PCC ruling on Heathrow protest by the Camp for Climate Action

The front page article reported that climate change activists at Heathrow were planning to bring the airport to a standstill, via hoax packages and assaults on the security fence. The piece said "two-man teams" had already "used the cover of darkness to look for weak points along the perimeter fence".

The complainant said these allegations were fabricated. Moreover, the Camp for Climate Action had not been contacted for comment on the specific claims.

The newspaper said that its source was an undercover reporter who, during his two days at the camp, had heard conversations where protesters discussed the tactics to which the article referred.

The journalist had made notes - which the paper provided to the commission - soon after he had heard the conversations. The article made clear that the conversations had not taken place during an official meeting. He had also seen two protesters checking out the security fence, although the paper accepted that only one " twoman team" had been spotted and it offered to clarify the suggestion there had been more.

The complainant said it would not have been possible for the journalist to have seen such a mission - something the newspaper disputed - and rejected the offer.

Adjudication

The newspaper's evidence to the commission set out that its reporter had heard, at an unofficial gathering of no more than four protesters, a man "in his late twenties" say: "We need to make people sit up and take notice. Leave some packages around Heathrow. That'll make them take notice."

This remark appeared to be the basis for the front page headline which categorically reported that "Militants will hit Heathrow" and a sub-headline which said "Hoax bombs to cause alerts".

Beyond the comments by the "man in his late twenties" - whose status and identity were unclear, as was whether any plan actually emerged - there was no other evidence for these bold claims.

This was a matter of concern for the commission. There was nothing in the headline to indicate to readers the insubstantial basis of the claims.

Neither was there adequate qualification in the text of the article. And within this context, the failure to make clear the limited numbers of those who allegedly planned "to pose as customers to get into McDonald's and Starbucks in the terminals and then cause trouble" was also misleading.

On the newspaper's account, perhaps only one or two people were overheard suggesting this at small, unofficial gatherings. The complainant denied this in any case - something that was not reflected adequately in the piece.

The claim that "two-man teams" had tested the perimeter fence was also a significant error in the context of the alarmist nature of the report.

The subject matter of the piece would have been of considerable importance to those living in and travelling to London, yet adequate care had not been taken over the presentation of the piece, which was materially misleading.

This was a serious breach of the code. The commission considered that the newspaper should have recognised this at an early stage and been more forthcoming in its attempts to remedy the complaint.