Resolution Statement – 01616-24 Williamson v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Sir Gavin Williamson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “We live in Britain's grimmest village... even prisoners have it better: Locals in ex-mining town with three jails say they fear going out after dark because of crime while streets are covered in rubbish, dog mess and potholes”, published on 4 April 2024.

2. The article – which appeared online only – reported on the opinions of residents in Featherstone, South Staffordshire. The article said Featherstone had “garnered an unwelcome reputation as the 'grimmest' village in the UK among its fed-up residents”. It reported that “Featherstone is surrounded by three jails - HMP Brinsford, HMP Featherstone and HMP Oakwood”, and that a “bus shelter that had been recently built was torched by yobs”. The article also included an image that was captioned, “battered buildings dot the landscape in Featherstone, turning the town into an eyesore”. The image depicted a partially complete house with construction materials outside of the boarded-up perimeter. The article later reported that “[s]ince January this year there have been 39 violent and sexual offences, 13 vehicle crimes, six thefts and five case[s] of criminal damage and arson”, and that “[a]ll 165 burglaries reported in Outer Rothwell in West Yorkshire in the past three years remain unsolved”.

3. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported that "a bus shelter that had been recently built was torched by yobs” as the bus stop was actually in the parish of Shareshill rather than Featherstone, and because the damage was caused by a lorry transporting bales of hay that caught on fire and fell onto the bus stop.

4. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported that “Featherstone [wa]s surrounded by three jails - HMP Brinsford, HMP Featherstone and HMP Oakwood”. He said that the prisons were in a confined space and were actually located in Brinsford not Featherstone. The complainant added that two were prisons and one was a young offender’s institution.

5. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 1 because it included an image that was captioned, “battered buildings dot the landscape in Featherstone, turning the town into an eyesore”. He said the building pictured was set for demolition as the land was being used for new builds. The complainant did not consider that one building of this nature “dot[ted] the landscape” as reported in the article.

6. The article reported that “[s]ince January this year there have been 39 violent and sexual offences, 13 vehicle crimes, six thefts and five case[s] of criminal damage and arson”, and that “[a]ll 165 burglaries reported in Outer Rothwell in West Yorkshire in the past three years remain unsolved, shocking figures show”. The complainant said this was inaccurate as these statistics related to Featherstone in Yorkshire rather than Featherstone in Staffordshire.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1 where the article reported that “a bus shelter that had been recently built was torched by yobs", as it considered the fire had been blamed on anti-social behaviour according to posts on social media. However, during IPSO’s investigation it said the news agency which had provided the story confirmed that the bus stop fire was the result of a lorry load of hay bales catching fire. It offered to publish the following footnote correction:

“This article has been revised from a previous version which suggested that a burnt-out bus stop within Featherstone had been caused by arson. In fact, we have since had it confirmed that the fire was caused by bales of hay being transported by a lorry catching fire, that spread to the bus stop, which we are happy to make clear.”

8. The publication also said it did not consider it was inaccurate to report that “Featherstone [wa]s surrounded by three jails - HMP Brinsford, HMP Featherstone and HMP Oakwood”, given the proximity of the prison sites to the town. It said residents who were interviewed made frequent references to the prisons whose quotes were distinguished in the text of the article. However, the publication did offer to amend this paragraph as a gesture of goodwill and in the interests of resolving the complaint.

9. The publication did not consider the article was inaccurate to include an image captioned, “battered buildings dot the landscape in Featherstone, turning the town into an eyesore”, as it was used to illustrate the characterisation of “battered buildings” within the town. It considered that the buildings displayed within the other images, including the boarded-up pub, further supported the description of “battered buildings”, and highlighted that the term was subjective in nature.

10. Lastly, the publication did not consider the article was inaccurate to report that “[s]ince January this year there have been 39 violent and sexual offences, 13 vehicle crimes, six thefts and five case[s] of criminal damage and arson”, and that “[a]ll 165 burglaries reported in Outer Rothwell in West Yorkshire in the past three years remain unsolved, shocking figures show”, as these statistics did in fact relate to Featherstone in Staffordshire rather than Yorkshire. It supported its position by providing statistics from Staffordshire police’s ‘Crimes and priorities’ for the month of January 2024. It further added that the reference to the unsolved “burglaries reported in Outer Rothwell in West Yorkshire” related to a previous report on an area in Yorkshire and was hyperlinked in the penultimate paragraph of the article.

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.

Mediated Outcome

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

12. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the article in the interest of resolving the complaint.

13. The complainant said that the removal of the article would resolve the matter to his satisfaction. 14. 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: 16/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 16/07/2024