Press complaint rejected
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.SIR Andrew Bowden MBE, MP for Brighton Kemptown, on behalf of a number of his constituents, complained that an article in the Independent on Sunday on 17 April 1994, 'Fear rules in no-go Britain', was unjustified in drawing special attention to Moulsecoomb as a no-go area by publishing a prominent photograph of the estate and in suggesting that this was an area where 'police, doctors, even postmen and milkmen think twice before going unescorted'. The complaint was raised under Clause 1 of the Code of Practice.
The newspaper pointed out that, following publication of the article, it had published a letter from a local resident which summarised the complainant's views. It had published this letter to give the residents an opportunity to reply to the report. However, it stood by the accuracy of its report and did not believe that there was any implication that the majority of residents were other than decent and law-abiding. The article indicated that the journalists had relied on what local sources had told them.
The Commission does not find that the photograph and caption unjustifiably suggested that Moulsecoomb was a significantly worse 'no-go area' than the other 39 featured, nor did it suggest that the majority of Moulsecoomb residents were not decent and law-abiding. In any event, the published letter provided an adequate reply for those who considered that the estate had been unfairly represented. The complaint is rejected.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments