Ruling

04883-24 Bojtler v dailypost.co.uk

  • Complaint Summary

    Angie Bojtler complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailypost.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Snowdonia Animal Sanctuary hits back at 'bully dog breeding misinformation'”, published on 26 March 2024.

    • Published date

      30th January 2025

    • Outcome

      Breach - sanction: action as offered by publication

    • Code provisions

      1 Accuracy

Summary of Complaint

1. Angie Bojtler complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailypost.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Snowdonia Animal Sanctuary hits back at 'bully dog breeding misinformation'”, published on 26 March 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported that an “animal shelter ha[d] posted a statement to dispute what it sa[id] are a number of false social media claims made about the charity after an RSPCA visit”. The article said that the charity had “hit back at what it calls ‘misinformation’ circulating on social media about the breeding of bully dogs; use of donations[;] and the very future of the site. Snowdonia Animal Sanctuary, at Capel Garmon, near Llanrwst, posted a statement on its Facebook page, to ‘clear up some of the misinformation that has been put on Facebook recently’”.

3. The article also said: “The shelter - which runs on a not-for-profit basis, and depends on donations [-] was founded by [named individual] more than 20 years ago. In January it was […] damaged during Storm Isha, which prompted a fundraising campaign to help repair the damage”. This sentence hyperlinked to a previous article headlined “Video shows scale of Snowdonia Animal Sanctuary flooding as appeal for help launched”.

4. The article went on to report that, “in a statement posted on the sanctuary's Facebook page, written on behalf of [the owner], the site has refuted a number of allegations it said were posted on Facebook in the wake of an RSPCA inspection which took place in March. The RSPCA has confirmed it visited the premises.” The article quoted the sanctuary’s statement, which included the following:

“Yes, we did have a visit from the RSPCA due to false allegations that we were breeding bully breeds at the Sanctuary. On attendance of the RSPCA, they identified that this was not the case and have cleared the sanctuary to carry on, giving the same care to the animals as always. Secondly, [n]o, the sanctuary is not closing. We will carry on working with the community and volunteers to keep helping dogs going forward and when [the founder] has made a recovery she will be returning home to keep the sanctuary going as she has for the last 22 years. Finally. To the [r]eports that donations are being misused. Any donations that have been donated are used directly on the animals and their care, this happens in many forms whether it's buying supplies or paying for vet bills for dogs that have been rescued in ill hea[l]th. These donations are vital to keep the sanctuary running on a day to day basis. Donations don't always need to be of monetary value. Donating food/ bedding and time are also amazing.”

5. The article also quoted an RSPCA spokesperson who reportedly said: “RSPCA Inspectors attended on 21 March with officers from North Wales Police. Unfortunately, we are unable to discuss complaints about specific people and what action may have been taken for legal reasons. We will always look into animal welfare concerns reported to us and where necessary investigate.” Throughout the article, the same font and type size was used.

6. Prior to the article’s publication, on 25 February - the complainant, who was a volunteer at the sanctuary, contacted a photographer who worked on behalf of the publication following his visit to the sanctuary for a different article. She told him that there had been a “massive change”, though she did not specify what this was.

7. On 15 June the complainant complained directly to the publication as she did not consider the story had been investigated properly and was therefore misleading. She explained that, on 25 February, staff and volunteers had been told the owner would not be returning due to her health and that the sanctuary was closing. However, the article did not reference this and omitted other information which she said made the article misleading.

8. In relation to visit by the RSPCA in March 2024 referred to in the article, the complainant said that there had also been a visit by the RSPCA in December 2023, which was not referenced in the article – rendering it inaccurate. She said that the reasons for the earlier visit were public knowledge and she provided various documents, Facebook posts and images of the animals who were kept at the sanctuary which she said illustrated the conditions in which they were housed. She went on to explain that the sanctuary had, in its statement published in the article, said that the March visit had come about as a result of false XL Bully breeding allegations. However, the complainant said that it was actually a follow up to the December 2023 visit, and had not been prompted by any allegations of illicit dog breeding.

9. The complainant said the article under complaint was inaccurate as it did not reference an earlier social media post made by North Wales Police and an article about the police force. She also said that she was concerned because the article linked to a previous article which had appealed for donations.

10. On 18 June, on receipt of a direct complaint from the complainant, the publication responded and offered to add an update to make clear the sanctuary had closed. It also offered to contact the complainant in relation to a follow up story.

11. The complainant complained to IPSO on 24 July. She said the article breached Clause 1 as the sanctuary’s statement was presented as fact, rather than comment.

12. She also said that the article breached Clause 1 as the damage to the building, which was attributed to Storm Isha in the article, actually pre-existed the storm to some extent: she said water had been leaking through the walls for many years, the floor was constantly flooded, and the dogs had to sit on pallets due to the water damage.

13. The complainant also said that the money raised from the appeal – and which was referenced in the article- was not put towards the dogs or sanctuary.

14. The complainant provided a copy of a warrant to enter and search premises dated 12 December 2023 which she said supported her position that there was a raid in December 2023 and the reasons it had been undertaken.

15. On 9 September – over a month after her initial complaint to IPSO - the complainant raised further concerns that the article’s sub-headline had inaccurately referred to the sanctuary as a charity. She provided a screenshot of the sanctuary’s listing on Companies House, which she said showed that it was registered as a Public Limited Company (PLC).

16. IPSO made the publication aware of the complaint on 10 October; on the same date, the publication requested that IPSO begin its investigation. The IPSO investigation then commenced on 16 October.

17. The publication did not accept reporting the sanctuary’s statement was a breach of Clause 1. It said it did not report the statement or its contents as established fact, or that the RSPCA’s March 2024 visit was due to allegations of XL Bully breeding. Rather, it said it had correctly distinguished between comment, conjecture and fact – as required by Clause 1 (iv) of the Editors’ Code. It said this was the case as the claim that the RSPCA’s March visit was due to "false allegations" was based on the sanctuary's Facebook post, which the headline and article clearly reported.

18. The publication said that the sanctuary’s Facebook page had since been deleted, however it provided screenshots of sections of the sanctuary’s statement which appeared in Google searches to support its position. This included the following: “Yes, we did have a visit from the rspca due to false allegations that we were breeding bully breeds at the sanctuary”.

19. The publication also said it had contacted the RSPCA for comment; the comment it had received appeared in the article. It provided the chain of correspondence with the RSPCA. In it, the publication said to the RSPCA: “Could I check if you have any further details on this please? Snowdonia Animal Sanctuary recently put up a statement on Friday claiming they were visited by the RSPCA following false allegations they were breeding bully dogs and were cleared by the RSPCA.” The RSPCA’s spokesperson provided a comment which said:

“RSPCA Inspectors attended on 21 March with officers from North Wales Police. Unfortunately we are unable to discuss complaints about specific people and what action may have been taken for legal reasons. We will always look into animal welfare concerns reported to us and where necessary investigate. We are so grateful to people who report suspected animal suffering to us and we would like to reassure people we will always look into and, if necessary, investigate any complaints made to us about animal welfare. A lot of the time issues will be dealt with by advice and education and it is not always appropriate to publicise this information for legal reasons.”

20. The publication noted that, in its email to the RSPCA, it had referred to the RSPCA's visit following "false allegations they were breeding bully dogs", and that this had not been denied or corrected by the RSPCA in its response.

21. The publication accepted that it was inaccurate to refer to the sanctuary as a “charity”. It said it appeared this was based on the information that it was a not-for-profit organisation. On 22 October – six days after IPSO began its investigation– the publication removed the word “charity” from the article, and published the following correction beneath the article’s headline:

“A previous version of this article referred to Snowdonia Animal Sanctuary as a 'charity'. This was incorrect. Although the shelter ran on a not-for-profit basis, it was not a registered charity. We are happy to clarify this and apologise for the error. The article has been amended accordingly.”

22. In response to the publication, the complainant said reading “between the lines” the RSPCA had told the publication it attended the sanctuary due to “animal welfare concerns and reports of suspected suffering”. However, the article led with the sanctuary’s statement, which she said was presented as fact and also appeared in a larger and bolder font than the rest of the article.

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

23. The Committee noted the complainant’s concerns that staff and volunteers had been told the sanctuary was closing on 25 February, and that – despite having told the reporter that there had been a “massive change” on this date - the article had reported the sanctuary’s statement that it was “not closing”.

24. The Committee noted that the publication had not been made aware the sanctuary was closing prior to the article’s publication, and that the sanctuary’s statement had confirmed there were no plans to close. In this instance, the publication was entitled to rely on a statement made by the sanctuary itself – given that there was no information available to the publication which contradicted this - and therefore the Committee was satisfied the publication had taken sufficient care over the accuracy of the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

25. The Committee next considered whether it was inaccurate to report that the sanctuary had been “damaged during Storm Isha”. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s position that there had been damage to the building before the storm. However, given the complainant accepted that the storm had caused damage to the sanctuary and there was a subsequent appeal, it was not inaccurate for the article to report that the sanctuary had been damaged in the storm in January, regardless of whether or not there was previous damage to the building. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

26. The Committee next turned to the complainant’s allegations that money raised from the sanctuary’s appeal did not go to the dogs. The Committee noted that as above, the article had reported on a statement issued by the sanctuary denying these allegations. The article had set out the nature of the allegations, which was that they related to “the use of donations”. The Committee noted that the article did not comment on the veracity of the allegations but simply reported on their existence and the response of the sanctuary. There was no obligation for the publication to verify whether the allegations were true or false to ensure that the article was compliant with the terms of Clause 1. Rather, the obligation of the publication was to accurately report on the allegations – including distinguishing them as such – and on the sanctuary’s response to these allegations. Where the article had accurately reported on the nature of the allegations and the sanctuary’s position, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

27. The complainant said that there had been no allegations of XL Bully breeding against the sanctuary. However, the Committee did not consider that the complainant was in a position to say, with certainty, whether or not there had been; she was not acting on behalf of either the sanctuary or of any organisation responsible for dealing with such complaints. This meant that the complainant was not in a position to know the precise nature of the complaints against the sanctuary, and whether allegations of XL Bully breeding may have been made against it – though the complainant was unaware of any such allegations, it did not follow that they did not exist. In such circumstances, the Committee did not consider that it could rule on this aspect of the complaint absent the input of an individual or organisation with direct knowledge of all complaints made against the sanctuary. As such, it declined to consider this aspect of the complaint.

28. In response to the concerns that the article did not reference social media posts and news coverage which the complainant considered relevant, the Committee noted that newspapers are entitled to select which information they publish provided any omission does not breach the Code. In this case, the complainant had not set out why omitting these specific pieces of information rendered the article inaccurate or why it had led to a breach of the Code. In such circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

29. The Committee next considered the complaint that the text of the article had linked to a separate article which had appealed for donations to the sanctuary. The Committee did not consider that hyperlinking to a related article represented information which could possibly be inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

30. The Committee next considered whether the newspaper had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information when referring to the sanctuary as a charity. Given that the newspaper accepted this information was inaccurate, the Committee considered the newspaper had not exercised sufficient care in verifying the status of the organisation. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1(i).

31. The Committee next considered whether referring to the organisation as a charity was significantly inaccurate and therefore in need of correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). In this instance, the sanctuary’s charitable status - or lack thereof – was a matter of significance to the article, given the organisation had been appealing for donations and the article had reported on a statement it had made in response to allegations it had misused the donations. The Committee considered that, in these circumstances, it was important to ensure that the charitable status – or lack thereof – of an organisation is accurately reported, given the specific rights and obligations that charities have compared to other organisations. Given this, the inaccuracy was significant and therefore required correction.

32. The final question for the Committee was whether the newspaper’s correction was sufficiently prominent, prompt and corrected the record – in accordance with the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee was satisfied that the correction published below the headline was sufficiently prominent, given the original inaccuracy appeared in the sub-headline and had been removed at the time the correction was published. The Committee was also satisfied that the correction identified the original inaccuracy that the sanctuary was a “charity”, and that this was not the case as well as including an apology for the error. The Committee was also satisfied that the correction was sufficiently prompt, given it was published six days after IPSO began its investigation into the matter, and the complainant had not – prior to IPSO’s investigation – made the publication aware of her concerns regarding this inaccuracy. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

33. The complaint was partly upheld under Clause 1 (i).

Remedial action required

34. The published correction put the correct position on record and was offered promptly and with due prominence. No further action was required.


Date complaint received: 10/10/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/01/2025