05729-24 Bloomsbury Publishing Plc v The Times

Summary of Complaint

1. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Bloomsbury set-to over Tavistock”, published on 1 June 2024.

2. The article reported the complainant, “one of Britain’s biggest publishers”, “dropped a book about malpractice at the Tavistock gender identity clinic — and then sacked the editor who brought it in”. It said, “senior figures at Bloomsbury […] were initially enthusiastic about Time to Think — an exhaustive investigation into the NHS clinic — but the publisher is now facing claims that it decided not to proceed amid political advocacy from younger members of staff.” The article also reported “details of what happened to the book emerged after Bloomsbury’s decision to dismiss [named former employee], the experienced editor who championed the title.” It went on to state, “last year The Times reported on how [the former employee] tried to get the company to publish Colonialism: a Moral Reckoning a book arguing that the British Empire was not all bad, but Bloomsbury cancelled the title and paid off the author.” It then reported, “Bloomsbury sacked [named former employee] in March, with a source saying the company offered the eminent editor no explanation for why he was no longer wanted, something the company denies.”

3. The article then stated:

“The Times understands that the Tavistock book had been approved at an editorial meeting and the company had agreed to make an offer to the author […]. But before that could happen, the project was killed off. A source said senior managers offered no explanation but that young staff were agitating to stop the company from publishing books that did not correspond with their views.”

It also reported that:

“Bloomsbury denies that the book was approved for acquisition and says it was only considered for publication but that its risk committee […] decided that the potential legal complications were not worth the projected sales. It added that ‘the opinions of younger members of staff had ‘absolutely no bearing’ on the decision.

“Bloomsbury said ’the decision was made before the March 2022 publication of the interim report of the Cass Review of gender identity services, which was critical of the clinic, changing the risk profile and sales potential of the book.’”

The article also included a quote from the complainant’s then-chairman, who reportedly said: “’There’s never been a discussion at any meeting I’ve been to about whether junior members of staff would be in favour or not of a book.’”

4. The article also reported: “The Times understands that during [the dismissed employee’s] time at Bloomsbury, [the chief executive] grew tired of ‘emails from junior members of staff saying, “You’ve got to stop this man [the dismissed employee] publishing these books”.’ It is understood [the chief executive] insisted on speaking at [the dismissed employee’s] leaving party but was heckled throughout.”

5. The article also appeared online, in substantively the same form, under the headline “How Bloomsbury dropped Tavistock book — and sacked editor behind it”.

6. On 14 May 2024, prior to the article’s publication, the publication approached the complainant to ask for comment. The email opened:

“I am writing an article in The Times about how Bloomsbury declined to publish Time to Think, […] and that you have since removed the editor, [named former employee], who brought the book in.”

The email went on to set out the basis for the article, with reference to the accounts of unnamed sources. It finished with the following questions:

“So can I ask why Bloomsbury decided not to publish Time to Think?

Was the decision influenced by complaints or potential complaints by junior members of staff?

Does Bloomsbury now regret not publishing the book given its commercial success?

Why did Bloomsbury choose to remove [former employee] given his exemplary record?

Was his removal anything to do with pressure or volume of complaints from younger members of staff?

How does Bloomsbury respond to the accusation that it is chosen not to publish works based of the perceived politics of the author or because of the controversial subject matter?

Would Bloomsbury like to offer a comment for publication?”

7. The complainant responded with a denial of the allegations.

8. After the article was published, the complainant contacted the publication directly to complain that the article included inaccurate information.

9. While the publication did not accept the article was inaccurate, after receiving the complaint, it updated the online article. It was updated to include a comment made by the complainant – made during pre-publication correspondence with the newspaper – that there was no “link between the decision not to acquire Time to Think and [the former employee’s] departure three years later”. It also added a reference to another book – by an individual who had previously publicly criticised the Tavistock Clinic - which was published by Bloomsbury, as the complainant had argued this demonstrated it published authors with a wide range of political views.

10. The complainant then complained to IPSO. It said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it disputed it “dropped a book”, as the article claimed. It said no decision was made to acquire the book, and no offer had ever been agreed or signed off. It said the assertions in the article that “the book about the Tavistock clinic had been approved by an executive at an editorial meeting and the company had agreed to make an offer to the author” suggested the book had formally been approved by an executive and that an offer to the author had been both agreed and signed off. It said this was not the case: the book had not been approved for acquisition and no offer to the author was agreed or approved – it said an offer would only be made once a book was approved for acquisition. It said the article did not present Bloomsbury’s treatment of the book as provisional, and that a significant proportion of books presented by editors for consideration are not acquired for various reasons.

11. To support its position, the complainant provided an internal email from the time the book was considered by the organisation. This said, “Please do not offer on the Tavistock book”. The email also said that there were concerns over libel risks in relation to the book in question.

12. The complainant also provided a document “Editorial meeting minutes” dated “23rd March Minutes 2021”. On the document, under a heading “New project proposals” the following was listed:

“Comments and concerns:

• Controversial topic

• Would need a legal read

• Need to manage messaging around this and understand the response we might get from the public/press

• Unsure if content translates to US

Summary: Proceed to P&L [profit and loss]”

13. The complainant said the fact that, following the meeting, a profit and loss analysis still had to be done demonstrated clearly that the book had not been approved for acquisition. It said the decision not to acquire the book was made because of its associated legal risk.

14. The complainant disputed there was any link between the decision to not acquire the book and the former employee’s departure. It noted that, a month prior to the alleged incident, it had made an offer to acquire a book called The War on the West. It said the fact it had sought to acquire this book demonstrated that the article’s claims that its management would bow to pressure from junior members of staff were inaccurate.

15. The complainant also disputed senior managers “offered no explanation but that young staff were agitating to stop the company from publishing books that did not correspond with their views". It denied that the views of younger staff members had any bearing on the decision not to publish the book. The publication questioned why it had been singled out for criticism when other publishers had also decided not to acquire the book in question and also disputed the statements made in the article about events involving Bloomsbury’s chief executive and the former employee at the latter’s leaving party.

16. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the article did not say that any formal, binding decision had been taken to acquire the book or that any offer had been agreed or signed off. It said the word “dropped” was the appropriate term to describe the reversal of a provisional decision to “pick up” the book. It explained its position was that Bloomsbury was "initially enthusiastic" about the book but "decided not to proceed". It said the book "had been approved" at an internal editorial meeting and that Bloomsbury "had agreed to make an offer" but that "the project was killed off". It said this information was obtained from an anonymous source, which it said was ”well-placed, reliable, had first and second-hand knowledge of the events they were describing and had no obvious reason to mislead”. It also said the article contained no suggestion that there had been a formal agreement to acquire the book.

17. The publication said the article contrasted the decision not to acquire Time To Think with the complainant’s agreement to publish a different book, the reversal of which was described as in the article as "cancelled" and having resulted in the complainant "choosing to pay off the author instead of going ahead". It said the article’s presentation of the complainant’s treatment of the book as provisional was consistent with the complainant’s undertaking of a projected profit and loss analysis of the commercial prospects of the book. It said the complainant would not undertake such an analysis for every manuscript or proposal it received, only for proposals that it had provisionally and internally "approved" or undertaken to consider for publication.

18. The publication denied the article suggested a connection between the decision to drop Time to Think and the referenced employee’s departure. It said the article made clear that the decision not to proceed with the book "was made before the March 2022 publication of the interim report of the Cass Review". The article also specified that the employee was not sacked until March 2024. It said this was at least two years later, and readers would not have inferred that these events were connected. It said the relevance of the sacking to the article the employee was that it led to the emergence of details of what had happened to the book.

19. The publication did not accept it had reported agitation by young staff was the reason the book had been dropped. It said the article made clear this “agitation” was part of the context in which the book was dropped, but presented this as conjecture, not fact. It said it was clear that this was the opinion of a confidential source and that this was disputed by the complainant. It said the opening of the article said prominently that the "publisher insists the views of younger staff had no bearing on decision about the book". It also noted the article repeated the publisher’s statement "that the opinions of younger members of staff had ‘absolutely no bearing’ on the decision" and its explanation that the decision instead followed a change in the risk profile and sales potential of the book. It also said the article included a full quote from the chairman of Bloomsbury stating that "there's never been a discussion at any meeting I've been to about whether junior members of staff would be in favour of a book". Regarding the comments from source on the conflict between the former employee and the chief executive, the publication also argued these were presented as claims by the sources and were not adopted as fact by the publication.

20. The publication did not accept that the complainant’s concerns it was singled out for criticism engaged the Code.

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. Whether a book has been “dropped” by a publisher is, to an extent, a subjective characterisation, as the word ‘dropped’ has no specific and singular meaning in this context. It was not necessarily the case, in the Committee’s view, that reporting that a book had been “dropped” would, in all contexts, mean a book had been formally approved for acquisition. However, the publication stated as fact – in the headline and in the text of the article – that the book had been “dropped”, and it was therefore important it demonstrated it had a basis for this claim, to show that due care had been taken over its accuracy.

22. The book had been discussed at an editorial meeting; the complainant appeared to accept not every book it received was discussed in this manner, and that this indicated the book was being considered for publication. The notes from the meeting provided by the publication instructed that the book should “proceed” to profit and loss analysis, which clearly indicated the book had been taken forward for a further stage of consideration. It was not in dispute that it was at this stage which the publisher decided not to acquire the book. The book had therefore been “taken forward” to the degree it appeared to have proceeded through at least two stages of consideration before the complainant decided not to publish it. In this context, the Committee did not consider it inaccurate to report the book had been “dropped” – the publication had provided a clear basis for this characterisation. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

23. The complainant had also disputed that an offer to the author for the book had been approved. The article reported “the Times understands that the book about the Tavistock clinic had been approved by an executive at an editorial meeting and the company had agreed to make an offer to the author”. The phrase “[t]he Times understands” qualified this statement as an unproven claim about the book, rather than established fact. While the Committee recognised the complainant denied this claim, this was made clear in the article which included the publication’s position – that it “denie[d] that the book was approved for acquisition”. The article also at no point reported an offer was received by the author; instead, it reported the company “agreed to make an offer”. Where the article made clear it was reporting on an unverified claim which was disputed by the complainant, the Committee considered that care had been taken to present this information in a way which wasn’t inaccurate, distorted, or misleading, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (i). In addition, given the article clearly set out the complainant’s position that no such offer to acquire the book had been made, the Committee did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate, distorted, or misleading – therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

24. It was not in dispute that the former employee of the organisation who had “championed” the book had been dismissed. At no point did the article state that the employee was dismissed because he supported the book. Rather, the article made clear the chronology of events: that the book was not taken forward “before the March 2022 publication of […] the Cass Review” and the editor who had “championed” it had been “sacked” in March 2024. Where the chronology was not in dispute, and was set out in the article, the Committee did not consider there were any inaccuracies on this point.

25. The Committee also considered whether the connection drawn between the two events created the misleading impression the editor was dismissed because he had “brought in” the book. Taking into account that the article made the chronology of events clear, the Committee did not consider this to be the case. The Committee further noted that the publication was entitled to report these events in conjunction with one another and question whether they were connected, provided it did so in a manner compliant with its obligations under the Code. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1.

26. The article did not state as fact that the views of younger staff were instrumental in the decision not to publish the book. It made clear these were claims made by a source – for instance, it reported the complainant was “facing claims that it decided not to proceed amid political advocacy from younger members of staff” and that “a source said senior managers offered no explanation but that young staff were agitating to stop the company from publishing books that did not correspond with their views.” The complainant was not in a position to dispute a source held this view, and the publication was entitled to report on these claims provided they were distinguished from established fact. The article also made clear the complainant’s position that “the opinions of younger members of staff had ‘absolutely no bearing’ on the decision” – and therefore that it strongly disputed the claims made by the sources. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

27. The complainant also disputed the source’s views about the alleged conflict between the former editor and senior staff including that senior staff had become “tired of ‘emails from junior members of staff’” complaining about the editor, or the editor was dismissed because of these concerns. The publication was entitled to report on the views of sources regarding the alleged conflict between the former editor and senior staff; whilst the complainant denied the source’s account of this conflict, the article made clear it was reporting on unverified claims: they were qualified with the phrases “The Times understands” and “The Times understood”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

28. Finally, the Committee considered the complainant’s concern that it had been singled out for criticism. Clause 1 does not address issues of fairness or bias: newspapers are free to publish what they choose provided the Code is not otherwise breached. Concerns that an organisation has been singled out for criticism would not - in and of themselves – raise a breach of the Code. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

29. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

30. N/A

Date complaint received: 01/10/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/06/2025

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.