01720-24 Eyles v The Mail on Sunday

Summary of Complaint

1. Andrew Eyles complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Mail on Sunday breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “POLICE ARE SO COWED BY THE ANTI-SEMITIC MOB, THEY EVEN COVER UP THE HOLOCAUST / Shameful insult to the six million”, published on 28 April 2024.

2. This complaint was one of 29 complaints received by IPSO about this article; the complainant was selected as IPSO’s lead complainant for the purposes of investigation.

3. The headline of the article was on the front page and continued on to pages 4 and 5. The article reported on a decision taken to cover up a Holocaust memorial located in Hyde Park. The article reported that the “memorial was covered up over fears it would be vandalised by pro-Palestine activists”. It further reported that “officials in Hyde Park yesterday hid Britain’s first public memorial to the six million victims of the Nazi genocide under a blue tarpaulin in a move one Holocaust survivor called ‘shameful’”, and that “the monument was then guarded by Metropolitan Police officers to stop it being targeted by pro-Palestine protestors”. In addition to this, the article reported that “Royal Parks said they liaised with the Met over protests and said: ’The Hyde Park Holocaust memorial is routinely covered with tarpaulin during various events as a precautionary measure'”. The article included an image of the memorial covered in the blue tarpaulin as well as an image of the memorial uncovered on the front page.

4. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the headline, “After officer warns campaigner for being ‘openly Jewish’… Met Police are so cowed by the anti-semitic mob, they even cover up the Holocaust”.

5. The complainant said the headlines of both versions of the article were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as the text of the article made clear that the decision was not taken by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) when it stated, “officials in Hyde Park yesterday hid Britain’s first public memorial to the six million victims of the Nazi genocide under a blue tarpaulin”. He also said the memorial was covered up every time an event took place – not just for this particular protest. Further to this, the complainant said the Metropolitan Police Service issued a statement on the social media site X in relation to the article - which stated, “this is an inaccurate headline that will only fuel community concerns. The decision to cover the memorial was taken by park authorities, not the police. As the paper’s own article makes clear, it is a precaution Royal Parks have taken for a number of different events”. The complainant considered that the publication had misrepresented who had made the decision to cover the memorial.

6. The publication did not accept that either version of the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. It stated that both versions of the article reported that, “Royal Parks said they liaised with the Met over protests and said: ’The Hyde Park Holocaust memorial is routinely covered with tarpaulin during various events as a precautionary measure'”. The publication said it contacted both Royal Parks and the MPS prior to the publication of the article and that a spokesperson from Royal Parks said:

“The Hyde Park holocaust memorial is routinely covered with tarpaulin during various events as a precautionary measure. We are working closely with the police to ensure the safety of park visitors”

However, the publication also said that Royal Parks did not respond to its request for comment when asked the following questions:

• Is the Hyde Park holocaust memorial the only memorial routinely covered up by Royal Parks?

• Is the holocaust memorial always covered up for Palestine demonstrations?

• Has the holocaust memorial been covered up for other demonstrations unrelated to Palestine?

The publication said it also contacted the MPS and asked:

• Could you let me know if the Met advised the Royal Parks to [cover up the memorial over fears of vandalism from the Palestine rally], or had any role in this?

• Could you comment on th[e Police’s] role [monitoring the memorial throughout the day] and if there were any problems?

The Metropolitan Police responded and informed the publication this was a “precautionary measure taken by Royal Parks” and directed the publication to Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist’s statement on the matter which was as follows:

“Our objectives this weekend are to police without fear or favour, to protect the right to protest and to keep the peace. All Londoners have a right to have their voices heard, just as they also have a right to go about their lives without fear and without being subject to serious disruption.

The cumulative impact of almost seven months of protest is felt widely, but it has been a particular cause of fear and uncertainty in Jewish communities. While there has been a Jewish presence on many of the PSC marches, there are many more Jewish people who do not travel into the centre of London on protest days, or who avoid the tube, hide their identities or otherwise change their behaviour. It is a reality that should concern us all.

I know there are people who feel the solution is to see these protests banned. The bar for such a decision is incredibly high – it requires a risk of serious public disorder of the sort we simply haven’t seen either in this period of protest or for several years.

But while we cannot apply for protests to be banned in the current circumstances, we can use powers under the Public Order Act and other legislation to impose conditions on marches and assemblies in an effort to prevent serious disruption, to keep those with opposing views apart and to ensure wider public safety”.

7. On the same day the article was published, the publication amended the headline of the online version of the article to state: “Fury as memorial to six million Jews killed in Holocaust is covered up and guarded by police in London’s Hyde Park over fears it will be vandalised by pro-Palestine activists”. It also added the following footnote to the online article on the same day:

“A previous headline on this article said that the memorial had been covered up by the Met Police. In fact, as the article itself makes clear, it was covered up by park authorities”.

The publication also published the following clarification in its Corrections & Clarifications box on page 2 of the newspaper in the next edition of the paper:

“The front page of last week’s edition said that a Holocaust memorial in London’s Hyde Park had been covered up by the Met Police in advance of a pro-Palestine protest. In fact, the memorial had been covered up by park officials and guarded by the police, following discussions between the two about ensuring safety during the demonstration”.

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

8. The Committee first considered whether the headlines of both versions of the article were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, both of which reported that the police “cover[e]d the Holocaust”. The Committee noted that, while the article’s text made clear that Royal Parks “liaised with the Met over protests”, it deemed that the text of the article corrected the inaccurate headlines, rather than supporting it.

9. When considering if the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate information, the Committee had regard to the steps the publication had taken prior to the publication of the article. In its correspondence with the Metropolitan Police and with Royal Parks, prior to the publication of the article, the Metropolitan Police said it believed the decision was a “precautionary measure taken by Royal Parks”. Where the publication published the headline in the knowledge that the decision had been taken by Royal Parks rather than the Metropolitan Police, the Committee did not consider the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate information. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

10. Having determined the headlines of both versions of the article were inaccurate to report that the decision to cover the Holocaust memorial had been made by the Metropolitan Police, 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. The Committee had regard for the article as a whole, and considered the inaccurate information effectively formed the basis of the article and featured prominently in the headline. The error was therefore significant and in need of correction under Clause 1 (ii) of the Code.

12. The publication had published a correction both in print and online and amended the headline of the online version of the article to report, “Fury as memorial to six million Jews killed in Holocaust is covered up and guarded by police in London’s Hyde Park over fears it will be vandalised by pro-Palestine activists”. In print, the correction appeared in the publication’s designated Corrections & Clarifications box on page 2, and 7 days after the publication of the article – this was the next available edition of the paper, which represented due promptness. Online, the correction appeared as a footnote to the article and was published on the same day the article was published. While the inaccuracy did appear in the headline, where the headline had been amended the same day as being published, and the text of the article corrected the inaccurate information the Committee considered this to be sufficiently prominent.

13. While the inaccuracy regarding the decision had been referred to on the front-page of the newspaper, the Committee had regard to several factors when considering whether the position of the proposed correction was sufficiently prominent. It noted that front-page and front-cover corrections are generally reserved for more serious cases, wherever the breach appears in the publication and was mindful that due prominence is not the same as equal prominence.

14. Taking into account the facts of this case, including the fact that the inaccuracy was made clear within the text of the article and the prompt steps taking by the publication to resolve complainants’ concerns, the Committee did not consider that a front-page correction or flag was appropriate. The Committee was satisfied that the corrections were therefore published promptly, and with due prominence. Turning to the wording of the corrections, both made clear the correct position was that the memorial had been covered up by park authorities rather than the Metropolitan Police. The Committee was therefore satisfied they put the correct position on record. The corrections therefore were sufficient under Clause 1 (ii) and there was no further breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

15. The complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

16. 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: 29/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 27/11/2024