Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The Article
2. The article is a blog piece that appeared on the online edition of GNM’s
education section. The author, Conrad Landing, at the time of publication, was
a student at Cambridge University. The article is essentially a comment piece
on the issue of racism at one of Britain’s leading universities. In support of his
contention that universities are failing to tackle racism head on, the author
cites, as an example, the fact that the complainant, a then supervisor at the
university, had a website containing what some have described as racist and
sexist views.
The authors of the CS article contacted the complainant for comment. Some
of his comments are reproduced in the piece.
5. First he complained that the allegation made by the CUSU spokesperson that
some of the content of his website was racist and sexist was inaccurate. This
complaints were unsuccessful.
“Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information, including pictures.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment,
conjecture and fact.
iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for
defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise,
or an agreed statement is published.”
9. Following the partial success of his complaint to the PCC, the complainant
complained to the Reader’s Editor (RE). He now complains to the Panel,
having been dissatisfied with the outcome of the RE procedure.
10. The complainant takes issue with the following quote from the article
11. The online publication of the article now bears an amendment dated 29
October 2014, correcting the complainant’s status as quoted above, to
supervisor rather than lecturer.
12. His complaint to the Panel is again, under clause 1 of the Code (set out
above). The complainant contends that the above quote from the article is
inaccurate. In his completed application form to the Panel dated 25/11/14, the
complainant asserts
Discussion
No “students” complained
13. It is clear from a reading of the PCC decision that the complainant’s allegation
that TCS and CUSU colluded against him were rejected. The PCC stated on
this issue
14. Similarly, in relation the article with which the Panel is concerned, the author
is entitled to take at face value the claim in the CS article that students first
raised complaints in relation to the content on the complainant’s website.
15. Finally, on this issue it is clear from a reading of the CS article that the CUSU
spoke to TCS “Following complaints”. It was therefore safe for the author of
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office : Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
this article to conclude that the complaints referred to, came from members of
the student population. The Panel therefore finds that it was not inaccurate for
the article to refer to “students” in the quote complained of.
16. The Panel can see no reason for the author to be precluded from mentioning
Nazi imagery in his piece, simply because that was not specifically referred to
by TCS. Indeed, the Panel sees the merit in using the phrase “Nazi imagery”
rather than repeating the unsubstantiated allegation of “national socialism”.
The latter allegation of course being the subject of successful challenge to the
PCC. The Panel is therefore of the view that this aspect of the complaint is not
substantiated.
Nazi imagery
17. At the top of the Political Correctness page on the Complainant’s website
there is a picture of Adolph Hitler holding a flag bearing the swastika. Above
Hitler’s head is the symbol of the Third Reich. In the background there can be
seen a sea of soldiers all wearing Nazi uniform and some holding flags
bearing the swastika. The Panel is of the unanimous view that this picture is
accurately described as a Nazi image. Therefore, when the author states as a
matter of fact that the Complainant’s website contains Nazi imagery, this is, in
the view of the Panel, accurate.
18. This particular allegation by the complainant does not strictly speaking fall
under clause 1 of the Code. It is, in reality a complaint that the words
complained of are defamatory of the complainant by suggesting he is a Nazi
sympathiser. The Panel reminds itself that its remit is to adjudicate upon
matters falling within the Code only. However, the Panel notes that the words
complained of in their common sense and natural meaning, do not suggest
that the complainant is a Nazi sympathiser. It merely states as a matter of
fact, that Nazi imagery was found by students on the complainant’s website.
Decision
19. For the reasons set out above, the Panel unanimously dismisses the
complaint against the article.
The Scott Trust Ltd
Registered in England No. 6706464
Registered office : Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG
SIGNED
Chair:
Panel member:
Panel Member: Elinor Goodman
Dated: 13th February 2015