Our reference: 105410

Dear Ms Bray

Further to our previous correspondence, the Commission has now made its
assessment of your complaint under the Editors’ Code of Practice.

The Commission members have asked me to thank you for giving them the
opportunity to consider the points you raise. However, their decision is that
there has been no breach of the Code in this case. A full explanation of the
Commission’s decision follows below.

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 found in our How to Complain leaflet or on the PCC website at the
following link:

http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/charter_commissioner.html

Thank you for taking this matter up with us.

Yours sincerely

Scott Langham

Commission’s decision in the case of

Bray v The Guardian

The article had been written by the complainant in response to the use of the
word “psychotic” in a cartoon published by the newspaper on 29 March 2010.
The article had been published both in the newspaper and online. The complaint
related to some of the online comments which had been posted by readers,
which related to the complainant personally. She said that the comments had
discriminated against her, in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’
Code, and that – given the level of abuse – she had not received a fair
opportunity to reply, in breach of Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply).

There was no doubt that the comments – including the use of the words “nutter”
and “retard” – had caused distress to the complainant, for which the newspaper
had apologised to her both in direct correspondence, and through the
Commission as part of the PCC investigation. This was a matter of regret for the
Commission too. Nonetheless, the question for the Commission was whether the
manner in which this occurred raised any breach of the Editors’ Code.

The main issue for the Commission to consider fell under Clause 12. It had
already found no breach of the Code in relation to the original cartoon and, in
any case, there had not been any complaint of inaccuracy in relation to it. The
newspaper had offered the complainant a lengthy response to the cartoon which
had clearly caused her offence. This was its prerogative, but was not required
under the terms of Clause 2 which states that a “suitable opportunity for reply to
inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for”. As no inaccuracies had
been outlined, there could be no breach of Clause 2. The fact that the newspaper
had allowed comments to be posted in response to the article (and had not
informed the complainant of the position before publication) did not raise a
breach of this Clause.

User-generated material forms an intrinsic part of newspaper and magazine

websites, with readers encouraged to offer their own thoughts on articles and
features, and engage in debate. The decision to allow comments is a matter for
individual editors, into which the Commission does not wish to interfere.
Generally speaking, the Commission is able to consider user-generated material
– such as readers’ comments – provided that there has been an element of
editorial control over it. In practice, this means that it can consider pre-
moderated comments or, in terms of post-moderation, material which has been
brought to the editor’s attention but a decision has been made for the material
to remain on the website. The Guardian post-moderates its comment threads.

The Commission recognised that the use of the terms in question, which referred
to the complainant’s mental health, may well have raised a breach of Clause 12
of the Code in another context. However, the fact remained in this instance the
newspaper had not used the terms itself; rather, they had been used by readers.
The newspaper had removed the comments on the day of publication, once after
being reported anonymously by a reader, and twice after moderators had
spotted the terms. In the Commission’s view, the newspaper had taken the
necessary action to remove the comments at the time they became its
responsibility. By doing so, the newspaper had avoided a breach of the Code.

There were a number of other issues raised by the complainant upon which it
was not the Commission’s role to come to a view, including any revisions to the
newspaper’s Community Standards and Participation Guidelines, its Style Guide,
and its internal procedures for dealing with one-off contributions. These were
matters for the newspaper itself, not the PCC.

Reference No. 105410

Scott Langham
Head of Complaints

Press Complaints Commission

Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD

Tel: 020 7831 0022

Website: www.pcc.org.uk

The PCC is an independent self-regulatory body which deals with complaints about the editorial
content of newspapers and magazines (and their websites). We keep industry standards high by
training journalists and editors, and work pro-actively behind the scenes to prevent harassment and
media intrusion. We can also provide pre-publication advice to journalists and the public.

Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ukpcc

Email Disclaimer
The information contained in this email and any attached files are confidential and intended for the named addressee only. It
contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged and also protected by copyright. Unless you are the
named addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you
received it in error please notify the sender immediately or the system manager (pcc@pcc.org.uk) and then delete it from your
system. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses. However, you do need to check this e-mail and any
attachments to it for viruses as we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be transferred by way of this e-
mail. Use of this or any other e-mail facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of
these facilities.

Press Complaints Commission, Halton House, 20-23 Holborn, London EC1N 2JD

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________