04389-24 Robinson v Nation.Cymru

Summary of Complaint

1. Stan Robinson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Nation.Cymru breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the following articles, as well in readers’ comments posted in response to the articles:

· “UKIP candidate cheers on man who simulated sex with a car in a churchyard”, published on 16 June 2024

· “Uproar as Labour councillor does fascist salute in protest against UKIP”, published on 21 June 2024

· “UKIP candidate’s support for Franco called out by antifascist group”, published on 27 June 2024.

2. All three articles appeared online only. The first article under complaint reported that a “far-right video blog run by a Ukip candidate [the complainant] and a convicted fraudster has been condemned after posting a message of encouragement to a man who simulated sex with a 4×4 car in front of a church.” It went on to report that “The Voice of Wales vlog is run by Stan Robinson, the UKIP general election candidate for Llanelli”,a along with another named individual. The article included a screenshot of the post in question, which showed it had been made by an account called “Voice of Wales”.

3. The second article under complaint reported that, during a general election hustings, a “councillor raised his arm in a fascist salute three times as a protest against the far-right UKIP candidate [the complainant]”.

4. The third article reported that “[t]he anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate has called out UKIP’s lead spokesman for Wales [the complainant] after he told an election hustings meeting that he admires the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco.” It described the complainant as “a notorious far-right activist”

5. Comments were posted by readers in response to the above articles, and remained online at the time of the Committee’s consideration of the complaint. The comments included the following:

· “These scum, Voice of Wales are still om [sic] Facebook. I have complained about the group, and I post the URL so others can do so, if they feel so inclined 😊”

· “It was an awful night. I got the feeling that Voice of Wales and Stan Robinson used this as more of an opportunity to show off [named individual] as the feed was being automatically shared with London Lawfair. I think it was wrong for Voice of Wales to use the Sosban bunch as supportive bullies. Say what you want about any party, but at least those candidates stood up and faced the constant negativity from [named individual] and Co. […] How do these groups sleep at night knowing they have bullied someone to such a degree as joint effort. I found them really childish and saw many of the mouthy regulars like [named individual] there who are often juvenile and really childish, so I can understand if [named individual] felt a desperate need to try and balance the atmosphere. This was biased thugs using a platform to show off and nothing more. They LOVED it when [named individual] did that gesture and have milked it to no end. A biased unsavoury bunch who like to make trouble and make it impossible for the opposition to defend themselves at every shallow opportunity. Absolutely disgusting bunch of individuals.”

· “Well done [named individual] for calling out these fascist scum that walk among us. A big shout out once again to [journalist] for highlighting the activities & deviant and monstrous ideology of these filthy minded people.”

· “There are far, far worse to be found than Simple Stan to be found in UKIP today […] Amusing to watch the c*nts, tho!”

· “Good luck [named individual], only in Fat Shanks Land is it wrong to confront the human effluence he dumped on our society.”

· “Good for him it’s time these fascists were called fascist. Why pussyfoot around they are racists anti NHS and welfare. I think [named individual] was right to call them out.”

· “Since 1940 no one wants to be termed a fascist. Which doesn’t, of course, necessarily imply that there aren’t one or two fascists actually around!”

· “He was the same about the Carms County Council when they wanted to change the Local school to a Welsh language one. However in this case I have to agree with him. These individuals are right wing thugs”.

· “’Politicide, mass murder, slave labour, forced abortion, human experimentation, war rape, abduction of children, genocide’ and ‘between 160,000 and 400,000 state sanctioned murders during Franco’s White Terror’. But someone should explain to Simple Stan that his nomination of Generalissimo to succeed [named individual] as UKIP LEADER has one, teeny-weeny little flaw [...].”

· “It’s no more than you’d expect from a ‘Kipper’”.

· “What is it with Ukip & Reform UK whose candidates have a soft spot for the most delightful people like Hitler, Mussolini, Franco & Thatcher. […] And of course everyone’s favourite […named individual…] always plays the innocent party and distances himself from those bigots & racists he's courted like the pied piper and his army of rats.”

· “I wish there was a way to remove the phrase ‘voice of Wales’ from the knuckle-dragging oxygen thief aka stan robinson. He certainly does not speak for Cymru.”

· “Is this guy a racist moron? You bet he is.”

6. The complainant said that the first article had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) as he had not “cheer[ed] on a man who simulated sex with a car in a churchyard”. He said that the post made to the Voice of Wales Facebook had not been made by him, but by another individual who had access to the account. He said that, as he was standing for candidacy in the then-ongoing general election, he was not contributing editorially to Voice of Wales until after the election. He said that, had the publication contacted him for comment, they would have been made aware of this.

7. The complainant said that the second article breached the Code as he had not been contacted for comment and the article was inaccurate. He alleged that the publication was interfering in an election, as he was a candidate in the general election.

8. The complainant also said that all three of the articles and the comments breached Clause 1 because he was a member of a mainstream political organisation, and had never been a member of a far-right organisation. He said that referring to him in such terms painted him as an extremist.

9. The complainant also said that the comments breached Clause 12 as they were prejudicial towards him. He said that the articles did not include any reference to his race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. He said that the comments did include such a reference, though he didn’t specify the nature of this reference.

10. The complainant also expressed concern that the publication used unnamed sources in its reporting.

11. The regulation of reader comments on a publication’s website falls within IPSO’s remit when there is a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice, and where it can be shown that the comment has been subject to some level of editorial control either through pre- or post-moderation. In this case, the comments were moderated – the vast majority, said the publication, were manually moderated. Comments which came in overnight would be auto-moderated, with the auto-moderator set to approve only comments from accounts that have previously commented. It also said that comments which were flagged would be manually moderated.

12. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that its articles were based on information from reliable, respectable, and largely political sources. It said it was confident about the veracity of the information its sources had provided.

13. The publication also did not accept that the readers’ comments were inaccurate, or that it was inaccurate to refer to the complainant as far-right. It said that the UKIP party the complainant was involved with was very different from the one that campaigned for Brexit and elected MEPs, and described the current party as “a fringe far-right party with a tiny membership”. 

14. To support its position, the publication provided news reports from other publications. One reported that the complainant “posted a conspiracy theory that the Government and 'MSM' - mainstream media - are keeping the threat of Muslim terrorism quiet, along with a highly derogatory statement about people from Pakistan”; another reported that “the Muslim Council of Wales says Stan Robinson's Twitter account is a ‘collection of hateful, bigoted and deeply worrying misinformation and conspiracies’". It went on to report that, “[o]n his Twitter account, Mr Robinson has in the past fortnight posted several derogatory messages about Islam and Muslims. He has also retweeted a message labelling migrants ‘parasites’ who should be ‘arrested’ or ‘shot’ to ‘stop the invasion’". A third article reported:

“Stan Robinson previously appeared to broadcast live from protests against housing asylum seekers in a former army training camp in Pembrokeshire and over Swansea City players ‘taking the knee’ in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement.

They had also hosted discussions with controversial guests, including members of the Proud Boys group, which is active in the USA and Canada.”

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.

12 (Discrimination)

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

14 (Confidential sources)

Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.

IPSO Regulations

1. The Regulator shall regulate the following material published by Regulated Entities within the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, subject to the exceptions in Regulation 4 below:

1.2 editorial content on electronic services operated by Regulated Entities such as websites and apps, including text, pictures, video, audio/visual and interactive content.

4. Complaints handling by the Regulator shall be restricted to complaints about breaches of the Editors' Code which, for the avoidance of doubt, shall not include:

4.6 complaints about 'user generated content' posted onto Regulated Entities' websites which has not been reviewed or moderated by the Regulated Entity

Findings of the Committee

15. The complainant had said that it was inaccurate to report that he had “cheer[ed] on man who simulated sex with a car in a churchyard.” It was not in dispute that Voice of Wales, a social media page jointly owned and operated by the complainant and another individual, had made such a post – however, the complainant had said that, at the time of the post being made, he held no editorial role within the organisation.

16. The Committee noted that the article made clear that the post had been made on the Voice of Wales Facebook account, and the basis for linking the post with the complainant in the headline: he co-owned the account. This was made clear from the opening of the article, and a prominent screenshot of the post, showing that it had been made by the Voice of Wales account. In circumstances where the complainant co-owned the account where the post had appeared, and the article made clear that the post had been made to the Voice of Wales account, the Committee considered that the headline was supported and clarified by the text of the article, and that it was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1.

17. The Code does not cover issues of election interference; articles which criticise political candidates, their polices, or their positions are not prohibited, provided they comply with the Code. This remains the position regardless of whether they are published during a pre-election period. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

18. The Committee next considered the comments under complaint. Given the comments had been subject to moderation by the publication, and remained online after the moderation process, this meant that they fell within IPSO’s remit.

The complainant said the articles and the comments breached the terms of Clause 1 by describing him as “far-right”. The Committee noted that where someone might be considered to fall on the political spectrum is, to a large extent, subjective. It considered that expressing an opinion during a general election campaign on where someone might be considered to fall on the political spectrum is largely subjective and, in this instance, was presented as a matter of personal opinion. There was no breach of Clause 1.

19. The complainant had expressed concern over the publication’s use of unnamed sources. The Code does not prohibit the use of unnamed sources, provided care is taken over the accuracy of reporting which relies on undercover sources. The Committee noted that Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the Editors’ Code says that journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information, making clear that the practice is permitted under the Code, and that revealing the identity of anonymous sources can in fact breach the Code. There was, therefore, not breach of the Code on this point.

20. The complainant had also said that, as the publication had not approached him for comment in relation to the articles and he had not been given the opportunity to respond to the reader comments about him, there had been a further breach of Clause 1. The Code does not include a stand-alone requirement for publications to contact the subject of articles for comment prior to publication. However, a failure to reach out for comment may breach the Code should a significant inaccuracy be published as a result, or if someone is not given a fair opportunity to respond to a significant inaccuracy that has already published. In this case, as the Committee did not find that a significant inaccuracy had been published, either in the articles or in the comments, this did not apply. Therefore, there was no obligation for the publication to contact the complainant directly for his comment.

21. The decision of whether or not to permit reader comments – or to restrict certain readers from making comments – is a matter of editorial discretion. While the specific content of comments can breach the Code, a publication is not obliged to allow readers to comment, to publish comments from specific individuals, or to allow individuals the ‘right to reply’ via a reader’s comments. There was, therefore, no breach of the Code on these points.

22. The complainant said that the article and comments were prejudicial against him, in breach of Clause 12. Clause 12 protects specific individuals mentioned in press coverage from prejudice based on their protected characteristics; namely, their race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability. The complainant had not said that the article or comments were prejudiced against him due to a protected characteristic he held; rather, his concerns appeared to be that the publication and commenters’ approach to him was generally prejudicial. Given the complainant had not said that he had been discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic, there was no breach of Clause 12.

23. The complainant had also said that the publication was biased against him. However, the Editors’ Code of Practice does not address issues of bias. It makes clear the press has the right to be partisan, to give its own opinion and to campaign, provided the Code is not otherwise breached.

Conclusions

24. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

25. N/A

Date complaint received: 22/08/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/10/2024