Press regulator rejects complaint against Nation.Cymru from failed UKIP candidate

The press regulator IPSO has rejected a complaint from Stan Robinson, who stood as a general election candidate for UKIP in July, after he objected to a series of reports published by Nation.Cymru.

Mr Robinson, who received 600 votes in Llanelli to finish in seventh place, complained that, Nation.Cymru breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in several articles.

He also complained about readers’ comments posted in response to the articles.

‘Journalist’

The reports which Robinson, who describes himself as a “journalist”, complained about were:

UKIP candidate cheers on man who simulated sex with a car in a churchyard (published on 16 June 2024)

Uproar as Labour councillor does fascist salute in protest against UKIP  (published on 21 June 2024)

UKIP candidate’s support for Franco called out by antifascist group (published on 27 June 2024)

Comments were posted by readers in response to the above articles, and remained online at the time IPSO’s committee considered the complaint.

Robinson said that the first article had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) as he had not “cheer[ed] on a man who simulated sex with a car in a churchyard”.

He said that the post made to the Voice of Wales Facebook had not been made by him, but by another individual who had access to the account. He said that, as he was standing for candidacy in the then-ongoing general election, he was not contributing editorially to Voice of Wales until after the election.

He also said that, had the Nation.Cymru contacted him for comment, they would have been made aware of this.

Robinson said that the second article breached the Code as he had not been contacted for comment and the article was inaccurate. He alleged that Nation.Cymru was interfering in an election, as he was a candidate in the general election.

In addition, Robinson also said that all three of the articles and the comments breached Clause 1 because he was a member of a mainstream political organisation, and had never been a member of a far-right organisation.

He said that referring to him in such terms painted him as an extremist.

He also said that readers comments, left on the Nation.Cymru website, breached Clause 12 as they were prejudicial towards him. He said that the articles did not include any reference to his race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

He said that the comments did include such a reference, though he didn’t specify the nature of this reference.

Robinson also expressed concern that the Nation.Cymru used unnamed sources in its reporting.

Comments

The regulation of reader’s comments on a publication’s website falls within IPSO’s remit when there is a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice, and where it can be shown that the comment has been subject to some level of editorial control either through pre- or post-moderation.

The comments under examination were mostly manually moderated but comments which came in overnight would be auto-moderated, with the auto-moderator set to approve only comments from accounts that have previously commented. Comments which were flagged or down voted would subsequently be manually moderated

Nation.Cymru did not accept a breach of the Code and in our submission to IPSO asserted that the articles included in the complaint were based on information from reliable, respectable, and largely political sources. We also asserted our confidence in the veracity of the information our sources had provided.

We also did not accept that the readers’ comments were inaccurate, or that it was inaccurate to refer to the complainant as far-right.

We pointed out that the UKIP party Robinson was involved with was very different from the one that campaigned for Brexit and elected MEPs, and noted that the current party is  “a fringe far-right party with a tiny membership”.

Conspiracy theory

We also provided news reports from other publications to IPSO. One reported that the complainant “posted a conspiracy theory that the Government and ‘MSM’ – mainstream media – are keeping the threat of Muslim terrorism quiet, along with a highly derogatory statement about people from Pakistan”; another reported that “the Muslim Council of Wales says Stan Robinson’s Twitter account is a ‘collection of hateful, bigoted and deeply worrying misinformation and conspiracies’”.

We pointed out that on his Twitter account, Robinson had recently posted several derogatory messages about Islam and Muslims and he also retweeted a message labelling migrants ‘parasites’ who should be ‘arrested’ or ‘shot’ to ‘stop the invasion’”.

A third article reported: “Stan Robinson previously appeared to broadcast live from protests against housing asylum seekers in a former army training camp in Pembrokeshire and over Swansea City players ‘taking the knee’ in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement.

Findings of the committee 

Robinson had said that it was inaccurate to report that he had “cheer[ed] on man who simulated sex with a car in a churchyard.”

It was not in dispute that Voice of Wales, a social media page jointly owned and operated by the complainant and another individual, had made such a post – however, the complainant had said that, at the time of the post being made, he held no editorial role within the organisation.

The Committee noted that the article made clear that the post had been made on the Voice of Wales Facebook account, and the basis for linking the post with the complainant in the headline: he co-owned the account.

This was made clear from the opening of the article, and a prominent screenshot of the post, showing that it had been made by the Voice of Wales account. In circumstances where the complainant co-owned the account where the post had appeared, and the article made clear that the post had been made to the Voice of Wales account, the Committee considered that the headline was supported and clarified by the text of the article, and that it was not inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1.

The Editors Code does not cover issues of election interference; articles which criticise political candidates, their polices, or their positions are not prohibited, provided they comply with the Code. This remains the position regardless of whether they are published during a pre-election period. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

The Committee next considered the comments under complaint. Given the comments had been subject to moderation by the publication, and remained online after the moderation process, this meant that they fell within IPSO’s remit.

Far-right

Robinson said the articles and the comments breached the terms of Clause 1 by describing him as “far-right”. The Committee noted that where someone might be considered to fall on the political spectrum is, to a large extent, subjective. It considered that expressing an opinion during a general election campaign on where someone might be considered to fall on the political spectrum is largely subjective and, in this instance, was presented as a matter of personal opinion. There was no breach of Clause 1.

He had expressed concern over the publication’s use of unnamed sources. The Code does not prohibit the use of unnamed sources, provided care is taken over the accuracy of reporting which relies on undercover sources. The Committee noted that Clause 14 (Confidential sources) of the Editors’ Code says that journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information, making clear that the practice is permitted under the Code, and that revealing the identity of anonymous sources can in fact breach the Code. There was, therefore, not breach of the Code on this point.

Robinson had also said that, as the publication had not approached him for comment in relation to the articles and he had not been given the opportunity to respond to the reader comments about him, there had been a further breach of Clause 1.

The Code does not include a stand-alone requirement for publications to contact the subject of articles for comment prior to publication. However, a failure to reach out for comment may breach the Code should a significant inaccuracy be published as a result, or if someone is not given a fair opportunity to respond to a significant inaccuracy that has already published.

Inaccuracy 

In this case, as the Committee did not find that a significant inaccuracy had been published, either in the articles or in the comments, this did not apply. Therefore, there was no obligation for the Nation.Cymru to contact the complainant directly for his comment.

The decision of whether or not to permit reader comments – or to restrict certain readers from making comments – is a matter of editorial discretion. While the specific content of comments can breach the Code, a publication is not obliged to allow readers to comment, to publish comments from specific individuals, or to allow individuals the ‘right to reply’ via a reader’s comments. There was, therefore, no breach of the Code on these points.

Robinson said that the article and comments were prejudicial against him, in breach of Clause 12. Clause 12 protects specific individuals mentioned in press coverage from prejudice based on their protected characteristics; namely, their race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability.

He had not said that the article or comments were prejudiced against him due to a protected characteristic he held; rather, his concerns appeared to be that the publication and commenters’ approach to him was generally prejudicial.

Given the complainant had not said that he had been discriminated against on the basis of a protected characteristic, there was no breach of Clause 12.

The complainant had also said that the publication was biased against him. However, the Editors’ Code of Practice does not address issues of bias. It makes clear the press has the right to be partisan, to give its own opinion and to campaign, provided the Code is not otherwise breached.

The complaint was not upheld.

Mark Mansfield, CEO of Nation.Cymru said: “We are delighted that Mr Robinson failed in what we regard as a vexatious complaint. We have written numerous stories about the behaviour of Mr Robinson and his associate Daniel Morgan, a convicted fraudster, and their unpleasant vlog Voice of Wales.

“In 2023 I had to report to the police death threats received by a number of Nation.Cymru’s personnel made by an associate of Messrs Robinson and Morgan, and after Mr Martin Shipton wrote an article about Tommy Robinson consorting with the Voice of Wales pair in Llanelli, he received a menacing message.

In correspondence with IPSO, Mr Robinson accused Mr Shipton, who is 71 years of age and does not drive, of ‘stalking’ him and Mr Morgan.

“These people are despicable, deeply unpleasant and prepared to tell packs of lies.

“Presumably Robinson believed that by making this complaint it would stop our reporting of his and Morgans activities.

“It has not and it will not”.