01617-24 Williamson v birminghammail.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Sir Gavin Williamson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that birminghammail.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Residents in 'grimmest village' say local prisoners 'have it better'”, published on 7 April 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported on comments made by residents in Featherstone, South Staffordshire. The article reported that “[w]ith a closed and boarded up pub, crumbling roads, arson hit infrastructure and overflowing dog poo bins, those living in the village say they've been forgotten, left behind”. It also reported that “[r]esidents of a former mining village surrounded by three prisons say the local lags have it better than them. Those living in Featherstone say the inmates must look down on residents with pity given the state of the village”. The article included a photograph showing a bus stop that appeared to have been damaged by fire. This photograph was captioned, “a burnt out bus stop on Cannock Road in Featherstone, torched not long after its installation”.

3. The complainant said that the article breached Clause 1 because it inaccurately reported that there was “arson hit infrastructure” in Featherstone. He said that the bus-stop shown in the article was actually in the parish of Shareshill rather than Featherstone. The complainant added that the damage was due to a lorry transporting bales of hay that caught on fire and fell onto the bus stop, rather than arson.

4. The complainant also said the article inaccurately reported that the village was “surrounded by three prisons”. He said the prisons were in a confined space and were actually located in Brinsford rather than in Featherstone. The complainant added that one of the three "prisons" was a young offender’s institution.

5. The publication did not accept it had breached Clause 1 by referring to “arson hit infrastructure”. It said the suggestion that the bus stop was deliberately set on fire could be found in local Facebook groups, and provided screenshots of comments made by members of the groups to support its position. The comments stated that “bus shelters [we]re burnt out” and “what is going to be done about the burnt out bus stop”.

6. Further to this, the publication said that the South Staffordshire Council website listed Featherstone, Shareshill and Saredon as part of the same ward and that the bus stop was located on Cannock Road - the main road shared by Featherstone and Shareshill. It did not consider the article was significantly inaccurate on this point and said this was published in good faith. It also said that - a couple of days after publication of the article - a fire was deliberately started and a derelict pub was burnt down along the same road as the bus stop.

7. During direct correspondence with the complainant, the publication said it accepted that there were suggestions that the bus stop was burnt down as a result of a road traffic incident. It said it would be open to removing the reference to “arson hit infrastructure” as a gesture of goodwill and had also amended the caption of the photograph of the bus stop to instead read: “a burnt out bus stop on Cannock Road in Featherstone”. The publication also confirmed it added the following clarification to the article upon receipt of the complaint on 4th June:

“A previous version of this article reported that the bus stop was 'torched not long after its installation.' This has been amended to report that it was 'burnt down', as the exact cause of the fire has not been established. We are happy to clarify this”.

8. The publication did not accept it had inaccurately reported that Featherstone was “surrounded by three prisons”. It said that the three institutions referred to were HMP Featherstone, HMP Oakwood and HMP Brinsford – a Young Offenders Institute that was also a men’s prison. The publication supported its position by providing a map of the prisons and the addresses of HMP Featherstone and HMP Oakwood – which both included Featherstone. The publication also provided a link to the HMP Brinsford Government guidance website which described HMP Brinsford as “a prison and young offender institution (YOI) in Featherstone, near Wolverhampton, for men aged 18 to 21”.

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

9. The Committee first considered whether the article inaccurately reported that Featherstone had “arson hit infrastructure” and that a bus stop had been “torched not long after its installation”. The complainant said the damage was due to a lorry transporting bales of hay rather than a result of arson; the Committee noted the social media posts referred to the bus stop as being “burnt out” rather than as a result of arson. The Committee was also mindful of the publication’s position that a derelict pub had been burnt down two days after the article was published. However, the Committee considered that it was inaccurate to refer to Featherstone as having “arson hit infrastructure” given – at the time of publication – it did not appear that a fire had been deliberately started. Given this, and where the social media posts the publication relied on to support its position did not explicitly state that the bus stop had been deliberately burnt down, the Committee did not consider the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate information on this point. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

10. The Committee next considered whether the article required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii), which requires the correction of significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information.

11. Given that the exact cause of the bus-stop fire had not been established, and reporting as established fact that there had been an arson attack had the clear potential to adversely affect the locally community, the Committee considered reporting there was “arson hit infrastructure” and that the bus stop in question had been “torched not long after its installation” was significantly inaccurate. As such, a correction was required.

12. The Committee next considered whether the correction published was sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii), which requires that significantly inaccurate information is corrected promptly and with due prominence. The Committee considered the correction was sufficiently prompt as it was published one week after the publication had received the complaint, taking into account the time needed to verify the complainant’s position. However, it did not consider the correction was sufficiently prominent – the inaccuracy relating to “arson hit infrastructure” remained within the text of the article while the correction appeared as a footnote to the article. The Committee considered that the correction should appear directly underneath the headline, so that readers would be made aware of the correct position prior to reading the inaccurate information.

13. The Committee then considered the wording of the correction offered. The Committee considered the wording was sufficient to address the inaccuracy in relation to the bus stop being deliberately burnt down. However, the correction was not sufficient to address the inaccuracy that Featherstone had “arson hit infrastructure”, as this was not referred to in the correction. As such, the Committee did not consider the wording of the correction adequately dealt with each significant inaccuracy within the article. Therefore, the wording of the correction raised a breach of Clause 1 (ii), where it did not address each inaccuracy within the article.

14. The Committee next considered whether the article inaccurately reported that the village was “surrounded by three prisons”. The Committee had regard to the addresses of the prisons provided by the publication and to the Government guidance description of HMP Brinsford. Where all three prisons included Featherstone in their address or were described as being in Featherstone, and where HMP Brinsford was described as being “a prison and young offender institution (YOI)”, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate for the article to refer to the village of Featherstone as being “surrounded by three prisons”. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

15. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i) and (ii).

Remedial action required

16. 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.

17. The article inaccurately reported that there was “arson hit infrastructure” and that a bus stop had been “torched not long after its installation”. The Committee considered this inaccurate information to be significant, given the potential to adversely affect the local community. The Committee considered the correction offered was sufficiently prompt. However, it did not address all of the significant inaccuracies within the article nor was it sufficiently prominent – therefore, there had been a breach of 1 (ii). The inaccuracies had appeared within two sentences within the text of the article and were the only part of the article that breached the Code. As such, on balance, the Committee considered that the publication of an amended correction, dealing with both inaccuracies and in a sufficiently prominent position, was the appropriate remedy.

18. The correction should acknowledge that the article inaccurately reported that Featherstone had “arson hit infrastructure” and that at the time of publication the cause of the fire at the bus stop had not yet been established.

19. The Committee then considered the placement of the correction. If the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be published beneath the headline. If the article is amended to remove the inaccurate information, the correction may be published as a footnote. 20.The wording of the correction 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: 16/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/11/2024