06168-24 Tiddlywinks Nursery School Ramsbottom and Lynne Ramsell v manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Tiddlywinks Nursery School Ramsbottom – acting on its own behalf and on behalf of Lynne Ramsell – complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that manchestereveningnews.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Nursery suddenly shuts amid 'false rumours staff held at gunpoint', leaving parents devastated”, published on 11 October 2024.

2. The article reported the complainant – which it described as “a nursery in Chadderton” – had closed after staff members claimed they had been “held at gunpoint.” It stated: “Oldham Council said reports of a firearms incident at Tiddlywinks were 'untrue', while Greater Manchester Police said it had no record of the crime. But the Chadderton facility put out a letter on Friday (October 11) to 'shocked and confused parents'.” The article then quoted from the letter: “there have been 'significant close family bereavements and a distressing incident [which] occurred on 10/10/24 involving several staff members being held up at gunpoint whilst arriving at a training event in Oldham town centre.”

3. The article also reported that, when the newspaper contacted the organisation, “a nursery manager said they didn't want to comment”. It also stated, “an Oldham council spokesperson said of the claims about a firearms incident: ‘The claims are untrue, so we will not be commenting on them.’” It then reported that “a spokesperson for Greater Manchester Police said no such incident was reported on the date in question.”

4. On 22 October, a reporter acting on behalf of the publication contacted the nursery by email inviting the complainant to comment on new developments. The email included the following:

“Oldham Council and the GMP furthermore confirmed there was no gun incident reported on the day named in the report.”  

5. The reporter also contacted the other complainant, who was a parent with a child at Tiddlywinks, asking her whether they could ask some questions about the closure of the nursery.

6. On 23 October date, a representative of the nursery responded to the email:

“PROOF OF THE CRIME.

We have kindly been invited to make a statement regarding the unfortunate incident on October 10, 2024. With sincere regret, we were forced to make the difficult decision to close our childcare at Chadderton after several staff members were held at gunpoint for the vehicle.

This traumatic experience has resulted in some staff requiring medical attention and taking long term absence, compounded by recent family bereavements and other. [sic] We are hopeful that the police continue their investigations as a matter of priority and urgency to ensure the safety of the area. In the meantime, we are working closely with parents to offer a 50% discount at our other settings to alleviate the sad inconvenience a dozen families have taken up this offer, and we are grateful to our dedicated teachers who have transitioned to support these children.  

Their excellent practice has been invaluable in helping to resettle the children from Chadderton. All refunds and financial matters are being addressed promptly. While no final decision has been made regarding the future of the Chadderton setting, we have been approached about operating an alternative term time school. We deeply appreciate your trust and loyalty over the years, and we extend our heartfelt thanks to the incredible children we have had the privilege to care for and educate, especially through the challenges of COVID 19. Together, we made significant strides in prioritising every child's needs. We have met with many parents over the past weeks and look forward to coming together soon for a final goodbye. We appreciate your continued understanding during this challenging time. Thank you for your support. Tiddlywinks”.

7. The same day, the reporter responded:

“Thank you, I have received the email from your legal team, which I found confusing. I have copied below my response in case this simplifies things. As authentication, please feel free to Google my name and Manchester Evening News. Please note I am a Local Democracy Reporter, which gives news outlets including the BBC, Manc World, Oldham Times and Oldham Chron license to use my articles. All the best”  

8. The complainant did not respond.

9. After the article’s publication, the complainant contacted IPSO. It said that the article breached Clause 1 because it had inaccurately reported the gun incident had taken place at the nursery school. The nursery said it had never claimed this was the case, and that the gun incident took place in Oldham town, a nearby neighbourhood. The complainant said that, by reporting the incident took place in a different location from where it had occurred, together with the statements from the police and the council denying the incident took place, readers would be left with the impression that it had lied to parents. The complainant said the reason the police did not have a record of the incident occurring at the nursery was because the incident had taken place in Oldham, rather than at the nursery, not because the incident did not occur. To support its position, the complainant supplied a crime reference number which it said related to the incident.

10. The complainant also said the behaviour of the journalist breached Clause 3. The complainant said it felt pressured by the “relentless” contact from the reporter, which it found distressing, and that the conduct of the reporters constituted bullying and harassment towards the nursery.

11. The parent who the complainant was representing also said she had been harassed by a reporter acting for the publication. The parent said, after she was initially approached by the publication, she told the reporter not to contact her further, but the reporter sent her another message. The parent was not able to locate a copy of this further message, and therefore did not provide it to IPSO.

12. The complainant also said the article and contact from the reporter breached Clause 4, because of the pressure exerted to provide a comment and because it said that the article characterised their employees as “liars”. They said this exacerbated the upset of staff who were already distressed because of the nursery’s closure. The complainant also said the article was published after the nursery’s director had experienced a distressing bereavement, and the timing therefore represented a further breach of Clause 4.

13. The publication did not accept the article was inaccurate. It said its reporter had contacted the police and the council by phone, and both organisations had said that that the incidents had not taken place, although it was unable to provide notes of these calls.

14. The publication also said the following paragraph from the article made clear the incident took place at a training event in Oldham:

“Written ‘on behalf of the management team’, the letter says there have been 'significant close family bereavements and a distressing incident [which] occurred on 10/10/24 involving several staff members being held up at gunpoint whilst arriving at a training event in Oldham town centre'”.

15. Notwithstanding the fact the publication did not accept the article was inaccurate, on 17 January it amended the paragraph in question so it read:

“Oldham Council said reports of a firearms incident at a training event elsewhere, but connected to Tiddlywinks, were 'untrue'..."  

16. It also added the following wording as a footnote clarification:

“A previous version of this article reported that ‘Oldham Council said reports of a firearms incident at Tiddlywinks were 'untrue'.’ We would like to make clear that Oldham Council's statement referred to the reported incident while Tiddlywinks staff were arriving at a training session at Oldham town centre, and not at Tiddlywinks nursery.”

17. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 3. Regarding the approach to the nursery, the publication denied its reporter’s conduct amounted to harassment – it said it was not possible under the Code to harass an organisation. On the matter of the approach to the parent, the publication said the reporter only messaged the parent once, and it did not accept that a request to desist from further contact had been made by the parent. The publication provided a copy of the exchange which showed one message sent from the reporter to the parent.

18. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 4. It said, although it appreciated how distressing being held at gunpoint must have been for staff, it did not accept that the article engaged the Clause.

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 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock)

In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

Findings of the Committee

19. The Committee wished to emphasise it was not in a position to make a finding about the events upon which the article was based. Instead, its task was to establish whether the publication had reported on the events in a manner which was in line with its obligations under the Editors’ Code.

20. By quoting an extract of the letter the complainant had sent to parents, the article had made clear that the nursery’s position was that several staff members had been held up at gunpoint in Oldham town centre and that this had contributed to the decision to close the nursery. The article also reported that it had made enquiries of the council and included a direct quote from the council which had been provided in response. The article also included the comment it had received from the police, which was that it had no record of the incident. The complainant had not suggested that the responses provided by the council and the police were reported inaccurately. The Committee noted that the police had also made a follow-up statement, where they had stated they found no evidence of a gun incident taking place. Given that the article had made clear that the complainant had said that the incident had taken place in Oldham; that the complainant did not contest the accuracy of the responses of the council and the police; and that the responses were clearly attributed to the council and the police, the Committee did not find that the article was inaccurate or misleading in the manner in which it had reported the events. Nevertheless, the Committee welcomed the clarification which had been published in response to the concerns raised by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1.

21. Although no breach was established on this occasion, the Committee did wish to emphasise that regulated publications are expected to keep records of contact with third parties and that a failure to keep records – in this case, of the contact with the council and the police – may lead to a finding that a publication has been unable to demonstrate that it has taken care, as required by the Code.

22. The terms of Clause 3 (ii) refer specifically to the harassment of individuals; the Committee did not accept that it was possible for a business to experience the intrusive harm Clause 3 seeks to prevent. As such, the Committee did not accept that the terms of Clause 3 were engaged in regard to the approach to Tiddlywinks. Regardless, the Committee noted the extent of the contact with the organisation was limited and there was no allegation that it had continued contacting anyone who worked for the nursery after it had been asked to desist.

23. In terms of the approach to the parent, there was no correspondence provided which suggested there had been continued contact by the publication after a request to desist made by the parent. There were no grounds to consider harassment had taken place and there was no breach of Clause 3.

24. The terms of Clause 4 are designed to protect individuals from experiencing intrusion related to coverage of a traumatic incident – such as injury or death – they are personally connected to; a business closing would not reach the bar of grief or shock as it is defined in the Code. Additionally, while the Committee was sorry to hear of the recent bereavement experienced by staff member, neither the article nor the approaches made by the publication were related to the loss. In these circumstances, there was no breach of Clause 4.

Conclusions

25. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

26. N/A

Date complaint received: 03/11/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 23/06/2025