03078-25 Goldsprings of Comber Loyal Orange Lodge v Belfast Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Goldsprings of Comber Loyal Orange Lodge complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Belfast Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Irish cricket’s ‘dismay’ over row that led to scrapping of kids’ camp”, and an article headlined “No part of this country should be off-limits for children”, both published on 17 July.

2. The first article reported that a children’s summer sports camp in Comber was cancelled due to opposition towards the involvement of children from a Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) club. The sub-headline reported that the “Orange lodge had objected to young members of GAA club taking part”, and the text of the article reported “North Down Cricket Club had planned to host the kids summer camp at Comber on Friday, but it was scrapped after Goldsprings LOL said a number of residents had ‘expressed significant concerns’.”

3. The article went on to report:

“In a social media post, Goldsprings LOL said: ‘While the promotion of sport and youth engagement is widely supported across all sectors of society, many local residents have raised reservations about the GAA’s cultural and historical affiliations. ‘Specifically there is unease regarding aspects of the organisation that have, in the past, celebrated or commemorated individuals associated with paramilitary activity. ‘For a shared and peaceful future, such actions are viewed by some as divisive and incompatible with a truly inclusive society.’”

4. The first article also appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline “Cricket Ireland and Northern Cricket Union ‘dismayed and disappointed’ at kids’ camp controversy”. This version of the article was published on 16 July 2025.

5. The second article under complaint was a comment piece, which stated: “it’s bizarre that those harking back to glory days that can’t be recovered, while loudly proclaiming their allegiance to the Union, oppose youngsters from a GAA club being taught cricket. […] The Orange Order should have instantly slapped down the statement from Comber-based Goldsprings lodge about the summer camp. The lodge said that local residents had ‘raised reservations about the GAA’s cultural and historical affiliations’.”

6. The second article appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline “Sports camp row: East Belfast GAA children do us proud – no part of NI should be off-limits for them”.

7. The complainant said that the first article breached Clause 1 because it inaccurately suggested that there was a causal link between Goldsprings of Comber Orange Lodge’s Facebook statement of 15 July, and the cancellation of the children’s summer camp. It said the decision to cancel the camp had been made independently of – and prior to – the Lodge’s statement. It said that, after the article’s publication, the cricket club had publicly confirmed that there was no link between the Facebook post and the summer camp’s cancellation. It said the publication had not taken sufficient care to fact-check its reporting prior to publication, and had placed disproportionate weight instead on comments from politicians about the cancellation of the camp.

8. The complainant said that although the correct position was made clear in subsequent reporting by the publication, this was not sufficient to address its complaint, as the publication had not issued a correction or clarification in relation to the original inaccurate article.

9. The complainant said the second article also breached Clause 1 by repeating the inaccurate claim.

10. The publication did not accept that the first article breached Clause 1. It said that the sub-headline – “Orange lodge had objected to young members of GAA club taking part” – was supported by the complainant’s posts on X and Facebook on 15 July, which were quoted in the article. It provided these posts, which it said made clear that the complainant opposed the children’s cricket camp going ahead because of the participation of children from a GAA club:

“Concern Raised Over GAA Presence in Comber

Comber, Co. Down – Tuesday 15th July 2025.

A number of residents in the Comber area have expressed significant concerns regarding the proposed or perceived move of the GAA (Gaelic Athletic Association) into the local community.

While the promotion of sport and youth engagement is widely supported across all sectors of society, many local residents have raised reservations about the GAA’s cultural and historical affiliations. Specifically, there is unease regarding aspects of the organisation that have, in the past, celebrated or commemorated individuals associated with paramilitary activity. For a shared and peaceful future, such actions are viewed by some as divisive and incompatible with a truly inclusive society.

Residents have made it clear that until the GAA takes meaningful steps to ensure it is fully inclusive and sensitive to the history and identity of the Protestant, Unionist and Loyalist (PUL) community, its presence in Comber would be viewed with regret and opposition by many in the Comber area.

This issue is not about opposition to sport, but about ensuring that all organisations operating in shared spaces demonstrate respect for all traditions and work proactively towards reconciliation and mutual understanding”.

11. The publication acknowledged that the cricket club had announced the cancellation of the children’s cricket camp prior to the complainant’s Facebook post, and had since confirmed that the camp had not been cancelled because of Goldsprings Lodge’s statement. However, it said the article was not inaccurate to report that the camp “was scrapped after Goldsprings LOL said a number of residents had ‘expressed significant concerns’”, as the complainant’s Facebook post demonstrated that it was clearly opposed to the involvement of East Belfast GAA in the camp prior to its cancellation.

12. The publication said that it had not considered it necessary to contact the complainant for comment prior to publication, as the focus of the article was on comments made by public officials, two sporting bodies and the North Down Cricket Club. 27 days after the complaint was referred to the publication by IPSO, however, it said it would be willing to add a clarification to the article or publish a new article putting the complainant’s position on record.

13. The publication did not accept that the second article breached Clause 1. It said that this article commented on the substance of Goldsprings Lodge’s post, but not its timing. It added that the article and made no claims about a link between the Facebook post and the cricket camp’s cancellation.

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

14. The Committee considered the first article under complaint. Given it reported that the camp “was scrapped after Goldsprings LOL said a number of residents had ‘expressed significant concerns’”, the Committee considered this gave the misleading impression that the camp had been cancelled as a result of the complainant’s social media post of 15 July. According to a statement from the cricket club, however, this was not the case.

15. The publication had not put this allegation to the complainant nor, seemingly the cricket club. In such circumstances, the Committee considered there had been a failure to take care not to publish misleading information. There was a breach of Clause 1 (i).

16. The Committee considered that this misleading information was significantly so, given the reasons behind the sudden cancellation of the camp formed the thrust of the article under complaint – and the article was misleading as to the reasons for this cancellation. . It therefore required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

17. 27 days after IPSO made the publication aware of the complaint, it had offered to add print clarification and a footnote clarification to the online article, putting the complainant’s position on record. However, the Committee considered merely putting the complainant’s position on record was not sufficient, given that the cricket club itself had confirmed that the cancellation was not linked to the social media post. This was therefore a breach of Clause 1(ii).

18. The Committee next turned to the second article under complaint,. It noted the complainant’s position that the second article repeated the inaccurate claim – that the children’s cricket club had been cancelled as a result of the Lodge’s public statements. However, the Committee noted that the article did not link the camp’s cancellation with the social media posts. Rather, the comment piece focused on the substance of the complainant’s statements, which it did not deny it had posted. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

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

Remedial action required

20. Having partially 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.

21. The first article under complaint included significantly misleading information, as it gave the misleading impression that the complainant’s social media post had led to the cancellation of the children’s cricket camp and its cancellation. At the same time, the Committee noted that it was not in dispute that the complainant had expressed opposition to the camp due to the inclusion of a GAA club – albeit that this had not led to the club’s cancellation.

22. Therefore on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that the article had reported, in a misleading manner, that the children’s sports camp had been cancelled following the complainant’s social media posts. It should also put the correct position on record: that The cricket club had confirmed that this was not the case.

23. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction The print correction should be published in the publication’s Corrections and Clarifications column, as this is where readers would expect to find corrections and clarifications.

24. 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, the correction should be published as a footnote. The Committee considered this to be a duly prominent position, given the misleading information only appeared in the text of the article, rather than in the headline.

25. 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: 22/07/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 15/12/2025