04902-24 Bojtler v walesonline.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Angie Bojtler complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that walesonline.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “The sanctuary that 'never gives up' on an animal which is facing its toughest times”, published on 26 February 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on an animal sanctuary which was facing financial hardship. The article reported that for “22 years, this sanctuary has been a safe place for pets needing a new beginning.” The article said that for “most of these animals, it's a short stay - they might need some care and training before they move to new homes. But for others, especially dogs with special needs, it's a forever home where they can live out their days surrounded by love and safety.”

3. The article said that “living in Eryri means that even the best plans can be ruined by a winter storm. The shelter has been hit hard by bad weather over the years. The storms last month made things worse. They needed to fix lots of things, including the cattery which had to close. There's just not enough money to fix everything quickly. ‘We can have 40 dogs here but we're currently at 30, plus alpacas, ponies, sheep and what have you,’ [the owner] said.”

4. Further, it said there’s “a big social media push around a fundraising campaign, which has generated a couple of thousand pounds so far, along with a precious replacement concrete mixer, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of the work needed”.

5. The article said the owner “said she needed to have a big operation on her heart soon, which meant she would stay in a hospital in Liverpool. What she worried about the most were her animals and the people who helped her. She said: ‘If this place was on its feet, and repaired, then my biggest wishes would be to see my family, and to be in a position to pay the people who help here. Both those things seem a very long way off right now’”. The article closed with “You can help Snowdonia Animal Sanctuary in many ways, like giving money you don't need from other countries.”

6. The complainant contacted the publication on 25 February and said that it should refrain from publishing the article as there had been a “massive change”. Later she explained that the sanctuary was closing, as the owner would not be returning after her stay in hospital. She said the article suggested the sanctuary would remain open, however 24 hours after the article was published, the sanctuary released a statement to say it was closing.

7. On 15 June the complainant complained directly to the publication. She said there had been an RSPCA raid in December 2023 and that the reasons 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.

8. The complainant also said that the roof damage referred to in the article had not been caused by a storm but instead had been going on for years. She said the floor was constantly flooded and the dogs had to sit on pallets.

9. On 18 June, the publication responded and said it would be happy to add an update to the article to make clear that the sanctuary had closed. It also offered to contact the complainant in relation to a follow-up story.

10. On 24 July, the complainant complained to IPSO. She said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as it stated for “most of these animals, it's a short stay”. She said the majority of the dogs had been at the sanctuary for over five years and several for decades as the owner said they were too “reactive” to rehome.

11. In addition, the complainant said it was inaccurate to refer to the dogs as being “surrounded by love and safety”. She provided various documents which she said had been provided to the RSPCA including a statement from an individual who had previously worked at the sanctuary. The documents showed images of animals prior to their time at the sanctuary and images following their stay which she said demonstrated they had become ill or ungroomed. She said this resulted in a raid on the sanctuary and provided a copy of a warrant to enter and search premises dated 12 December 2023 which she said supported her position.

12. The complainant believed there was enough information in the public domain to show the true nature of the sanctuary prior to the publication of the article, and that the publication had not sufficiently investigated the situation. She also said the Rural Police North Wales had posted about the operation on Facebook in December 2023 and provided a screenshot. She said the photographer, reporter and editor were made aware of the situation but failed to act properly.

13. She said that the appeal money never went to the dogs or the sanctuary. She later said that a social media appeal was launched at the beginning of January 2024 and raised a minimum of £3000 of which only a small amount was used to fix the cattery roof and that the cement mixer was replaced in January.

14. The complaint was referred by IPSO back to the publication on 7 August. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the article was based on another article published by a sister publication in January highlighting the extensive damage caused to the sanctuary by the storms and that an appeal had been launched to raise money. It said one of the volunteers had then contacted the reporter to ask if the publication would publish a story about their fundraising. The reporter visited the animal sanctuary on 29 January for around two hours, and interviewed the owner, the sanctuary's dog behaviourist, and three volunteers. The publication said the reporter provided the following statement upon receipt of the complaint:

"The interview was conducted in the sanctuary's office, which is a wooden portable building at the top of the site before you get to the animal pens. I was told the cattery was temporarily closed because of the storms and where possible, the rescued dogs placed in temporary foster homes because of the damage so there were minimal animals on site at that time. I did meet three elderly dogs which lived there permanently, they were fine, if very old and not very mobile. I also saw a pony, some sheep and rescued lamas [sic], they looked well taken care of. From my visit, I would say the site looked just like any other struggling local animal shelter running on volunteer goodwill and local fundraising, and two huge storms had just battered it. There was nothing to suggest animal neglect, as alleged in the complaint."

15. The publication said due to the extreme weather conditions at the time of the interview, it was not possible to take any photos. However, a different reporter returned to the site a couple of days later to take the photos which appeared in the article.

16. In regard to the storm damage, the publication said the information within the article was based on the information provided by the staff to the reporter, and published in good faith, as stated in the reporter's statement above. It said it was reasonable for the reporter to rely on the information provided by the staff at the time and that the claims made by the complainant could not be substantiated. It said The North Wales Police Facebook post from December 2023 provided by the complainant to it in June did not confirm that the information related to Snowdonia Animal Sanctuary.

17. In regard to the complainant’s position that she had provided evidence of other issues to the publication but they ignored it, the publication said it was not aware of any information on these issues before the article was published. It said the warrant the complainant had provided during the complaints process was not publicly available information. It said both reporters had visited the site personally, in addition to the statements from staff which had been published in good faith. It said the only reference it could find to the shelter closing was in an article published by a different publication in April which reported the closure was due to the owner's ill health. The publication said that the complainant’s claim that the money raised had not been spent on the dogs or the sanctuary appeared to be an allegation which it had not previously heard.

18. As a gesture of goodwill, the publication offered to remove the article and do a follow up story on sanctuary regulations.

19. The complainant did not accept the offer of resolution . She suggested an appropriate resolution would be the deletion of the article, a published apology, a follow up article and a donation to charity. She said the photographer was only provided access to the kennels, stable and office, and did not see the cattery which had been shut down.

20. The publication did not agree to the suggested resolution however on 14 October, it proposed to publish a clarification at the top of the article which would say:

“UPDATE: Since this article was published, we have become aware that the premises of Snowdonia Animal Sanctuary was searched in December 2023 and that 12 dogs were seized at this time. We understand the site in Llanrwst decided to close permanently in April 2024”.

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

21. The Committee considered whether the article inaccurately suggested the sanctuary was open, whereas the complainant said it closed shortly after publication. During the preparation of the article the publication was not aware of the planned closure. The Committee was satisfied that the publication had taken sufficient care over the accuracy of the article where it appeared that there was ongoing fundraising effort in aid of the sanctuary and where it was open at the time of interviewing the staff. It further noted that the article had made clear the sanctuary was facing difficulties and focused on the costs that were required to restore the sanctuary, which would indicate to readers the future of the sanctuary was unknown. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

22. While the Committee considered the publication had taken sufficient care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information, the complainant said the sanctuary had released a statement 24 hours after the article was published announcing its closure and therefore it was no longer open. In this instance the Committee did not consider the article to be significantly inaccurate given that at the time of publication the sanctuary was open. The Committee did not consider the article was significantly inaccurate on this point and therefore did not require a correction. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii) on this point.

23. The Committee next considered the complainant’s concern that the roof damage referred to in the article had not been caused by the recent storm but had been an issue for years. It noted that the article said the “shelter has been hit hard by bad weather over the years. The storms last month made things worse.“ It did not consider the article reported that any damage was due only to the most recent storm and made sufficiently clear that the roof damage had been caused by bad weather over a number of years and had “made things worse”. As such, the Committee was satisfied this reference was not inaccurate, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

24. The complainant said it was inaccurate to state for “most of these animals, it's a short stay” as many would remain there for several years. In this instance the Committee noted the article said “But for others, especially dogs with special needs, it's a forever home” which made clear that there were animals who would live at the sanctuary for the rest of their lives. The Committee did not consider the reference under complaint to be inaccurate and there was no breach of Clause 1.

25. Turning to the reference that the dogs were “surrounded by love and safety”, the Committee considered the material provided by the complainant in support of her challenge to this statement. The publication said that its reporter had interviewed five members of staff, none of whom had raised concerns about the welfare of the animals – the publication also said that the animals the reporter did see appeared well-looked after. The publication also said that the police warrant was not publicly available at the time of publication. The Committee appreciated that there were allegations on Facebook and a post by Rural Police North Wales which referred to a joint operation at an address “near to the Llanrwst area”, however this post did not state that the address was the sanctuary. The Committee considered that given the reporter had visited the premises and had reported the views of several staff members, it had taken sufficient care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information and there was no breach of Clause 1(i) on this point.

26. The Committee, however, considered that the reference to dogs being “surrounded by love and safety” was reported as a statement of fact and was misleading in light of evidence of claims to the contrary and the visit to the sanctuary by the RSPCA two months earlier. In her complaint to IPSO the complainant had provided information in support of her challenge to this statement and passed a copy of the warrant to enter and search premises to the publication on 7 August. On 14 October, the publication offered to publish a clarification at the top of the article that read: “Since this article was published, we have become aware that the premises of Snowdonia Animal Sanctuary was searched in December 2023 and that 12 dogs were seized at this time. We understand the site in Llanrwst decided to close permanently in April 2024”. The Committee noted that the clarification was sufficiently prominent where the reference had appeared only in the text of the article. However, the clarification did not identify the misleading claim that the article had reported as fact that “the dogs were surrounded by love and safety” nor was it offered promptly - 68 days after IPSO made the publication aware of the complaint and warrant and 121 days after the complainant had made it aware of her concerns directly. As such, there was a breach of Clause 1(ii).

27. The Committee then considered the references to the fundraising efforts. The complainant said a cement mixer had been acquired in January and alleged that some of the money raised had not gone towards the sanctuary. The article said there had been “a big social media push around a fundraising campaign, which has generated a couple of thousand pounds so far, along with a precious replacement concrete mixer”. The article did not state what the money raised had or would be used for, and it was not in dispute that there was a campaign to raise money for the sanctuary. The article also said the campaign had resulted in a “replacement concrete mixer” which did not appear to be in dispute. For this reason, the Committee did not consider the references to be inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

28. The complaint was partially upheld under Clause 1 (ii).

Remedial action required

29. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. In circumstances where the Committee establishes a breach of the Editors’ Code, it can require the publication of a correction and/or an adjudication; the nature, extent and placement of which is determined by IPSO.

30. The Committee considered that the report as a statement of fact that the dogs at the sanctuary were “surrounded by love and safety” was misleading. Given the reference only appeared in the text of the article, and the publication had only become aware that this was disputed following the complaint, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that the article said the dogs were surrounded by “love and safety”, but that there had been a visit to the sanctuary by the RSPCA in December 2023 which resulted in 12 seized dogs.

31. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction. If the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, the correction on the article should be published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, the correction should be published as a footnote.

32. The wording should be agreed with IPSO in advance and should make clear that it has been published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.

Date complaint received: 24/07/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/01/2025