04543-25 Spence v The Irish News

Summary of Complaint

1. Edward Spence complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Irish News breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Ian Paisley, the UVF and how the Troubles began”, published on 10 October 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on page 20 – was an opinion piece about the Troubles. It referenced a charity, which had “unearth[ed] British military intelligence files which throw light on who knew what during the Troubles”. It also said that the “discoveries show the enduring connections between unionist politicians and loyalist paramilitaries and the fact that the British army was fully aware of the extent of collusion between the RUC and UDR and loyalist terrorists from the word go”.

3. It then said the “violence instigated by loyalists did not begin with the ‘false flag’ explosions in 1969: far from it.” It added that the “first such actions were devised by Billy Spence former chairman of Ulster Protestant Action” and that he “was later responsible for the creation of the UVF [Ulster Volunteer Force]”. It also said: “Billy Spence’s deception plans were resurrected in the 1969 bombing campaign, with ultimately ruinous effects for unionism.

4. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format.

5. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as it referred to the importance of British Military intelligence files but did not publish any image or graphic from the files. He also said the article implied these files confirmed the accuracy of article’s claim that his father founded the UVF. The complainant said this was inaccurate – he said his father was never charged with any involvement, activity or membership with the UVF. He also explained that the Irish Minister of Home Affairs had asked to meet his father, which was unlikely if he was involved with paramilitaries.

6. The newspaper said the article did not suggest the claims regarding the complainant’s father came from the intelligence files - and this could not have been the case, as the events of 1965-1966 preceded the arrival of the British Army in Northern Ireland. The publication explained that the article made clear that the charity’s research demonstrated the “enduring connections between unionist politicians and loyalist paramilitaries and the fact that the British army was fully aware of the extent of collusion between the RUC and UDR and loyalist terrorists from the word go”.

7. The publication said the author had relied on several books in his research on the topic, which referred to the complainant’s father’s UVF activities. It said it did not appear that any of the claims had been refuted publicly. It provided the following passages from one of the books published in 1986:

“The explosions were the culmination of Billy Spence’s strategy of deception which he had devised back in 1966 and three years later it worked with devastating effect, earning the 1969 bombs an interesting footnote in Northern Ireland’s recent violent history as the only known example of a paramilitary group fooling the authorities into believing that its violence was the work of an opposing group.”

“The SDA has been founded by UVF leader Billy Spence in May”

“[An individual] was the UVF’S front man but there was little doubt in the minds of RUC Special Branch that Billy Spence was the brains behind the organisation. Three years later the Special Branch were to conclude that [he] had formulated he UVF’s strategy for 1966.”

8. The publication said it was satisfied that the article was accurate, given the writer’s credentials. It said he was a distinguished historian of the Troubles, and was the author of several books, one of which is regarded as the pre-eminent reference work covering the violence that took place in Northern Ireland between 1966 and 1999. It said the writer had not been successfully challenged in 40 years and that he had “impeccable sources” in loyalist circles and former police.

9. The publication said the nature of illegal organisations such as the UVF is that they are secretive; it would not have kept minutes of its inaugural meetings almost 60 years ago. However, it said the writer contended that no one except the complainant disputed his father was a leading figure at those meetings.

10. It said research suggested the complainant’s father was an important player in loyalist extremism for more than a decade before the UVF was established, having been in the Ulster Protestant Association, then chair of Ulster Protestant Action – which later was subsumed into the Ulster Protestant Volunteers, many of whom joined the UVF. The publication said that, while the complainant’s father was not engaged in any operations, he was regarded as an organiser and planner. The publication said in a biography of Gusty Spence - a leader of the UVF – it said that the founder of the UVF junior wing mentioned the complainant’s father organised recruitment and training of this wing. The publication said that, while other documentary evidence did not exist, and no arrests were made or charges brought, this was not unusual in the history of the Troubles. It said a failure to bring charges or secure prosecution was not proof an individual was not involved.

11. In relation to the complainant’s father meeting the Irish Minister, the publication said that politicians have often met with prominent figures from both loyalist and republican factions, some with a paramilitary background or history, because of the particular insights they had to offer.

12. The publication added the complainant’s father was given a UVF funeral, which was attended by senior UVF figures.

13. The complainant provided a photograph of his father’s funeral which he said showed that his father was afforded an Orange funeral, as he was an Orangeman. He did not accept it was a paramilitary funeral. He did not dispute that his uncle had been involved in the UVF, and said that due to this association there would be mourners present who were in such organisations.

14. The complainant said there was no substantive evidence that the claims about his father originated from reliable sources – they had not been named, and no images of the intelligence files had been provided.

15. The complainant said he had refuted the books and news which referred to his father’s UVF activities via letter to the authors and publishers.

16. The newspaper said it was happy to offer the complainant a right of reply, published in the newspaper.

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

17. The Committee first considered the reference to the intelligence files “which throw light on who knew what during the Troubles”. The Committee noted that the publication was not required to cite or publish material from these files, provided their contents were not inaccurately summarised. It also noted that the article did not claim the intelligence files demonstrated that the complainant’s father was responsible for the creation of the UVF, as contended by the complainant. For this reason, the complainant’s concerns about the intelligence files did not raise a breach of Clause 1 on this point.

18. The Committee appreciated the dispute between the publication and complainant as to whether the complainant’s father could be described as being “responsible” for the creation of the UVF, and that the “first such actions were devised by” him. It noted it was not in a position to reconcile the conflicting positions, or to reach any definitive finding as to the nature – if any – of the complainant’s father’s association with the UVF. Its remit was limited to whether the newspaper had, in reporting such allegations, taken sufficient care over the accuracy of the claims, and whether they were significantly inaccurate.

19. The publication had set out how it had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading and distorted information: the article’s writer was a historian of the Troubles and authored several books on the subject, and had relied on sources who included those in loyalist circles and former police officers. The publication had also referenced books it had relied on in its reporting, provided excerpts which showed the books claimed that the complainant’s father had been involved in early UVF activity and was the “brains behind the organisation”.

20. Where the publication had set out the extensive research and sources it had relied on, the Committee was satisfied that the publication had taken sufficient care over the accuracy of the claim that the complainant’s father was responsible for the creation of the UVF, and that the “first such actions were devised by” him. There was no breach on Clause 1 (i) on this point.

21. In circumstances where the publication had provided substantiation to corroborate its claim about the complainant’s father, and the claim had been established in the public domain which did not appear to have been successfully challenged, the Committee did not consider that it was in a position to establish a significant inaccuracy requiring correction under Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

22. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 12/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/03/2026