Re: Complaint by Mr Peter Hitchens (ref: PH/11/2017)

Date of complaint: 16 November 2017

Article complained of: “Don’t blame victims for this toxic debate” Deborah
Orr
Date of publication: 9 November 2017

Decision

Introduction

1. Throughout this decision, Mr Peter Hitchens (columnist for the “Mail on

Sunday”) will be referred to as “the complainant” and the above mentioned
article as “the article”. Guardian News & Media will be referred to as “GNM”,
the former Press Complaints Commission Code as “the Code”, the readers’
editor as RE and review panel as “the panel”.

The Article

2. The article is an opinion piece by Deborah Orr (the author) in response to the
death of Labour MP Carl Sargeant and discussing the wider context of the
“me too” debate and in particular expressing concern at the number of men
who were now claiming to be victims of a “witch hunt” by women making
accusations of sexual harassment assault.

3. Approximately half way through the article, in addition to other men cited by
the author as being “in anguish about their victimhood”, the author said the
following: “Peter Hitchens, in the Mail on Sunday, vouchsafed that the
‘squawking women’ would end up in niqabs if they carried on the way they
were.” It is about this which the complainant complains (“the words
complained of”).

Complaint to the RE

4. The Complainant wrote a letter to the RE complaining about the reference to

his article and that his words had been misrepresented. He had not, he said,
used the word “squawking” in relation to woman but in relation to those
speaking out about sexual harassment “in a gender-neutral, equal opportunity
way”. He cites other examples of him doing this in the Letter.

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG



5. The Complainant first contacted June Sheenan, assistant to the Reader’s
Editor (“the RE”) by phone on 15 November 2017. The purpose of this phone
call was to find out whether his letter to the editor would be published. The RE
responded by email on the same day to inform him that it would be. In
addition, the RE notified the Complainant that the Article would be amended
to remove the exact phrase “squawking women” The letter is available here:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/nov/15/peter-hitchens-my-column-
did-not-refer-to-squawking-women

6. On 16 November 2017, the complainant wrote again to the RE expressing his

dissatisfaction with the correction to the Article. His complaint was that while
the amended version of the Article removed the direct quotations from the
phrase it retained them in relation to the word “squawking”, which the
complainant did use in his article. This was insufficient to correct the
inaccurate impression that the Complainant was referring to women as
“squawking” about sexual harassment. He says that he not only never used
the phrase “squawking women” but did not use any language which would
suggest that he was accusing women of being the ones “squawking”. The
Complainant also referred to what he perceived as “hostile” attacks on him by
Zoe Williams, writing in the Guardian a few days previously. He did not
appear to make any complaint under the Code about that article.

Outcome of the complaint to the RE

7. On 20 November 2017, the RE responded to the complaint’s second letter

informing him that his complaint was not upheld. In the view of the RE, it (a)
would be disproportionate to publish any further correction in light of the
action already taken by the paper (particularly the publication, in full, of the
Complainant’s letter); and (b) was not an unreasonable interpretation of the
Complainant’s column to apply a gendered meaning to the word “squawking”.

8. The terms of the correction which now appears at the foot of the Article are as
follows:

“This article was amended on 10 and 15 November 2017. An earlier

version misdescribed Carwyn Jones as the head of the Welsh assembly
and suggested that Peter Hitchens’ column included the exact phrase
“squawking women”.”

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG




The Complaint to the panel

9. The complainant remains unsatisfied with the changes made by the RE as set
out above. He complains to this panel in essentially the same terms as his
complaint to the RE. He maintains that the attribution to him of the words
“squawking women” were objectively false and so it was irrelevant what an
“ordinary, reasonable reader” might think. He considers that the correction
only exacerbates the inaccuracy. The complainant relies on The Code, clause
1(ii) in seeking a correction, “with due prominence” because in his view the
words complained of constitute a “significant inaccuracy, misleading
statement, or distortion”.

Relevant aspects of the Code

“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 once

recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving
the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in
advance.

Discussion

“Squawking women”

10. The panel notes that the RE has corrected the Article so that this exact
phrase is no longer included and that the correction is noted underneath the
Article. It is clear from the complainant’s original article that he did not use the
phrase “squawking women”. In this regard, we note GNM’s Editorial Code
regarding the use of direct quotation marks and in particular that direct
quotations “should not be changed to alter their context or meaning.” The
Panel considers therefore that the original version of the Article which
attributed to Mr Hitchens the direct quote “squawking women” was inaccurate
and misleading in breach of Clause 1(i) of the Code. It is moreover the
Panel’s view that the inaccuracy was a significant one because of the use of
quotation marks, which gave the clear impression that Mr Hitchens had used
that precise phrase in the article he wrote for the Mail on Sunday.
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG



Amendment to “squawking” women

11. The amended version of the Article removed the direct quotations from the
phrase but retained them in relation to the word “squawking”, which the
complainant did use in his article. The clear implication from this is that the
complainant was referring to women when he used the word “squawking”. It is
clear from the above and from his right of reply letter that the complainant
does not consider this to be a reasonable interpretation of his article.

12. The Panel notes the wider context in which the Article was written and its
clear focus on the backlash to the “me too” movement. The Panel has also
considered carefully the complainant’s article in the Mail on Sunday. The
Panel considers it useful to have regard to the relevant test which would apply
to the determination of meaning in a libel case in this regard, namely that of
the hypothetical reasonable reader. 1 While he does not expressly refer to
“squawking” women, the Panel takes the view that an ordinary reasonable
reader would consider this a gendered word and one which is typically used to
refer to women. Furthermore, the majority of those who have recently spoken
out against inappropriate behaviour towards women by men have been
women. The Mail on Sunday piece also contains the following quote:

“But many of those who claim to seek female equality have another,
much fiercer objective. They actually see men as the enemy, the
‘patriarchy’, to be overthrown by all means necessary, and replaced by a
feminised society. They also see marriage as a machine for oppressing
women. Their objectives moved a lot closer last week.”

13. The URL to the online version of the piece is also of note insofar as it appears
to link the word “squawking” to “women” (“what women gain squawking”):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5050887/What-women-gain-
squawking-sex-pests-Niqab.html

14. Taken together with the headline of the Mail on Sunday article – which does in
the Panel’s view link “squawking” with “women” – It would be entirely
reasonable – and indeed likely – that a reader would interpret the piece as
implying that women are the ones “squawking” about “sex pests”. The Panel
notes the complainant’s clear and unequivocal denial that this was his
intention. However, the Panel takes the view that the intention of the author
has little bearing on the interpretation given to a piece by its readers, provided
that interpretation is a reasonable one.

1
Jeynes v News Magazines Limited, [2008] EWCA Civ 130, Sir Anthony Clarke MR at [14]
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG



15. In all the circumstances therefore, the Panel does not consider that the
current wording used in the body of the Article of “squawking” women is either
inaccurate or misleading. The Panel will return to the complainant’s response
to GNM’s proposed re-wording of the footnote correction below. The Panel
notes, however, that the complainant does not appear to seek further
alteration or correction to the body of the Article.

Adequacy of response

16. In view of the Panel’s conclusion that the inaccuracy referred to at paragraph
10 above was “significant”, it falls to consider whether as per Clause 1(ii) of
the Code appropriate and sufficiently prominent correction has been made. In
addition, we have also considered whether an apology should also be given to
the complainant.

17. The Panel notes that the complainant has had his letter setting out his
position in relation to the Article published. However, there is no link to that
letter from the online version of the article. It is therefore difficult to find his
letter in response. Furthermore, the Panel considers that the approach taken
to the correction in the footnote to the Article is minimal in the circumstances,
given the importance, recognised in GNM’s own Editorial Guidelines, of using
direct quotations accurately. Moreover, the correction should have been more
clearly and prominently put. The Panel also noted that there had been no
apology to the complainant for the inaccuracy.

GNM Response

18. In response to the Panel’s preliminary views on this point, GNM responded to
the Panel accepting that direct quotations should never be altered and
suggesting and amendment to the footnote below the article in the following
terms:

"This article was amended on 10 and 15 November 2017. An earlier

version misdescribed Carwyn Jones as the head of the Welsh
assembly and wrongly stated that Peter Hitchens’ column included the
exact phrase “squawking women”. We apologise for the error and you
can read why Mr Hitchens's believes 'squawking' is a gender neutral
term here [insert link]."

19. This new form of wording would therefore include an apology as well as a link
to the complainant’s right of reply letter. The Panel put this proposal to the
complainant for his views. He responded indicating that he thought his
correction should be distinct from that relating to Carwyn Jones. He also
considered that the apology and reference to his letter should not use the
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG



word “believes” but state simply that “Mr Hitchens explains here that he
neither used nor implied the expression 'squawking women' “

Recommendation

20. The Panel considers that in light of the significant inaccuracy of attributing to
the complainant, the direct quote “squawking women”, a more prominent
correction, including a link to his right of reply letter, and an apology is
appropriate. We have taken the complainant’s views on GNM’s proposed
wording into consideration. The Panel cannot see any good reason to
separate out his correction from that of Carwyn Jones, nor has the
complainant advanced such a reason. The Panel notes his clear view that his
right of reply letter does not set out his belief but what is in fact the true
position in relation to word “squawking” but for the reasons already set out
above as to the reasonableness of interpreting that word as a gendered one,
the Panel is not minded to alter the form of words proposed by GNM in the
way suggested by the complainant.

21. The Panel therefore accepts GNM’s proposed amendment to the correction,
including the apology and inclusion of a link to the right of reply letter.
However, the Panel also considers that the last sentence of the amended
correction should read: “we apologise for the error and you can read Mr
Hitchens’ explanation as to why he believes ‘squawking’ is a gender-neutral
term here [insert link to letter]”

Conclusion

22. The Panel upholds the complaint in relation to the inaccuracy of the direct
quotation “squawking women” under Clause 1(i) and (ii) of the Code and the
absence of a suitably prominent correction. The Panel therefore makes the
recommendations set out at paragraph 21 above.

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG




Dated: 9/2/18

Signed:

Signed:

John Willis, Chair review panel.

Signed:

Elinor Goodman, panel member.

Signed:

Richard Danbury, panel member

The Scott Trust Ltd

Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG