “1,141 people […] killed by terrorists”, as well as “1,182 people killed”.

10. Secondly, he said that the article “solely” blamed Palestine for the events of 7 October– and did not reference the “reported role that the IDF had on contributing to the deaths on 7 October”. He provided news articles which he said demonstrated this was the case.

11. In response, the publication stated that the first figure in the article – 1,141 – was taken from the report, which listed the people killed on 7 October. The second figure – 1,182 – included 41 hostages killed following the attacks. While it did not therefore consider the article inaccurate on this point, it further updated the article to read:

“1,141 people were killed as a result of the Hamas attacks on October 7 – the overwhelming majority of whom were Jewish Israelis, but also included Arab Israeli citizens, [B]edouins and immigrant workers in Israel. A further 41 people were later counted among the victims”.

12. Additionally, it said that the author of the original report did not distinguish between those killed by the IDF and those killed by Hamas, as the deaths were a result of the “fog of war” caused by “Hamas’s invasion”.

13. During IPSO’s investigation the publication said - although it did not accept a breach of the Editors’ Code – it accepted that the initial version of the article was inaccurate. It supplied both the report in question, and a press release that had accompanied it, to IPSO. The report listed the perpetrators of the attack in a sub-chapter; this list included Hamas and various Palestinian groups, under the heading: ”The Terrorist Groups in the Gaza Strip”. The press release which accompanied the report included the following: “What unfolded over the course of the attack amounted to one of the worst terror outrages in the annals of history, leaving 1,182 dead including 18 UK citizens. This marks the largest number of UK deaths from a terror attack in the Middle East, and the second highest globally after 9/11”. The publication said that its reporter had misinterpreted the extract from the press release, and had taken it to mean that more Britons had been killed on October 7 than in any foreign terror attack since September 11 – this was inaccurate, and it accepted that it should have checked the claim prior to publication.

14. It said, however, that the error was not significantly inaccurate. The thrust of the report was to underline the seriousness of the attack on October 7, and it considered that its article also did so. It also said it had acted swiftly to correct any inaccuracies.

15. In response, the complainant reiterated that the claim that the 18 British nationals killed on October 7 was the “highest number of British casualties in any terror attack since 9/11” was factually incorrect. As well as the 2002 Bali bombings, as noted above, he noted that the 7/7 London bombings of 2005 led to the deaths of 52 civilians.

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

16. The Committee began with the complainant’s concern that the article inaccurately reported that “[m]ore Brits [were] killed on October 7 than in any foreign terror attack since 9/11, says new parliamentary report”.

17. It did not appear to be in dispute that the report did not claim that more British people had died in the October 7 attacks than in any other terror foreign attack since 9/11. This error had come about due to a misinterpretation of the report’s press release. While the Committee appreciated this may have simply been a result of human error, this still constituted a failure to take care – it did not appear that any further attempts had been made to verify that the report was being accurately summarised on this point, and the inaccuracy had not been identified during the pre-publication editorial process. Further, the Committee noted information existed in the public domain which showed the information was inaccurate - the complainant had pointed to the 2002 Bali bombings, which involved the deaths of a larger number of Britons than October 7. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

18. The Committee then considered the significance of the inaccuracy, and whether it required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). Accurately reporting on the details of the attacks on 7 October was a matter of significant importance - the conflict is a topic of social concern, and the Committee considered the death toll particularly pertinent to this. The Committee also noted that the claim had been reported in the headline, which increased its prominence, visibility, and potential to mislead readers. The inaccuracy was therefore significant and required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

19. Upon receipt of the complaint, the publication had removed the inaccurate references, and amended the article. The Committee welcomed that it had taken prompt action – however, it was clear that simply removing the information did not constitute a correction. In the case of a significant inaccuracy, a correction must be published to both identify the inaccurate information (and acknowledge that an error has occurred) and make clear the correct position. Given the publication had not published a correction this constituted a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

20. The complainant had also referenced the 2005 London bombings, in which 52 civilians died. The Committee noted that the headline of the article made expressly clear it was concerned with “foreign” terror attacks, while the article referred to “global terror attacks”. The Committee was satisfied, therefore, that the correct position was what the article had been amended to read – namely, that the 7 October attack was the second deadliest foreign terror attacks for British nationals since 9/11.

21. The Committee then turned to the remaining inaccuracies, starting with the complainant’s concern that the article reported a discrepancy as to the number of individuals killed on 7 October.

22. The article referred to two distinct figures – the publication had explained that the first figure of 1,141 referred to the number of casualties on 7 October, as given by the report. The second figure – 1,182 – included 41 hostages killed following the attacks. The Committee noted that the second figure was attributed to a professor commenting on the report – he had referred to the “grisly fates of the 1,182 people killed”, and had not explicitly stated that they have been killed on 7 October. In this context, the Committee was satisfied that the article was not inaccurate or misleading to refer to the two different figures, although it welcomed that the publication had amended the article to ensure clarity on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

23. Finally, the complainant had complained that the article “solely” blamed Palestine for the deaths, and did not reference the role of the IDF in contributing to deaths on 7 October.

24. The Committee was clear that the newspaper was entitled to report which information it wished, provided the Code was not otherwise breached. Where the article reported, primarily, on the release of the report by Lord Roberts, and the report listed Palestinian armed groups as the perpetrators of the attack, the Committee did not consider that the omission of the information the complainant believed relevant rendered the article inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

25. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

26. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

27. The article inaccurately reported that Lord Roberts’ report claimed more Britons had died in the 7 October attacks than any other foreign terror attack since 9/11. This was significant, given the inherent importance of accurately reporting on ongoing conflicts, and the fact that the inaccurate information appeared in the headline – which would give it greater prominence and visibility. However, while this was significantly inaccurate, the Committee took into account that this was a single inaccuracy in an otherwise accurate article. Further, the publication had taken prompt action upon receipt of the complaint to try to resolve the complainant’s concerns and had amended the article, though it had not published a correction.

28. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that the article inaccurately reported that Lord Roberts’ report claimed more Britons had died in the October 7 attacks than any other foreign terror attack since 9/11. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that the report had not made this claim, and that more Britons had died in the Bali bombings of 2002.

29. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. As the inaccurate information appeared in the headline to the article, as well as its text, the correction should appear as a standalone correction, and a link to the correction should be published on the homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way. In addition, a correction should be added to the article – as the article had already been amended, this should be published as a footnote.

30. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 18/03/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 20/06/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The publication 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.