02639-25 Dias v Daily Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. The Independent Press Standards Organisation received a complaint from Dr Jean Pierre Dias that Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “BBC CHIEFS ‘SHOULD FACE CHARGES’ OVER GLASTONBURY”, published on 30 June 2025.

2. The article, which appeared on the front page and continued on pages 6 and 7, reported on criticisms of the BBC and its coverage of Glastonbury festival. The sub-heading on the front page reported “Outrage grows after broadcast of vile ‘death to Israelis’ chant”. The text of the article began on the front page: “BBC bosses should be prosecuted for broadcasting a vile anti-Semitic outburst at the Glastonbury festival, the Tory party said last night”.

3. Continuing on the front page, it reported “Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said the corporation ‘appears to have broken the law’ by transmitting a punk duo’s calls for the deaths of Israeli soldiers. […] During Saturday’s performance by the London-based pro-Palestinian duo, vocalist Bobby Vylan shouted ‘Death, death to the IDF’, the Israeli Defence Forces. He followed the chant, which was repeated by the audience, with ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine... will be free’ – regarded by many Jews as a call for Israel’s elimination.”

4. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, headlined “BBC chiefs 'should face charges' over Glastonbury... Outrage led by Keir Starmer grows after broadcast of vile 'death to Israeli soldiers' chants”, published on 29 June 2025.

5. The complainant said that the front page sub-heading was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported that the BBC had broadcast a chant led by Bob Vylan of “‘death to Israelis’” at the festival. He said this was inaccurate and misleading, as the words of the chant were actually “death, death to the IDF” and that the quotation marks in the headline gave readers the inaccurate impression that it was a direct quote from the band. The complainant said this meant the headline was not supported by - and was in fact contradicted by - the text of the article, which set out the actual chant, “death, death to the IDF”.

6. The complainant said the sub-heading was significantly inaccurate as the chant referred to the IDF: a military force and not an individual, group of individuals or a nationality and that there was a material difference between calling for the ‘death’ of an institution, as opposed to people of a particular nationality.

7. The complainant said that it was inaccurate to conflate the IDF with Israelis in general as, in spite of Israel’s policy of mandatory military conscription, 94% of Israelis are not current serving members of the IDF, and a significant number of Israelis eligible for conscription do not serve due to religious exemptions.

8. The publication did not accept that the sub-heading was inaccurate or misleading, or that the Code to be breached. It said the sub-heading’s reference to the chant - “’Death to Israelis’” - was not a direct quote, but an accurate summary of the chant and comments made by the band whilst on stage, which it said it was entitled to do and was not misleading. The publication said this summary was supported by text of the article and the wider context behind the performance.

9. The publication also said that the band had not disputed the publication’s interpretation of the meaning behind the chant as ‘Death to Israelis’. It noted that, one month prior to the Glastonbury performance reported, the band had said on stage “death to every single IDF soldier out there”. The publication said that, in light of this, the chant “Death to the IDF” could be understood as calling for the murder of individual Israeli citizens, rather than calling for the ‘death’ of the IDF as an institution – as contended by the complainant. The publication said the band’s chant should also be understood in the context of other comments, made by the singer, during the same performance: he had led chants of “from the River to the Sea”, which is widely condemned as advocating for the destruction of the Israeli state, and that he had spoken about “Zionist” control in the music industry and “genocide” perpetrated by the Israeli state.

10. The publication noted that Israel has compulsory conscription for 18-year-olds, and compulsory reserve duty for all Jewish citizens up to the age of 40. It said therefore any incitement aimed at Israel’s armed forces would logically extend to the vast majority of its adult Jewish population. It said it was for these reasons that the chant had been widely condemned as anti-Semitic hate speech and had prompted a police investigation. It said the article clearly supported the sub-heading’s characterisation of the chant as the publication said the chant had been widely interpreted as a call for “‘Death to Israelis’”, including by sources quoted in the article as critical of the BBC and the band.

11. The publication said that since the article had been published, it had become widely interpreted and accepted by others that the chant was aimed at Israelis. It referenced comments made by the Culture Secretary in Parliament:

“There was something particularly pernicious about chanting, ‘Death, death to the IDF’. Many colleagues will know that in Israel, there is a conscription model. Every young person is required to serve in the IDF, which means that chanting ‘death to the IDF’ is equivalent to calling for the death of every single Israeli Jew. That is one of the many reasons why we take this so seriously and why it cannot be argued that this did not cross a very dangerous line.”

12. It said this interpretation of the chant was also supported by the United Kingdom’s Chief Rabbi, who said:

“Israel has a conscript army. Every 18-year-old is called to serve — Jews, Christians, Muslims — and serve they do. Because they know that the country faces enemies whose stated intention is to wipe out the Jewish state and all its inhabitants. Consequently, without such service by the population at large on behalf of the entire country, Israel would not exist. And so, calling for ‘Death to the IDF’ is a call to kill the vast majority of the population of Israel. It is effectively a call for the death of the world’s only Jewish state. What could be more hateful to Jews than that?”

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

13. Single quotation marks can be used in different ways, including to present verbatim comments, and to reference a characterisation or summary of an individual’s position. In this instance, the publication’s position was that it had been using the single quotation marks to summarise chants and comments made by the band whilst on stage. The complainant did not accept this, interpreting the phrase “’Death to Israelis” in the sub-heading as implying that this was a direct quotation, when in fact this phrase had not been used by the band.

14. Where quotation marks are used to signal paraphrasing, the words inside single quotation marks may differ somewhat from the exact words spoken, but providing that the coverage makes clear the words spoken; and that the summary contained within the quotation marks is not misleading or a distortion of what was said, this is not in and of itself inaccurate. The questions for the Committee in this case were therefore: first, whether the coverage taken as a whole, made clear what was said from the stage at Glastonbury; and second, whether the publication had failed to take care over accuracy in summarising the words spoken in the way that it had.

15. The Committee noted that the text of the article on the front page, and continuing onto page 6, specified that Bob Vylan had led chants of “’death, death to the IDF’”, “’free, free Palestine’”, and “’from the River to the sea Palestine… will be free’”, the latter of which it reported is “regarded by many in the Jewish community as a call for Israel’s elimination.” The Committee considered that the coverage had included a clear and prominent explanation of the precise words that had been spoken. The accuracy of this aspect of the report was not in dispute. The Committee found that the article was not misleading on this point.

16. The Committee next considered whether the publication had failed to take care over accuracy or published misleading or distorted information when it summarised the chant with the phrase “’DEATH TO ISRAELIS”.

17. The Committee acknowledged that this is a sensitive and controversial topic and emphasised that its remit was only to apply the terms of the Editors’ Code rather than to adopt a position on these wider matters. However, the publication was entitled to hold and express such a view. It had explained the basis of its position that “Death to Israelis” was an accurate summary, which included its understanding of the relationship between Israeli society and the IDF, and the meanings it attributed to the various chants heard at the concert. While recognising that these interpretations are heavily disputed, in circumstances where the full chants were included on the front page of the article, and recognising the publication’s entitlement to set out its own interpretation of the chants, the Committee considered that the publication had provided an adequate basis for this characterisation. It did not establish that the sub-heading was inaccurate or misleading, or unsupported by the article’s text. There was no breach of Clause 1.

18. Conclusions

The complaint was not upheld under Clause 1.

19. Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 30/06/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/12/2025