05362-24 Pottinger v Sunday Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. Bryan Pottinger complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Sunday Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Councillor probed over teen cleaner 'wrist skills' jibe”, published on 9 June 2024.

2. The article - which appeared on page 6 - reported on allegations that the complainant had made inappropriate comments towards a young person working as a cleaner at a local council headquarters. The article reported that a “Scottish Labour councillor has been banned from the local authority and is being probed over claims he made sexual comments to a 17-year-old […] employee”. It also referred to the employee as a “teen”, “teen cleaner” and “teenage cleaner”.  

3. Further to the above, the article reported that a “source with knowledge of the latest complaint, made in April, said […] it’s concerning [the complainant is] still able to go on school visits and take part in community events”. In addition to this, the source was also quoted as saying the complainant had “been banned from entering chambers but still tried to do it” and added that the complainant’s “pass won’t work”.

4. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format, under the headline, “Labour councillor banned from HQ as probe launched into teenage sexual comment claims”.  

5. Prior to the article’s publication, on 6 June, the publication contacted the Council’s press office as follows:

“Hi,

I understand councillor Bryan Pottinger is prohibited from entering council buildings at the moment as he is subject to a complaint to the standards commission about comments made to a 17 year old cleaner. Can you please confirm this is accurate.

Thanks,

[Reporter]”

6. The Council press office responded on the same day:

“Hi [Reporter],

Can confirm – our response to this is no comment.”

7. The publication sent the following response to the press office:

“Just wanted to clarify if you meant you can confirm what I’ve said and your response is no comment, or if you can confirm that your response is no comment?”

8. The Council press office sent the following response to the publication on the same day:

“Hi [Reporter] – our response is definitely ‘no comment’.

Apologies – earlier response is kind of ambiguous now I look at it again.

Should have said ‘To confirm’, meaning I was confirming to you that ‘no comment’ was the response, if you see what I mean.”

9. The publication sent the following email to the press office in response, on the same day:

“okay, thanks. Not really asking for a council comment though, I’m asking you for verification for the sake of accuracy. So background confirmation rather than an on the record comment if you know what I mean?”

10. On 7 June 2024, a reporter acting on behalf the publication attended the complainant’s home address for comment. The complainant responded by informing the reporter that he was unable to provide comment as the investigation into the allegation against him was ongoing.  

11. On 7 June 2024, a reporter also contacted the Scottish Labour Party’s press office; the email included the following:

“I am writing a story about a complaint which has been made against one of your Midlothian councillors, Bryan Pottinger. The complaint has been made by a 17 year old cleaner, about inappropriate comments and touching by the councillor.”

12. The Labour Party’s press office responded on the same day; their response included the following

“Please see the below comment:

A Labour Party spokesperson said: ‘The Labour Party takes all complaints seriously.

They are fully investigated in line with our rules and procedures, and any appropriate action is taken.’

On background, to be reported as it is understood, Brian Pottinger has been suspended pending the outcome of any standard investigations against him.”

13. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported that he had been accused of making sexual comments to a teenager. He said the employee was in fact over the age of 20. The complainant noted that he had informed the publication that the cleaner’s age was incorrect, in an email exchange on 19 July 2024, prior to when he first contacted IPSO.  

14. The complainant also said the article inaccurately reported that a source had said “it’s concerning” he was “still able to go on school visits and take part in community events”. The complainant said this had been published without proof or evidence, and was an opinion rather than a fact.  

15. Further to this, the complainant said the article was inaccurate to report that he had “been banned from entering chambers but [had] still tried to [enter]” and that his pass no longer worked. He said he had not tried to enter the Council headquarters at any time during the investigation. The complainant accepted that he was not able to enter the council’s headquarter offices while the investigation was ongoing, but said there was no restriction on his ability to undertake his duties as a Councillor in other buildings.  

16. The publication accepted that it was inaccurate to report that the cleaner was “a 17-year-old”, and to refer to them as a teenager. Prior to IPSO’s investigation, during direct correspondence with the complainant, the publication informed him it had amended the online article to remove the inaccuracy – the headline was amended to instead refer to a “young” person. It also published the following correction, on page 2 of its print edition on 15 September in its Corrections and Clarifications column:

“In an article titled ‘Councillor probed over teen cleaner ‘wrist skills’ jibe’ published on June 9, 2024, we stated that Cllr Bryan Pottinger was alleged to have made sexual comments to a teenage cleaner. We are happy to clarify that the cleaner is in her 20s”.

17. It also published the following wording as a standalone correction, in the Corrections & Clarifications section of its website, on 13 September:

“In an article titled ‘Councillor probed over teen cleaner ‘wrist skills’ jibe’ published on June 9, 2024, we stated that Cllr Bryan Pottinger was alleged to have made sexual comments to a teenage cleaner. We are happy to clarify that the cleaner is in her 20s. The article has been amended accordingly”.

18. The complainant said he did not consider this was a satisfactory remedy to his complaint – he acknowledged the age of the cleaner had been corrected however, he said that there were additional points of complaint that were outstanding. The complainant added that he believed the editor of the newspaper should apologise to him due to the impact the inaccuracy had on his reputation as a councillor.  

19. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication said it relied on information from two sources when reporting the cleaner’s age. It said both of the sources had been known to the publication for a number of years and had previously provided information in relation to other stories which had proven to be accurate. It also said it contacted the Council directly on 6 June 2024 to verify the cleaner’s age, and that the council had not corrected its claim that the cleaner was a teenager – either on or off the record – and had simply provided a “no comment” response. It said its reporter also called the Council’s press office, and had received the “no comment” response. Further to this, it said it had also contacted the Labour Party, the Standards Commission for Scotland and the Ethics Standards Commissioner (ESC) – it said the Labour Party provided an official statement and confirmed that the complainant had been suspended pending investigation.Therefore, it did not accept that it had not taken care over the accuracy of its reporting, given it had put the claim regarding the cleaner’s age to the council prior to the article’s publication, who had not refuted it.

20. In response to the complainant’s position that he should be given an apology, the publication said it did not consider this was required under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). It said the only inaccuracy that required clarification was the age of the cleaner, and this had come about due to no fault on its part, given it had attempted to verify the cleaner’s age prior to publication.

21. The publication did not accept that the article inaccurately reported the source’s comments that it was “concerning” the complainant was “still able to go on visits and take part in community events”. It said these were comments made by a source, presented in inverted commas to make clear that this was the source’s view of the situation.  

22. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to report that the complainant had “been banned from entering chambers but [had] still tried to do it” and that his pass didn’t work. The publication said this was a quote from a source and that it was entitled to rely on this source’s comments. It added that this source was otherwise correct about the fact that the complainant was under investigation for inappropriate conduct and had been banned from the Council headquarters. It also noted the complainant had not offered any evidence to support his complaint on this point.  

23. However, while the publication did not accept that the Code had been breached on the above point on 31 January 2025, the publication offered to amend the wording of the correction previously published online to add the following wording and put the complainant’s position on record. It also said it would run the same new wording in the print edition in its Corrections and Clarifications column:

“We also quoted a source who stated that Cllr Pottinger has tried to access Council premises despite being banned. We have been asked to clarify that the Councillor has not, in fact, attempted to enter the premises pending the current investigation. We are happy to set the record straight”.

24. It also said it would amend the online version of the article to remove the below wording.

“Bryan’s been banned from entering the council chambers but he’s still tried to do it. His pass just won’t work”

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

25. The Committee first considered whether the article inaccurately reported the age of the individual who had raised a complaint against the complainant. Both parties accepted that it was inaccurate to report that the cleaner was “a 17-year-old” and a “teen”; the cleaner was instead in their 20s. The first question for the Committee was therefore whether the publication had taken care not to report inaccurate information on this point.  

26. In deciding whether care had been taken, the Committee was mindful of the steps taken by the publication to verify the age of the cleaner. The publication had contacted the Council on two occasions and had approached the complainant at his home address. It also contacted the Labour Party, and put the information regarding the cleaner’s age to it for clarification. The Council and the complainant had declined to comment on the matter and in doing so had not corrected the cleaner’s age; the Labour Party had also not told the publication that it was mistaken on this point. Absent of any information to suggest that the cleaner was not 17 years old, and where the publication had contacted two different organisations and the complainant to verify the age of the cleaner - and none of them had informed it that this misapprehension was incorrect - the publication had taken care over the accuracy of its reporting on this point. The inaccuracy had come about despite care taken by the publication not to publish inaccurate information, and as such, there was no breach of Clause 1 (i).  

27. Having determined that the article was inaccurate on this point, the Committee next considered whether the inaccuracy was significant and therefore required correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

28. The Committee considered that an allegation of making inappropriate comments to a 17-year-old, who was not legally an adult, was considerably more serious than the actual allegation against him - given the consequences and potential reputational impact associated with making such comments to a teenager. In addition, the matter being reported was in the public interest – an allegation of wrongdoing against an elected official – and it was therefore important that the nature of the allegations be accurately represented. As such, the inaccuracy was significant and a correction was required according to the terms of Clause 1 (ii).  

29. The Committee next considered whether the published corrections were sufficient to address the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee first considered whether the corrections were sufficiently prompt. In doing so, it noted that they had been published on 13th and 15th September, after the complainant informed the Editor on 19th July that the cleaner’s age was inaccurate. In light of the fact that the corrections had been published approximately two months after the complainant had informed the publication of the correct position, the Committee did not consider that this was sufficiently prompt, and there was therefore a breach of Clause 1 (ii).  

30. The Committee turned next to whether the corrections were sufficiently prominent. In deciding this, it noted first the position of the original inaccurate information: it appeared in the headline and in the text of the article, and therefore was a prominent inaccuracy within the article. In print, the inaccuracy appeared on page 6.

31. The print correction had been published in the Corrections and Clarifications column on page 2; the online correction had been published as a standalone article, and the article itself did not include the correction or link to it. The article had been amended on this point, however the Committee noted that readers of the online article would not be made aware of the original inaccuracy as there was nothing within the article to indicate that it had been amended, or that it had originally included inaccurate information. As such, the Committee did not consider that the online correction was sufficiently prominent. However, it did conclude that the print correction was sufficiently prominent as this had appeared in the newspaper’s designated Corrections and Clarifications column, which was four pages further forward than the original inaccuracy.

32. Turning to the wording of the corrections, the Committee was satisfied that these put the correct position on record in relation to the inaccuracy regarding the cleaner’s age – they clarified that the cleaner was in their 20s and not 17 years old.  

33. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s request that the editor apologise to him due to the impact he said the inaccuracy had had on his reputation. The Committee concluded that, while significant, the nature of the allegation was serious in and of itself; this would have an adverse effect on the complainant’s reputation regardless of whether the cleaner was 17 years old or in their 20s. The Committee therefore decided that an apology was not necessary in these circumstances. It noted that, while there had been a breach of Clause 1 (ii) in relation to the prominence of the online correction, as well as the promptness of both corrections, the lack of an apology did not represent a further breach of the sub-Clause.

34. The Committee next turned to the further inaccuracies raised by the complainant during IPSO’s investigation.  

35. The article reported that a source said, “it’s concerning [the complainant is] still able to go on school visits and take part in community events”. The Committee considered this was clearly distinguished as the source’s view of the situation – that this had caused the source concern – and attributed to them. As such, given this was clearly distinguished as the source’s opinion, rather than fact, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

36. The Committee then considered the complainant’s complaint that the article inaccurately reported that he had been “banned from entering the council chambers” but that he had “still tried to do it”. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s position that he had not attempted to use his pass to enter the premises during the term of his ban and noted that independent evidence had not been provided by either party in relation to the point in dispute. In these circumstances, the Committee did not find a breach of Clause 1, however, it did welcome the publication’s offer to put the complainant’s position on record and encouraged it to do so.

Conclusions

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

Remedial action required

38. 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.

39. The article inaccurately reported the cleaner was “a 17-year-old” and referred to them as a teenager. The Committee considered this inaccurate information to be significant given the public interest in the matter being reported on – as it related to an allegation of inappropriate comments made by an elected representative towards a council employee.  

40. The Committee considered the wording of the correction published was sufficient to correct the record, as required by Clause 1 (ii) – however, the online correction was neither prompt nor prominent, and the print correction was not prompt.  

41. On balance, the Committee considered that the republication of a correction online and in print was the appropriate remedy. In reaching this decision, the Committee took into account the fact that the publication had taken steps to resolve the complaint by corresponding extensively with the complainant and by publishing a correction in print and online, albeit its actions did not fully address the terms of Clause 1 (ii).  

42. The Committee then considered the placement of the corrections.  

43. When considering the location of the print correction, the Committee noted that the location of the previous correction was sufficiently prominent given that it had appeared in the Corrections and Clarifications column on page 2 of the newspaper. Therefore, the re-published correction should be published in the same duly prominent location.

44. As the inaccuracy had been removed from the online version of the article, the online correction should be added to the article as a footnote, and should also be republished as a standalone correction in the publication’s online Corrections and Clarifications column. A link to the standalone correction should be published on the homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way.  

45. The Committee considered the wording published on 13 September 2024 was sufficient in setting out the original inaccurate information, and ensuring the correct position was made clear: namely, that the cleaner was neither a “17-year-old” nor a “teenager”. This should again be re-published, with an additional line making clear that the corrections have been re-published following an upheld ruling by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. In addition to this, the Committee encouraged the publication to also include the wording of its proposed correction on 31 January 2025 which put the complainant’s position that he had not attempted to access council premises while under investigation.

Date complaint received: 22/08/2024    

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 21/05/2025