SUNDAY TIMES RETRACTS EXTREMIST SLUR AGAINST ENGLISH DEMOCRATS

On Sunday, 20th January 2013 the Sunday Times published in its corrections and clarifications column on page 24 as follows:-
“A story on the election of police and crime commissioners (Party plodders turn police vote into a flop, November 11, 2012) wrongly referred to the English Democrats as an ‘extremist’ party. The English Democrats are a nationalist party campaigning, among other things, for an English parliament.”

And on its website it also published a correction as follows:-
“An earlier version of this article wrongly referred to the English Democrats as an ‘extremist’ party. It is a nationalist party.”

These corrections followed on from a complaint to the Sunday Times and thereafter to the Press Complaints Commission. The correspondence is set out below. The results do show that proper, reasoned complaining and challenging of media inaccuracy can produce worthwhile results.

Here is the correspondence:-
From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
To: john.witherow@sunday-times.co.uk, james.harding@thetimes.co.uk, home.news@thetimes.co.uk
BCC: johnhayterengdem@aol.com
Sent: 11/11/2012 19:18:25 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Your offences – Section 61 of the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order

Dear Sir
We act for Mr Steven Uncles, Mr David Allen, Mr Stephen Goldspink, Mr Paul Rimmer and Mr Robin Tilbrook who are the English Democrats’ candidates for the Police Commissioner elections in Kent, South Yorkshire, Cambridgeshire, Merseyside and Essex respectively.

As you may be aware, pursuant to Section 61 of the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012, you are “guilty of an illegal practice” if during this election and for the purpose of affecting the election of any candidate as Police and Crime Commissioner you make or publish any false statement of fact in relation to the candidates personal character or conduct.

Contrary to Section 61 this Sunday the Sunday Times has on page 11 published an Article by James Gillespie and Georgia Graham headed ” Party plodders turn police vote into a flop” in which you have published the following statement about the above candidates:- “The figures show that 134 of the candidates are representatives of the political parties – among them five from the extremist right-wing English Democrats”.It is a false statement of fact that the English Democrats are “extremist right-wing”.

You have also gratuitously made disobliging and disingenuous partisan remarks about their candidacies.

In the circumstances we write to request a full right of reply for our clients to be published in an issue of your daily paper before Thursday’s election.

Please confirm your agreement to the above within the next 48 hours failing which we shall advise our clients on whether to proceed by way of criminal prosecutions or to seek a High Court Injunction against you.

Yours faithfully

Tilbrook’s

In a message dated 13/11/2012 15:02:56 GMT Standard Time, pia.sarma@newsint.co.uk writes:
Dear Mr Tilbrook,

Your email to the Editor of The Sunday Times which published the article you refer to, has been passed to me for response.

The Sunday Times and The Times are entirely separate publications with separate editors. A request for a right of reply arising from one publication cannot be considered by a separate publication. For that reason your request for a right of reply in the daily paper is not something which can be met in any event.

I do intend to respond to you in full but as this has only just been brought to my attention, I will do so by the end of tomorrow.

Yours sincerely,
Pia Sarma.

—————————————
Editorial Legal Director
Legal Department- 4th floor
Times Newspapers Limited

From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
To: pia.sarma@newsint.co.uk
Sent: 14/11/2012 01:02:40 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Your offences – Section 61 of the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections…

Dear Ms Sarma
Thank you but please note they are the same ownership and the same email address

Robin Tilbrook

From: donna.boultwood@newsint.co.uk
To: robintilbrook@aol.com
CC: pia.sarma@newsint.co.uk
Sent: 15/11/2012 16:45:50 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Times Newspapers Limited

Dear Mr Tilbrook

Please see the attached letter sent on behalf of Pia Sarma.

Yours sincerely, Donna Boultwood
P.A. TNL Legal Department
Times Newspapers Limited

Letter from Times Newspapers Limited dated 15th November 2012

Dear Tilbrook

Re: “Party plodders turn police vote into a flop”, The Sunday Times, November 11

Thank you for your letter to the Editors of The Sunday Times and The Times, concerning the above article.

You appear to ask for a right to reply on the basis that publication of the Article was an offence under section 61 of the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012.

The statutory instrument creates an offence if anyone makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to an election candidate’s personal character or conduct before or during an election and which was for the purpose of affecting the election of that candidate. If the maker of the statement can show that he has reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true, there is no offence.

I do not agree that the offence has been made out. Firstly, describing the English Democrats as “extremist right-wing” was not necessarily a statement of fact. A statement about the political leanings of candidates is often a matter of opinion. Even if the statement were found to be fact, it is not one which related to any of the candidates personal character or conduct, as is required for an offence to be made out, but rather to political or public role in the party. A Court would also be required to take into account freedom of expression and Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights in examining the value judgment of the statement. Where any statement does not substantially relate to personal conduct, it may be inconsistent with Article 10 for the Court to find that s.61 would apply, as a recent case held.

It also would not be shown that the statement was made for the purpose of affecting the election of any candidates. Indeed, had that been the intention, each of the candidates would have been named to draw the attention of any potential voter. The article points out that the expected turn-out was anticipated to be disappointingly low, which highlights the need for any article whose purpose was to affect election to be quite specific about its intention in order to capture a potential voter. Finally, the defence of reasonable belief in the truth of the statement may be made out. In summary, the elements of the offence were not met.

As I stated in my email to you, The Times does not carry letters or comment by way of right of reply in relation to articles published in The Sunday Times. However, if you wish to submit a letter to be considered for publication in The Sunday Times, please send it to letters@sunday-times.co.uk, copied to me.

Yours sincerely

Pia Sarma
Editorial Legal Director

Letter 6th December 2012
Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London
EC1N 2JD

Dear Sir

Re: Sunday Times Article 11th November 2012 by James Gillespie and Georgai Graham: “Party plodders turn police vote into a flop”

This article wrongly asserts that the English Democrats are “Extremist Right-wing”. This comment is inaccurate and untrue. The significance of this unjustified attack taking place in the midst of elections for Police Commissioners makes this matter one of importance.

Immediately this article came to my attention, on the 11th November, I requested the right of reply to this spurious allegation. The response is inadequate and it is obvious that the offending comment is put as a statement of fact not opinion (within the usual meaning given both by the law of defamation and of common sense).

“Extremist right-wing” connotes fascism, racism, Nazism, white supremacy etc., and infers that the English Democrats candidates share those views. It thus clearly relates to our candidates’ personal character or conduct. In the context of the article, its timing, and the absence of defamatory comments about any other candidates an inference can be drawn of the improper purpose of affecting the election of our candidates.

This may actually have mattered given that we were not far off getting our candidate elected in South Yorkshire.

I respectfully suggest that the Times would be hard pressed to support any defence of reasonable belief in the truth of the statement. There is no suggestion anywhere that we are a racist party, nor indeed have they made any effort to find out what we do stand for.

No effort was made to speak to anyone from the English Democrats about this allegation either prior to making it or indeed at all.

Not only do James Gillespie’s and Georgia Graham’s professional standards appear to be very sloppy, but also, I would respectfully submit, they breach the Press Complaints Commissions Editor’s Code by failing to maintain the “highest professional standards”. The comments are frankly inaccurate and misleading and no correction has been published.

Rather than accurately reporting the Sunday Times seems to have stooped to smear and innuendo against the English Democrats.

It may also be that the smear derives from an anti-English discriminatory attitude within the Sunday Times and also of these two journalists both of whom bear Scottish surnames.

In the circumstances I wish formally, and on behalf of myself and the other candidates so smeared and the English Democrats, to complain against the Sunday Times.

Yours faithfully

R C W Tilbrook
Chairman

In a message dated 12/12/2012 15:56:57 GMT Standard Time, simon.yip@pcc.org.uk writes:
Dear Mr Tilbrook

Thank you for your email.

Before we can assess your complaint fully, it would be helpful if you could indicate which Clause or Clauses of the Code of Practice you believe have been breached.

We would be very grateful to receive this information within the next ten days.

A copy of the Code of Practice which all newspapers and magazines who subscribe adhere to, can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

Do not hesitate to contact us if you need further advice. When you write to us, please quote our reference number on this email.

Yours sincerely

Sent on behalf of Simon Yip
Complaints Coordinator
Press Complaints Commission

From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
To: simon.yip@pcc.org.uk
Sent: 26/12/2012 15:59:05 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Press Complaints Commission – Our reference 125459

Dear Mr Yip,
Thank you for your email. I am sorry not to have responded sooner.
I had used the key phrases from clauses 1,2 and 12 deliberately as these the ones called into play here.
I attach the text of my complaint again for ease of reference.
Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook,

In a message dated 03/01/2013 10:09:02 GMT Standard Time, elizabeth.cobbe@pcc.org.uk writes:

Our reference: 125459

Dear Mr Tilbrook

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

I will be dealing with your complaint against The Sunday Times before it goes to the Commission for a decision under the terms of the Editors’ Code, and I will keep you informed of the progress of our investigation into this matter.

A copy of your correspondence has been sent to the publication and I will write to you again once I have received its response.

In the meantime, do not hesitate to contact me if you have any concerns or questions.

Yours sincerely

Elizabeth Cobbe
Complaints Officer

Press Complaints Commission

From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
To: elizabeth.cobbe@pcc.org.uk
Sent: 03/01/2013 10:10:21 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: PCC REF 125459

Thank you
Robin Tilbrook

In a message dated 08/01/2013 11:23:00 GMT Standard Time, elizabeth.cobbe@pcc.org.uk writes:
Dear Mr Tilbrook,

I write further to my email of 3 January.

I have now received a response from The Sunday Times, which I have forwarded below.

As you will see, the newspaper has offered to publish the following correction in its Corrections and Clarifications column:

“A story on the election of police and crime commissioners (Party plodders turn police vote into a flop, November 11, 2012) wrongly referred to the English Democrats as an ‘extremist’ party. It is a nationalist party.”

I would be grateful for your thoughts on this proposal, and in particular whether you would be satisfied that this course of action would resolve the complaint to your satisfaction. As you may be aware, an additional benefit of resolving your complaint is that a summary of it – with a wording agreed by you – will be published prominently on the Commission’s website. This will act, importantly, as a public record of your concerns and the remedial action subsequently taken.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course, preferably in the next seven days.

With kind regards

Elizabeth Cobbe
From: Tyrer, Bob
Sent: 08 January 2013 10:21
To: Elizabeth Cobbe
Subject: Re: New complaint – 125692 Tilbrook

Dear Elizabeth,

Thank you for forwarding this complaint to me.

I have researched the English Democrats’ website and activities, and I agree that there is no evidence of political extremism in the normally accepted use of the word – implying violence. I would therefore be happy to resolve this complaint with an entry on these lines in our Corrections and Clarifications column: “A story on the election of police and crime commissioners (Party plodders turn police vote into a flop, November 11, 2012) wrongly referred to the English Democrats as an ‘extremist’ party. It is a nationalist party.”

With best wishes,

Bob
Bob Tyrer
Executive Editor

From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
To: elizabeth.cobbe@pcc.org.uk
Sent: 08/01/2013 12:54:50 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: PCC complaint 125692 Tilbrook

Dear Miss Cobbe

Thank you for your email. The suggested wording goes some way towards satisfying me. I suggest that the second short sentence should read:- “In fact the English Democrats are the main English Nationalist Party and are campaigning for an English Parliament”

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats

In a message dated 08/01/2013 15:37:11 GMT Standard Time, elizabeth.cobbe@pcc.org.uk writes:
Dear Mr Tilbrook,

Thank you for your earlier email.

As you will see from the below response from the newspaper, it has made a final offer to publish the following wording:

It has organised for the removal of the word “extremist” from the article which appears on the website of the newspaper and to publish the following footnote to the article:

“An earlier version of this article wrongly referred to the English Democrats as an ‘extremist’ party. It is a nationalist party.”

I look forward to hearing from you as to whether you would like to resolve the complaint on the basis of these steps.

With kind regards

Elizabeth Cobbe

From: Tyrer, Bob
Sent: 08 January 2013 15:24
To: Elizabeth Cobbe
Subject: Re: PCC complaint 125692 Tilbrook

Dear Elizabeth,

Thanks for your reply.

I would be willing to compromise with this wording: “A story on the election of police and crime commissioners (Party plodders turn police vote into a flop, November 11, 2012) wrongly referred to the English Democrats as an ‘extremist’ party. The English Democrats are a nationalist party campaigning, among other things, for an English parliament.”

That is my final offer on the wording. I also agree to remove the word “extremist” from the online article – in fact, I’ve already asked for it to be removed, as a gesture of good faith – and I would add the footnote you suggest: “An earlier version of this article wrongly referred to the English Democrats as an ‘extremist’ party. It is a nationalist party.”

With best wishes,

Bob

Bob Tyrer
Executive Editor

From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
To: elizabeth.cobbe@pcc.org.uk
Sent: 14/01/2013 12:02:31 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: PCC complaint 125459 Tilbrook

Dear Ms Cobbe

Re: Sunday Times Article – PCC Complaint 125459|

Before final agreement I would like to see a proof of the proposed agreed wording to be published showing its position, size and prominence. Also I would like to see such a proof in relation to the on-line article.

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats,

From: elizabeth.cobbe@pcc.org.uk
To: robintilbrook@aol.com
Sent: 16/01/2013 10:04:57 GMT Standard Time
Subj: PCC REF 125459

Dear Mr Tilbrook,

Thank you for your email of 14 January.

The newspaper has said that the page on which the corrections and clarifications are published doesn’t go to press until the Saturday night before publication, so providing a proof would not be practical. It has, however, made an assurance that it will appear in the Corrections and Clarifications column. I have attached to this email a pdf of how the column appears on the page from last week’s newspaper. The correction online would appear as a footnote to the article.

The PCC does not require the newspaper to provide a proof of how any statement negotiated by the PCC would appear; it does, however, require the newspaper to confirm prominence. The newspaper has now done this. I would be grateful if you could confirm whether you would like me to ask the newspaper to proceed with publication.

With kind regards

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Cobbe
Complaints Officer
Press Complaints Commission

From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
To: elizabeth.cobbe@pcc.org.uk
Sent: 17/01/2013 10:12:31 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: PCC REF 125459

Dear Miss Cobbe

Thank you for your email and clarification. In that case we will accept what has been agreed. Thank you for your help.

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats,

From: elizabeth.cobbe@pcc.org.uk
To: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
Sent: 17/01/2013 14:22:22 GMT Standard Time
Subj: PCC REF 125459

Dear Mr Tilbrook,

Thank you for your earlier email.

The agreed footnote has now been added to the online article and the agreed wording will be published in the corrections and clarifications column in this week’s edition of the newspaper.

With kind regards

Elizabeth Cobbe

From: elizabeth.cobbe@pcc.org.uk
To: robintilbrook@aol.com
Sent: 22/01/2013 11:40:17 GMT Standard Time
Subj: PCC REF 125459

Our reference: 125459

Dear Mr Tilbrook

Now that your complaint has been resolved, a short summary of it will soon be available on the Commission’s web site. Unless we hear to the contrary within 7 days, we will assume that you are happy with the summary and are content for the information to be released publicly. This email has also been copied to the publication, which also has 7 days in which to comment on the wording.

The proposed wording, subject to formal approval by the Commission and any comments from the parties, is as follows:

The Sunday Times

Mr Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats Party, complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had breached the terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant said that the article incorrectly described the English Democrats as “extremist right-wing”. There was no evidence that the party was “extremist” or that its politics could be described as “far right”.

The complaint was resolved when the PCC negotiated the publication of the following statement in the newspaper:

The newspaper also appended the following statement to the online article:

“An earlier version of this article wrongly referred to the English Democrats as an ‘extremist’ party. It is a nationalist party.” (Cl 1)

If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been handled you should write within one month to the Independent Reviewer, whose details can be accessed using this web link:http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/independentreview.html

With best wishes

Elizabeth Cobbe
Complaints Officer
Press Complaints Commission

Email sent 25.1.2013

Dear Ms Cobbe

Thank you for your email of the 22nd. I had in fact written to the Press Complaints Commission that the newspaper had breached the terms of Clauses 1, 2 and 12.

I would be grateful if you could make this amendment.

Yours sincerely

R C W Tilbrook

Hertfordshire English Democrats Supporters Club

Not Left, Not Right, Just English!

SUNDAY TIMES RETRACTS EXTREMIST SLUR AGAINST ENGLISH DEMOCRATS