Resolution Statement – 05474-25 Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner for Dorset v thesun.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. The Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner for Dorset complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “WILD WEST Inside UK’s ‘post-apocalyptic’ town under siege by knife-wielding maniacs where terrified locals act as vigilantes”, published on 18 October 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported on concerns about a “terrifying crime wave” in Bournemouth, and included a sub-headline which read: “Locals say their once-thriving seaside town is turning into hell with violence and sex attacks, while business struggle to stay afloat”.

3. The article reported that the town was “now described as ‘lawless’”, and referenced “a spate of stabbings in the town”.

4. It then reported that, “[j]ust this week, CCTV of a vicious stabbing of a man in broad daylight showed how the victim was chased through the town centre by a gang of youths.” It also referred to “CCTV [which] surfaced” of a crime, which resulted in the perpetrator being “given a 24-week prison sentence”. It then reported that “Bournemouth remains 109 per cent of the national rate for reported violent crime, according to latest figures.”

5. The article then said that “BCP council and Dorset police have refuted claims that Bournemouth’s crime rate is rising. Police and Crime Commissioner David Sidwick says violent crime rates have gone down by 4 per cent.”

6. It went on to report on the decline of the local high street, reporting that: “It was home to upmarket Beales department store and a House of Fraser, now both, along with a whole string of other shops, are closed. […] Plush nightclub is anything but – now just a rotting shell in a dilapidated row of what was once bustling bars.” It also included a quote from a man, who was described as “one of a gang of beggars who roam the town centre day and night.”

7. The article was illustrated with several images, included one showing a burning car which was captioned “A Ford Ka burning in the porch of a courtyard in Wimborne, Dorset, during an alleged arson crime spree fire starter in May 2023”.

8. The complainant said that the article included several instances of inaccurate, misleading, and distorted statements in breach of Clause 1. It first noted that quotes and claims about the town which appeared in the article’s headline and sub-headline – “wild west”, “’post-apocalyptic”, and “turning into hell” – were not attributed to any sources, and the quotes themselves did not appear in the article. The complainant also said that the references in the article to the town being “lawless” and to being inhabited by a “gang of beggars who roam the town centre day and night” were not attributed to any specific individuals.

9. It also disputed that there was a “terrifying crime wave” in Bournemouth, and noted that only one of the crimes referenced in the article had occurred within the last year. It also said there had been no “spate of stabbings”, and that the CCTV which was referenced as “just this week” actually related to a crime which occurred in 2023. It added that the other CCTV footage, which was described in the article as having “surfaced”, showed a crime which had been committed in 2024.

10. The complainant added that the shop House of Fraser, referenced in the article, was now under redevelopment, and that the article omitted to reference this development. It also noted that Plush Nightclub had closed in 2015, but was given as evidence of the town’s decline.

11. The complainant also expressed concern that the original version of the article did not include a police statement, and that this was only added after publication. It said that it had supplied its own comment to the publication for publication but that this had not been used – instead, an “unrelated, historic quote was lifted from another source”. It said this quote was inaccurate as no context or source was provided in the article for the figure it referenced and it was not made clear whether the referenced 4 per cent decline in violent crime related directly to Bournemouth.

12. The complainant further noted that the article had been amended after publication to remove information which it considered was either inaccurate or unrelated. A reference to crime in Bournemouth being 109% of the national average, which the complainant disputed, had been removed two days after publication; as well as a photograph of an arson incident in a neighbouring town, which the complainant said was irrelevant.

13. The complainant also said that the allegedly inaccurate and misleading claims about crime in Bournemouth breached the terms of Clause 9.

14. The publication said that local residents had described the town as the “wild west”, “post-apocalyptic”, and “lawless”, and provided social media posts, news articles, a reader’s letter to a local newspaper to support its position on this point. It added that the article’s reference to a “gang of beggars” was not presented in the article as a quote or a claim, but as a description of what the article’s writer had witnessed.

15. The publication also said that, given individuals had been quoted expressing concerns about crime and personal safety in the article, it could not be significantly inaccurate to summarise this as “locals say their town is turning into hell”.

16. The publication added that what constituted a “terrifying crime wave” was subjective, and that the article cited many examples of criminal and anti-social activity, as well as quotes from people expressing concern for their personal safety. It added that the article referenced several stabbings in the last few years, and it did not therefore consider it was inaccurate for the article to reference a “spate of stabbings”.

17. Turning to the article’s claims about two CCTV incidents, it said the article did not state or imply that the described incidents had taken place “this week”. It said that, read in context, it would be clear to readers the crimes had taken place earlier, as the perpetrators had been sentenced.

18. The publication said its reference to House of Fraser was accurate, as the shop was indeed closed. It added that the article did not report that the nightclub had closed recently.

19. The publication did not accept that omitting a current police comment rendered the article inaccurate – it said the comment from the police commissioner had been made eight days prior to the article’s publication, was already in the public domain, and set out his position that violent crime had actually declined.

20. While the publication had removed the reference to crime in Bournemouth being 109% of the national average from the article, it did not consider that this was inaccurate. It provided a link to a neighbourhood data aggregation website, which it said included this figure in September 2025.

21. The publication said it did not consider that the photograph of the car on fire breached the Code; the caption made clear the fire occurred in Wimborne, and it considered it relevant as part of the arson spree occurred within the wider Bournemouth area. It said it would be happy to publish a footnote making this clear.

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.

Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime)*

i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.

ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children under the age of 18 who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

iii) Editors should generally avoid naming children under the age of 18 after arrest for a criminal offence but before they appear in a youth court unless they can show that the individual’s name is already in the public domain, or that the individual (or, if they are under 16, a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult) has given their consent. This does not restrict the right to name juveniles who appear in a crown court, or whose anonymity is lifted.

Mediated Outcome

22. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

23. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the article.

24. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter its satisfaction.

25. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 23/10/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 19/01/2026