05603-24 Frosdick and Wymondham Town Council v wymondhamandattleboroughmercury.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Roly Frosdick, acting on his own behalf and on behalf of Wymondham Town Council, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that wymondhamandattleboroughmercury.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Bah humbug! Council scraps popular Christmas event”, published on 13 September 2024.

2. The article – which only appeared online - reported that councillors had “scrapped a popular Christmas event, claiming the festive season has become ‘too commercial’.” It stated that “the annual Wynterfest celebration will not take place in Wymondham this year after members of the town council voted in favour of ‘more low-key’ festivities.” It also said that “the usual team of volunteers behind the event, known as Clear Company, dropped out of the project due to stretched resources after launching a new community venue in the town,” which had “left the council scrabbling to determine Wynterfest's future”.

3. The article went on to report “the responsibility for saving the event fell to Wymondham Town Council and members met to discuss its future at a meeting last month.” It stated that, “while councillors pledged £1,000 in funds towards a festive lights switch-on event, they agreed that Wynterfest should not return this year as it had strayed too far from the 'true meaning of Christmas’.” It quoted from the chairwoman of the council and mayor of the town, who said:

“Wynterfest has been successful for many years and has grown quite large, but we also know that a lot of volunteer energy was needed for the amount of planning it requires. I’m passionate that we do mark Christmas but perhaps not on the scale that it has been done before. I want to bring it back to the core values of community as it shouldn’t just be about commercialism and buying things.

4. The article also said that “locals attending the meeting suggested the authority should be doing more to bring the festive spirit to Wymondham,” and that one local had suggested “more funds could be offered, or community spaces provided for groups”.

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He said the council had not voted to stop the annual celebration as it was not its event to cancel. He said the event had always been run and funded by the town’s business group - a separate body from the council with separate funding – and in 2024 volunteers for that group had dissipated. He then said that in 2023 the business group funded a company to run the event on their behalf, but the company who ran the event were not interested in running it this year, and the council had voted to run a celebration with a local arts council.

6. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the council had voted not to spend money on Wynterfest and it therefore would not be going ahead as in previous years. While it accepted the event had been cancelled prior to the meeting, it stated the council was given the opportunity to save the event but chose not to, citing the growing commercialisation of Christmas. It was, it said, in the council's power to continue the event, but it chose not to – thereby cancelling it

7. To support its position, the publication provided a video of the council meeting where Wynterfest had been discussed. In the video of the meeting, a resident said:

"Christmas is quite a long way off yet but if I could suggest that where there are venues in and around the town perhaps the town council considers covering the cost of those or encouraging the use of those premises so that groups might come in and provide some sort of activity. Where the Wynterfest scored was that there was an overarching element and all of these particular potential participants were identified and actually encouraged to take part.

8. The video also showed that the council leader had said: "the people that did Wynterfest last year believed they were unable to do that this year and as a town council I'm passionate that we do mark Christmas but not on the scale that it has been done before."

9. The publication also supplied minutes from the meeting, which said: “the Wymondham Business Group and last year's organisers - Clear Company - are unable to organise an event this year”. The minutes also said that another group had “offered to arrange a small number of events and it is intended to host a much more community led event featuring choirs, music and the lights switch on”, which would be “a one off and would not set a precedence for the future”. The minutes stated a councillor “introduced a proposal that the Town Co-ordinator contacts local organisation to ascertain their plans and supports the events”, but that “Councillors considered this was covered in the original proposals and no seconder was forthcoming.” The minutes went on to say that it was “unanimously resolved” that “the town funds a maximum of £1,000 towards costs to stage the event.”

10. The complainants said the material supplied by the publication demonstrated the event had been cancelled by the town business group before the council had a debate about supporting a new proposal for Christmas. He said the council was not discussing Wynterfest; rather, it had discussed a proposal for a scaled-down event centred on turning on the Christmas lights. He said the festival was only raised in the meeting because it had been cancelled by the business group and had been run in previous years. He said the council were unable to continue the event because the resource which was lacking were volunteers who were unavailable. He said the event had never had council support, and the council’s only involvement was providing the Christmas tree and lights.

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

11. It was not in dispute that the decision to cancel the event had been made prior to the council’s meeting which the article was based on. It was also not in dispute that the event had been cancelled due to lack of volunteers. Given the council had discussed the event at its meeting, the publication had argued the council had the power to continue the event. However, there was nothing in the material produced by the publication – such as evidence that the council had voted on whether to continue it – to demonstrate that this was the case. The publication had inaccurately reported the content of an easily accessible and publicly available meeting and it had not explained the steps it had taken, pre-publication, to ensure it reported the meeting accurately. In these circumstances the Committee considered the publication was not able to demonstrate it had taken care over the accuracy its reporting. The Committee found a breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

12. The inaccuracy appeared prominently in the article, including in the headline. In addition, it related to local festive celebrations, a matter which would be of importance to the local community. The Committee further noted the importance of accurately reporting on votes and decisions taken by elected officials, in local government and beyond. For these reasons, the Committee considered that the inaccuracy was significant and therefore in need of correction under Clause 1 (ii). As no correction had been offered, there was a breach of Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

13. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1.

Remedial action required

14. 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.

15. The Committee considered it was inaccurate to state the council had “scrapped” the Christmas event. However, the council had discussed the event, and previously contributed to it (in the form of lights and a tree). Therefore, there was a basis for linking the council to the event – albeit not to the extent that the article did. Therefore, on balance, the Committee considered that a correction was the appropriate remedy. The correction should acknowledge that it was inaccurate to state the council had “scrapped” the event. It should also put the correct position on record, namely that the event had been cancelled prior to the meeting and was not run by the council.

16. The Committee then considered the placement of this correction.

17. As the inaccurate information appeared in the headline to the article, the correction should appear as a standalone correction on the publication’s website. A link to this correction should be published on the homepage for 24 hours before being archived in the usual way. In addition, if the publication intends to continue to publish the online article without amendment, a correction should be added to the article and published beneath the headline. If the article is amended, this correction should be published as a footnote.

18. 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: 15/09/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/01/2025