03774-25 Jones v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Owen Jones complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “‘I was Starmer’s political prisoner’”, published on 23 August 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on the front page and continued on to page seven - was an interview with a named individual following her release from prison. The article included the author’s byline and photograph, and a large photograph of the author and the individual together in a garden.

3. The article said the interviewee “had been behind bars for 380 days for a nasty tweet posted in anger on the night of the Southport massacre of little girls.” On page seven, the article reported she “now believes that cases like hers were used to deflect attention away from the Islamist savagery that took the lives of Alice, Bebe and Elsie Dot at that Southport dance class.”

4. The article closed by stating: “She has more than survived. And what a tale, what a teller. Cry God for Harry, England, and [named individual].”

5. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format under the headline “[Named individual] interview: ‘People hoped prison would break me. It didn’t’”. This version was published on 22 August 2025, and included a video of the interview with the named individual.

6. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it stated that the interviewee “now believes that cases like hers were used to deflect attention away from the Islamist savagery that took the lives of Alice, Bebe and Elsie Dot at that Southport dance class." He said describing the attacks as "Islamist savagery" was misleading as there was no evidence that the attacker was an 'Islamist' or that his motivations related to Islam.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the term "Islamist savagery" constituted the opinion of the writer which appeared in an article “laden with expressions of opinion” both from the writer and the named individual. It said a reader would have understood the reference to “Islamist” to be a subjective evaluation.

8. It said the writer’s basis for this opinion was that the attacker’s actions were comparable to the savagery which had been associated with Islamism. It said the writer took into account the murder of young girls at an Ariana Grande concert by an Islamist and the Isis-inspired plot to target a Taylor Swift concert, given the Southport girls were attending a Taylor Swift themed event. It further said the attacker was in possession of an Al Qaeda manual which contained instructions of knife attacks including targeting specific areas of the body. It added the manual also referenced the production of ricin, which featured in the Southport case.

9. In support of its position, it quoted the Judge from the attacker’s trial’s comments:

“In his home the police discovered clear evidence of settled intention to carry out mass killing. On one of his computers were files proving that he had a long-standing preoccupation with violent killing and genocide. Of particular significance were copies of an Al-Qaeda training manual, which described methods of killing with a knife and where to attack the victim. Part of it referred to attacking the head and neck, just as he had done to some of the victims in this case.

Also the manual provided instruction on how to produce ricin, a highly dangerous toxin, which can cause multiple deaths and has no known antidote. I am sure that he had followed those instructions, because the police found in his bedroom the materials to produce Ricin and a pulp residue within a container.”

10. The complainant said it could not be objectively verified that the Southport attacks were “Islamist savagery” and that it was a stretch to claim that the possession of an Al Qaeda manual rendered the attacks Islamist savagery. He said that, just because the attacker had a similar target to Islamists, this did not mean he was also an Islamist. He said if a far-left protester learnt how to riot from a manual written by far-right groups, he doubted the publication would refer to the protester as 'far-right rioting'.

11. The publication said the complainant accepted that the reference under complaint could be opinion. It said, in the context of a piece full of opinions and the writer's plainly forceful manner of expression, the words "Islamist savagery", which were strongly emotional in nature, were clearly an example of a subjective evaluation of the facts of the Southport case, as readers would easily understand.

12. The complainant said it was not clear from the article whether the description should be considered fact or not. He therefore considered the reference was misleading and not distinguished as comment or conjecture. He said the fact that the description "Islamist savagery" appears in an opinion piece does not, in itself, mean that it is clearly distinguished as opinion from fact.

13. The complainant added that, according to Clause 1 (iv), it is the responsibility of the publisher to clearly distinguish between opinion and fact. He said he did not dispute that the description "Islamist savagery" could be interpreted as opinion or could be interpreted as fact depending on who is reading it. He said his point was that the description is not clearly distinguished one way or the other.

14. The complainant said he was sceptical of the publication’s argument that the "strongly emotional" nature of the description supported the idea that it was clearly opinion. He said a statement can contain strongly emotional language but also have elements of fact.

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

15. The Committee noted that the article was clearly distinguished as a feature piece, recounting the writer’s subjective experience of the interview, as well as the interviewee’s own personal experiences and views. This was made clear by the article’s polemic style, and the prominent photographs of the writer and the woman along with the prominent writer byline.

16. Turning to the specific reference under complaint, the Committee considered that the use of the word “believes” and the polemic reference to “Islamist savagery” made clear that the reference was not an objective claim of fact about the attacker’s motivations in carrying out the attack, and instead was the writer’s understanding of what motivated the attack. Given this, and the overall framing of the article as noted above, the Committee was satisfied that the claim was adequately distinguished from fact, as required by Clause 1 (iv).

17. At any rate, the Committee noted that the publication had provided a basis for the author’s opinion that the attack was “Islamist savagery”: copies of an Al-Qaeda training manual had been found at the attacker’s home. In such circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the article distinguished comment from fact, and that it was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

18. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 12/09/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/02/2026