04372-24 Harries v Daily Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. Glyn Harries complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Revealed: Sir Keir's family castle!”, published on 1 June 2024.

2. The article – which appeared across pages 26 and 27 as a double page spread - reported on Sir Keir Starmer’s family history. It said: “A gentle rummage in the archives by the Mail this week has lifted the lid on a joyously bucolic familial past, featuring a long line of gun-toting Starmer men who served as gamekeepers to the landed gentry while living on one of Surrey’s finest country estates.”

3. The article said that “[i]n 1916, [Gustavus Adolphus Starmer, Sir Keir’s great grandfather] and his wife, Katherine, and their five children, including Sir Keir’s grandfather Herbert, moved into Marden Castle, a gothic turreted folly situated on a hill in Sir Walpole’s country estate overlooking what the 19th-century historian Lord Macaulay described as a ‘garden of Eden’”. It also said: “Could it be that he feared city-dwelling metropolitan Labour voters might wince at the wholehearted way the Starmer ancestors had embraced the fox-hunting, cap-doffing ways of the countryside that would sit so uneasily with class warriors?”

4. The article included an illustration of the property accompanied by the caption: “Gothic: A sketch of Marden Castle, where Sir Keir’s grandfather Herbert was brought up in the first half of the 20th century”.

5. The article also appeared online in substantially the same form under the headline: “Revealed: Sir Keir's family castle! The Labour leader talked about rural poverty in his childhood. He didn't mention that his grandfather lived in Marden Castle - and his great-uncle was chairman of the Godstone Conservative Association”.

6. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as the headline implied Sir Kier Starmer's grandfather lived in a castle. He said anyone who read only the headline or first paragraph would believe Sir Keir Starmer lived a life of luxury. He further said that his great grandfather was not the 'lord of the manor' and extremely rich, as he considered the headline implied; he was simply a gamekeeper. While the complainant accepted that the article went into more detail, explaining Sir Keir’s great grandfather was a gamekeeper, he considered the headline was misleading.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the article contained no significant inaccuracy and it was appropriate and correct to report that Sir Keir’s grandfather had lived in “a castle”. It said the headline was supported by the text, where it stated Sir Keir’s “grandfather lived in Marden Castle” and explained that Gustavus Adolphus Starmer worked as a gamekeeper at Marden Park and his family lived in Marden Castle. It said that the castle was described as “a gothic turreted folly”, and that there was no possibility readers could be misled over the nature of the residence.

8. The publication said it appeared the complainant did not believe Marden Castle to be a castle, despite the name, given its size. It said there were a number of castles of vastly varying sizes. It provided links to articles about smaller castles which it said were of a comparable size to Marden Castle.

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

9. It was not in dispute that Sir Keir’s grandfather had lived in a property named “Marden Castle” which - as the article described - was a “gothic turreted folly”. The complainant considered the headline was misleading to refer the property as a “family castle”, given it was a small folly on the grounds of a larger estate and was not “Sir Keir’s family castle”.

10. The Committee carefully considered the headlines of both versions of the article, as Clause 1 (i) of the Editors’ Code makes clear that headlines should be supported by the text of the accompanying articles. While headlines do not have to give the full detail behind a story, and are intended to act as summaries, an actively misleading headline cannot be corrected by an accurate article.

11. In this case, the Committee considered that the headlines established the humorous tone of the article, making clear that the article was to be read as a tongue-in-cheek hyperbolic piece – for instance, the use of exclamation points, and the reference to “Sir Keir”, as opposed to his full-name or job title. The article continued in this humorous and hyperbolic tone, making light-hearted references to the discrepancy between the Labour Party’s ideology and the lifestyle of Starmer’s ancestors: “Could it be that he feared city-dwelling metropolitan Labour voters might wince at the wholehearted way the Starmer ancestors had embraced the fox-hunting, cap-doffing ways of the countryside that would sit so uneasily with class warriors?” 

12. The Committee noted that the Editors’ Code does not seek to prevent partisanship or humour, provided the Code is not otherwise breached and the factual basis for any such humour or partisanship is not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. In this instance, the Committee considered that the hyperbolic headline claims were clarified and supported by the text of the article, which made clear the factual basis for the headlines: Sir Keir Starmer’s great-grandfather lived in Marden Castle as he was a gamekeeper, and Marden Castle was “a gothic turreted folly”, and therefore a ‘castle’ only in name. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

13. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 18/06/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/12/2024