February 12, 2018

Shaun Strachan complained to IPSO that the Mail Online had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “‘Push him the f*** off’: Drivers stuck in seven mile tailbacks on M5 abuse suicidal man threatening to jump off a bridge as Twitter users condemn them for their cruelty”, published on 8 December 2017.

The article reported that a motorway had been closed for four hours due to concerns for the welfare of a man who was threatening to jump off a bridge. It said that a “Twitter row had erupted” because some drivers, who had been held up in traffic due to the incident, had posted tweets “branding the man on the bridge a ‘selfish idiot’”.

The article included images of some of the Tweets, including one attributed to Mr Strachan, which was accompanied by his photograph. The Tweet said “Several hours for one guy on a bridge? Push him the ____ off or pull him the ____ down. Selfish ____ heads don’t need humouring & further encouragement. Guess what though.. thanks to you and @BBCNews the next sad loser will do this again next week”.

Mr Strachan was concerned that his Tweet, an image taken from his Facebook profile and his full name had been published without his consent. He had particular concerns regarding the way in which the publication had accessed the Tweet as he said he had deleted it within five minutes of sending it, and no other Twitter user had seen it, commented on it or retweeted it. He speculated that the publication had accessed the Tweet with the “illegal use of scraping tools”. He argued that, given the short amount of time that it had been publicly available, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the statement.

Mr Strachan also said that he had sent the Tweet due to his concern that media coverage would encourage other people to make the same choices as the man on the bridge, and the publication had misrepresented his position in the headline by only quoting part of it, giving the misleading impression that he had urged the police to push the man off the bridge. Moreover, he had not sent the message while waiting in the traffic jam, as suggested by the article and in the tagline given to it when shared. He said the publication had deliberately presented the Tweet in this manner in order to generate as much hatred against him as possible.

Mr Strachan was further concerned that he had not been allowed to submit a comment beneath the article. He considered that this has been done deliberately, to prevent him from defending his position.

The Committee noted Mr Strachan’s concern that his Tweet had been published without his consent. However, Mr Strachan had sent the Tweet from his personal, publicly available Twitter account, which contained his name and photograph. Regardless of whether Mr Strachan had deleted the Tweet within five minutes of sending it, he had put this statement in the public domain. As such, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to it. The publication noted that the post had been publicly available for at least 15 minutes and Mr Strachan had provided no basis for his allegation that the content had been accessed illegally. The publication had therefore not intruded into Mr Strachan’s private life by publishing the Tweet. There was no breach of Clause 2 on this point.

As for the photograph of Mr Strachan included with the article, which Mr Strachan said had been taken from his social media account without consent, the Committee said that the image was publicly available. Further, it was a picture of Mr Strachan’s face and its publication in the article had not disclosed any private information about him in breach of Clause 2.

As for giving the misleading impression that Mr Strachan had urged the police to push the man off the bridge, the Committee noted that Mr Strachan had called the man on the bridge “selfish”, and he had said that police should push him from the bridge or pull him down. The Committee did not consider that the publication had given a misleading impression of the sentiments expressed by only using a section of the statement in the headline. Further, the article itself included the full Tweet, which included Mr Strachan’s comment that the incident would be repeated because of the media attention being given to it. There was no failure to take care over the accuracy of the article on this point.

As for giving the misleading impression that Mr Strachan had sent the Tweet during the incident, the Committee noted that the parties had provided differing accounts of when the Tweet had been sent. However, in circumstances in which the publication had accurately reported that Mr Strachan had sent the Tweet in response to the incident on the motorway, the Committee did not consider that this was a significant point that required correction. There was no failure to take care over the accuracy of the article. There was no breach of Clause 1.

As for Mr Strachan’s contentions regarding comments, the Committee noted that the selection of material for publication is a matter for discretion by individual editors; the publication was not obliged to publish Mr Strachan’s comments. Further, the Committee had not established the existence of any significant inaccuracies that required correction; as such, an opportunity to reply was not required under the terms of Clause 1(iii).

The complaint was not upheld. Decision of the Complaints Committee 20529-17 Strachan v Mail Online (29 January 2018 — to read the Decision in full, click here).