Resolution Statement – 01663-25 Morley v bracknellnews.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Revd Gareth Morley complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that bracknellnews.co.uk breached Clause 1 of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “School House Nursery announces closure after 35 years”, published on 9 April 2025.

2. The article, which appeared online only, reported on the closure of School House Nursery. It reported: “A notice to vacate has been served by the landlord, Reverend Gareth Morley, leaving parents desperate to save the nursery.” It also included a quote from a parent at the nursery which stated: "The news that this valuable nursery is being threatened with demolition is deeply unsettling.”

3. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it described him as the landlord – he said he was neither the landlord nor the landowner. The complainant said the correct position was that the landlord for the property was a registered charity – Easthampstead Church of England School trust– of which he was the chair and the landowner was the Lord Marquis of Downshire.

4. The complainant also said that it was inaccurate to report that the building was being “threatened with demolition” as there had been no public announcement that this was the plan for the property. The complainant said there were alternative plans for the structure.

5. The complainant also said that he had not been contacted prior to publication.

6. The publication said it did not accept that the article was inaccurate with regards the “landlord” claim. It said that, as the complainant was the chair of the Easthampstead Church of England School – which, it said, was the landowner for the site – it felt it was justified to label him as the landlord.

7. The publication also said it did not accept that the article was inaccurate to report a parent’s concern that the nursery was being threatened with demolition. It said that this claim was accurately attributed to a parent. The publication said that the use of the word “threatened” in the quote identified that the demolition of the building was a potential outcome rather than a statement of fact.

8. The publication said it would be standard practice to reach out to the charity for their right to reply. However, as the staff member responsible for the article had subsequently left the business, and due to the time that had elapsed in the interim, it had not been able to confirm whether this had taken place.

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.

Mediated Outcome

9. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

10. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to amend the article to remove the complainant’s name as it appeared in relation to the notice to vacate and print the following correction:

This article has been updated from an earlier version. The previous article incorrectly stated that Reverend Gareth Morley was acting as the landlord for the property. We can now clarify that Rev Morley is the chairperson listed on the Charity Commission website, but does not own the land. We are happy to update the record and apologise for any confusion caused.

11. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.

12. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 10/04/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 20/10/2025