03536-25 Brereton v wsfp.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. James Brereton complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that wsfp.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Off-duty Coastguard rescues dog owner from sea as pet dies falling from Watchet cliffs”, published on 25 August 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported on an incident in which reportedly a “dog [had] died after falling from cliffs” and “its owner was nearly killed trying to save the animal”. It reported that the “dog owner was rescued by an off-duty Coastguard who was supervising” a group of Sea Scouts. It then reported that the “sea scouts took the man to the outer slipway of Watchet Harbour where Coastguard cliff rescue technicians who responded to a 999 call helped to support him ashore”.

3. A link to the article also appeared on the publication’s Facebook page on the same date as the article; this was captioned “A dog died after falling from cliffs near Watchet and its owner was nearly killed trying to save the animal.”

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1; he said that no one had been “nearly killed” or “rescued”, as the article and Facebook page reported. He said that his partner was the dog owner referenced in the article, and it was his dog which had died, and he therefore knew that the article was “exaggerated” and did not reflect the actual circumstances of the incident.

5. The complainant said that his partner was simply given assistance to carry the dog’s body back to shore. His partner had been met by a local man who worked for the Coastguard, who offered to assist the complainant’s partner by boat, so that he would not have to climb over rocks. The complainant said that they had then been met by a further member of the local Coastguard team, who had stopped to see if any assistance was required. He said that it was therefore inaccurate to report that his partner had been met by multiple Coastguard technicians, as the article reported.

6. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 4, as he did not consider its publication had been handled sensitively. He said that this was because no attempt was made to verify basic details with those involved in the incident, which amplified his distress.

7. The complainant also expressed concerns that he had called the publication and sent it a Facebook message outlining his concerns, but had not received a response. He said that the publication should apologise.

8. The publication first apologised that the complainant had not received a response to his direct complaint – it said that this was due to ongoing issues with its voicemail service. It also said that the complainant should have received an auto-response to his Facebook message, as it was an unmonitored inbox.

9. Turning to the complaint, the publication said that its article was based on a detailed press release issued by the Coastguard, but that it would be happy to work with the complainant to resolve any issues arising from its own coverage.

10. Notwithstanding the above, it said it was entitled to expect that the press release was accurate and did not require additional verification.

11. The publication provided two statements; one from the local RNLI and one from the local Coastguard. The RNLI statement included the following:

“Minehead’s volunteer crew were plucked from their mornings yesterday to answer a call for service at Helwall Bay, where a dog had sadly fallen from cliffs. The owner got into difficulties trying to rescue it.

“Thankfully a local boat was able to render immediate assistance and the D-Class volunteer crew were stood down hallway to the water.”

12. The Coastguard statement included the following:

“Over the last week our team have been tasked to multiple Incidents including [….] a report of a dog and owner over the cliff at Hewell Bay, Watchet.

“Whilst our Cliff rescue equipment was proceeding back to Watchet from the Dunster Show, and Minehead RNLI Lifeboat Station were tasked in support, members of our team were already on scene on the clifftop, and from the water as one team member was literally on the scene supervising [Sea Scouts.]

With the dog owner now in the water he was brought on boards the scout safety boat & the pet dog recovered however unfortunately the dog had not survived […]

Upon arrival on the outer slipway of Watchet Harbour the scouts safety boat was met by Coastguards who supported the dog walker ashore […]”

13. However, thirteen days after being made aware of the complaint, the publication offered to publish a correction, which would set out that the man’s life was never in danger as the article reported. It said that the phrase “nearly killed” had been inferred from the press release issued by the Coastguard, which stated that the owner of the dog “got into difficulties”, and that for this reason it would be content to correct the article.

14. One month after it was made aware of the complaint, it confirmed that it would amend the article to add the following correction as a footnote:

“An earlier version of this article suggested the dog walker was ‘nearly killed’, this was not the case and the West Somerset Free Press is happy to set the record straight.“

15. Although the article had not appeared in print, it also proposed – as a gesture of goodwill – to publish the correction in print, on page 4.

16. The publication turned to the remainder of the complaint. It noted that the press release referred to “Coastguards who supported the dog walker ashore”. It did not therefore consider that it was inaccurate for the article to refer to a “rescue” or to refer to multiple Coastguard rescue technicians. It said it had not approached the complainant or his partner for comment because they had not been named in the press releases, and it did not approach the Coastguard as it considered the statement fully set out its understanding of the incident.

17. The publication said that the terms of Clause 4 were not engaged, as the Clause relates to grief following the death of a human, rather than a dog. It added that it did not consider that an apology was appropriate, particularly where no individual had been named in the article.

18. The complainant said he had contacted the Coastguard’s press office, which had confirmed that the publication had not contacted it in relation to the story. This, he said, underlined his concern that the publication had not properly verified the claims made by the Facebook post. He added that the Coastguard’s press release did not say that his partner had been “nearly killed”, nor did it use the word “rescue”. He added that the statements confirmed that members of the cliff rescue team were coincidentally present at the time, and that there was no “operational deployment of cliff rescue technicians”. Therefore, he said the reference to “cliff rescue technicians” misrepresented what had occurred. For these reasons, the complainant said a correction would not resolve his complaint; he made this position clear prior to the publication specifying the exact wording and location of its proposed correction.

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.

Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

Findings of the Committee

19. Neither press release which the publication had relied on in the preparation of its article said that the complainant’s partner had been “nearly killed” in the incident. While this had been inferred by the reporter, the Committee did not consider that this was a reasonable inference based on the contents of both press releases, and noted that the publication had taken no further steps to clarify whether its inference was accurate – for example, by reaching out to either the Coast Guard or the RNLI. In such circumstances, the publication had not taken care over the accuracy of the article’s claim that the complainant’s partner had been “nearly killed”. There was, therefore, a breach of Clause 1 (i).

20. The inaccuracy related to a distressing incident involving the complainant’s partner, and the Committee considered that the inaccurate information had the clear potential to cause further distress and worry. It also considered the phrase “nearly killed” significantly exaggerated the seriousness of the incident. In such circumstances, the inaccuracy was significant and in need of correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

21. The publication had taken clear steps to resolve the complainant’s concerns, and had proposed a correction to the online article within two weeks of being made aware of the complaint – which the Committee considered sufficiently prompt, given the necessity of investigating how the error had come about and whether the article was indeed inaccurate on this point. It also considered that – in circumstances where it had offered to amend the article – a footnote correction was sufficiently prominent. It was also satisfied that the correction had set out both the original inaccuracy and the correct position: that the man had not been “nearly killed”.

22. The complainant believed that an apology would be appropriate in the circumstances. Considering the case, the Committee noted that the publication had apologised directly to the complainant that it had not responded to his initial complaint, and had taken clear and prompt steps to resolve his complaint. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider that an apology was required. For this reason, and the reasons outlined above, the Committee was satisfied that the proposed online correction addressed the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

23. However, the significantly inaccurate information had also appeared on the publication’s Facebook page. The publication had not proposed to publish a correction on its Facebook page, which the Committee considered warranted in the circumstances – given the significantly inaccurate information had also appeared there. In such circumstances, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii) in relation to the Facebook post.

24. It did not appear to be in dispute that the complainant’s partner had been assisted to shore by an off-duty Coastguard technician, and met by at least one further member of the Coastguard once there. The Committee also had regard for the original statement issued by the local lifeboat station, which said the complainant’s partner “got into difficulties”. While the Committee understood that the complainant did not consider that this constituted a “rescue”, the Committee considered that this was not an inaccurate description of the incident. There was no breach of Clause 1 in relation to the use of the word "rescue".

25. Both statements referenced multiple Coastguard operatives assisting the complainant’s partner. The Committee considered that the publication was entitled to rely on these statements as a first-hand recollection of the vents of the incident, and it was not required to contact the complainant or the Coastguard to verify the contents of the statements, where both were consistent and did not – on the face of it – appear to include any information which was inaccurate. Therefore, the Committee did not consider that the article’s references to multiple Coastguard operatives being involved in the incident represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article on this point.

26. From the complainant’s description of the incident, it appeared that at least two members of the Coastguard were involved – albeit he had said that only one member of the Coastguard had met his partner at the shore, one of the members had been off-duty, and their presence at the incident was a coincidence. Notwithstanding this, given the fact that both press releases had referenced multiple members of the Coastguard and appeared that multiple members had been present, the Committee did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

27. The Committee next turned to Clause 4. It first noted that the terms of the Clause do not state that it is limited only to grief arising from the death of a human.

28. However, while the Committee considered it regrettable that the article included a significant inaccuracy regarding the rescue, it considered that the inaccuracy had been dealt with under the terms of Clause 1. It also noted that the article did not seek to make light of the incident, and it was satisfied that the error had not come about due to a lack of sensitivity on the part of the publication. It further noted that the terms of Clause 4 do not require newspapers to contact affected parties directly to ensure compliance with its terms. For these reasons, there was no breach of Clause 4.

Conclusions

29. The complaint was upheld in part under Clause 1 (i) and Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

30. The proposed correction to the online article clearly put the correct position on record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published.

31. Where the significantly inaccurate information also appeared on the publication’s social media pages, a form of the proposed correction should also be published as a separate post on the publication’s Facebook page, where it should be archived in the usual way. The wording of this correction should – in line with the publication’s other published correction - make clear the original inaccuracy, set out the correct position, and make clear that it has been published following an upheld IPSO complaint.

Date complaint received: 31/08/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 04/03/2026