Press Complaints Commission Report

[Alex McFarlane]

The following is the ruling of the PCC in our case against the Sunday Times.
I post it in its entirety without comment.

Commission’s decision in the case of

McFarlane v The Sunday Times
The article reported that “the world of British chess [was] being rocked by accusations of homophobia” following an incident in which the president of the English Chess Federation, Mr CJ de Mooi, did not participate in a prize-giving ceremony at the British Chess Championship because concerns had been raised about his attire. Mr de Mooi was wearing a Stonewall UK T-shirt bearing the slogan “Some people are gay. Get over it”, and he was asked by an arbiter of the British Chess Federation whether he considered his clothing appropriate.

The complainant said it had been inaccurate and misleading for the newspaper to refer to “accusations of homophobia” given that it accepted that Mr de Mooi had not specifically used this term. He considered that this raised a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainant said that his partner, Lara Barnes, who had been the arbiter involved in the incident, had suffered hate mail and had been branded a homophobe as a result of the article, with major implications for her personally and professionally. Given a subsequent statement by Mr de Mooi on the English Chess Forum, the complainant considered that the article should have been corrected by the newspaper and an article of equal prominence, which retracted the accusation, should have been published. The complainant also considered that the newspaper’s failure to contact the complainant or Ms Barnes for their views on the accusations had breached Clause 2 (Opportunity to Reply) of the Code.

The Commission first considered the complaint under Clause 1(i) of the Code, which states that the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. It acknowledged the complainant’s position that the reference to “homophobia” was inaccurate and had caused harm to his partner, Ms Barnes. It was a matter of regret that the complainant and Ms Barnes had been distressed by the publication of the allegations, particularly given Mr de Mooi’s subsequent statement clarifying his position. However, the Commission noted that the newspaper had sought comment from Mr de Mooi, who had raised concerns about the incident, and from Andrew Farthing, the Chief Executive of the English Chess Federation, who had confirmed that the incident was under investigation, and that it had not named Ms Barnes. The Commission understood the complainant’s concerns that the newspaper had not obtained comment from himself or his partner before publishing Mr de Mooi’s allegations, which were significant. It noted that there appeared to be a conflict of accounts as to whether the newspaper had taken specific steps to contact Ms Barnes before publication, which it had been unable to resolve. However, in all the circumstances, it considered that the steps taken by the newspaper to verify the nature of the allegations with Mr de Mooi and Mr Farthing demonstrated that it had taken care under the terms of the Code not to publish inaccurate information.

The Commission then turned to the complaint under Clause 1(ii) of the Code, which states that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence. Although it was accepted by both parties that Mr de Mooi had not used the term “homophobia” in his interview with the newspaper, the Commission considered that the term was a reasonable description of the allegations that had been made. The claims had clearly been presented as such, and the Commission did not consider that readers would have been given the impression that they were accepted by the other parties involved. The Commission did not establish a breach of the Code on this point. However, it considered that the publication – before the complaint to the Commission – of a statement in the form of a letter from Andrew Farthing, updating readers on the situation and making clear that both parties had accepted that the incident had been a misunderstanding, had been an appropriate step. It welcomed the newspaper’s removal of the reference to “homophobia” from the online article in recognition of the complainant’s concerns, and its inclusion of a link online to the full statements by Mr Farthing, Ms Barnes and Mr de Mooi.

The Commission then turned to the complaint under Clause 2 (Opportunity to Reply) of the Code. It acknowledged that the complainant considered that a new article retracting the accusations of homophobia should have been published. However, while it acknowledged that the situation had changed following the publication of the article, the Commission had not established inaccuracies in the reporting of Mr de Mooi’s allegations; as such, the terms of Clause 2 – which refer to “a fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies” – had not been engaged.

The Commission then turned to the complainant’s concerns over several inaccuracies regarding the reporting of the events surrounding Mr de Mooi’s leaving the prize-giving. It acknowledged his position that Mr de Mooi had not been “banned” from the ceremony and that the Congress had not decided that he could not be involved while wearing the T-shirt; however, it noted that these claims had been clearly attributed to Mr de Mooi. The newspaper had been entitled to present Mr de Mooi’s account of the incident, and the Commission had not received any complaint from Mr de Mooi that he had been misquoted. In the absence of a complaint from Mr de Mooi or his representative, the Commission could not comment further on this point.

The Commission then turned to the complainant’s concern over the editing of Mr Farthing’s statement. It made clear that it had received a letter from Mr Farthing regarding his correspondence with the newspaper over the article and was grateful for his input. Mr Farthing had noted that he did not wish to take forward a formal complaint against the newspaper, and as such the Commission could not comment further on this point.

The Commission also noted the complainant’s concerns over comments made on Twitter by one of the journalists who had written the article. However, as the complainant had accepted, this aspect of the complaint fell outside of its remit, as such, it could not comment further.

[David Robertson]

Sans teeth; sans balls; sans relevance

[Alex McFarlane]

I have asked Andrew Farthing to make Mr De Mooi aware of this report. CJ's support in the original complaint would have been helpful.

[IM Jack Rudd]

He knew exactly what he was doing, getting maximum publicity for the organisation represented by the T shirt. It was manor from heaven and a gilt edged opportunity that landed in his lap. Why he is still our President remains a mystery.

It's very unmysterious: he stood for re-election, and Council decided to vote for him. That's usually why board members remain on the board.

(PS: assuming you're referencing the Bible and not The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the word is manna.)

[Paul Cooksey]

He knew exactly what he was doing, getting maximum publicity for the organisation represented by the T shirt.

Stonewall have a much higher media profile than the ECF. Neither they, or anyone else, were much interested in the story. Nothing in the facts supports a conspiracy. They do support CJ being genuinely upset and acting unwisely as a result.

As someone who has considerable experience of the PCC, I think the forum in this thread and others is being a little harsh on it and over indulgent with CJ.

I disagree. My main issues with the PCC are:
1. The standard set that it must only be true an allegation has been made, seems too low. If the allegation is in itself damaging to someone I think the newspaper must to try hard to find out if it is true, and include that in its report.
2. The PCC seems to have no investigative powers, and reports minimal facts.
3. The PCC could not rule on the Twitter feed, which I think everyone considers was abusive. It seems outdated not to have a newspapers social media presence within the power of the regulator.

Given the PCC has no interest in the resonableness of the allegation, or the facts of what happened, it really does not clarify if CJ was culpable for anything. It is possible on this ruling all CJ said to The Times was "I was banned from presenting the prizes in my Stonewall t-shirt and I am really upset", or it is possible that CJ was dripping poison into the impressionable Mr Keene's ear throughout.

If I felt the PCC had condemned CJ for misleading the Times, it would change my opinion of him. But I really can't see that in the text.

[Sean Hewitt]

My point is that it is no part of the role of a President of the ECF to expose his own officials to possible huge public ridicule, without first either resigning in disgust, or summoning a board meeting to examine the facts. I simply find it odd.

Me too.

[Bill Porter]

Nothing in the facts supports a conspiracy. They do support CJ being genuinely upset and acting unwisely as a result.

Interesting that the first ever mention on the forum of a T-shirtgate conspiracy is to deny one exists.

I hope you will provide details of the allegation so that we all know what didn't happen.

[Paul Cooksey]

Interesting that the first ever mention on the forum of a T-shirtgate conspiracy is to deny one exists.
I hope you will provide details of the allegation so that we all know what didn't happen.

Ernie has refered to premeditated actions and dark forces, but I am afraid I am unaware of the details. I would not be surprised if Mr Giddins revealed Stewart Reuben to be the leader of the Illuminati.

[Jonathan Rogers]

My point is that it is no part of the role of a President of the ECF to expose his own officials to possible huge public ridicule, without first either resigning in disgust, or summoning a board meeting to examine the facts. I simply find it odd.

Me too.

...and it becomes more than odd when, in the calm light of day, he becomes informed of the trouble he has caused and still seemingly decides to prefer his friendship to Ray Keene to giving any real satisfaction to the injured party - indeed, the injured party is actually told to stop e.mailing him, if I understand correctly. Meanwhile the next celebrity party at Simpsons is planned.

If any of that is wrong - well. let's hear it from the ECF, who are still not commenting in public about the Times article.

Now it is more than odd - and I agree with those who think that Council should have voted him out. Those who speak about CJ's apology or his emotion at the time don't seem to be recognising an ongoing preference to be close to Ray Keene than to senior reputable members of the chess community, a link which seems so important to him that he cannot remedy the wrongs he has done to others. That is not about emotion, but calculation (although it can also be argued that someone who is so emotionally unstable as to bring into disrepute the organisation of which he is President, whilst in a pique, is unfit for that reason too).

There are no dark forces - just an unfit President. But see further several writings by Justin Horton - this sort of tolerance has, sadly, often been shown by the chess community to those who have brought money to it. This is really episode 94 on that score.

[Mick Norris]

SNIP and I agree with those who think that Council should have voted him out. SNIP

What did your ECF Delegate(s) say when you expressed that view to them before the AGM?

I can't speak for others, but the MCF view was that CJ has positive and negative impacts on chess, and the former outweigh the latter

I respect that others disagree, but that wasn't expressed in the vote where CJ was re-elected with only 1 vote against

[Jonathan Rogers]

SNIP and I agree with those who think that Council should have voted him out. SNIP

What did your ECF Delegate(s) say when you expressed that view to them before the AGM?

The relevant Board had a meeting among themselves and decided to vote for CJ anyway, on the familiar "he's done more good than harm" basis - pretty much your view, too, I think. I didn't push the point. What can you do? But I think that more people will come round in time to my (and Ernie's) way of thinking.

[Rob Thompson]

SNIP and I agree with those who think that Council should have voted him out. SNIP

What did your ECF Delegate(s) say when you expressed that view to them before the AGM?

The relevant Board had a meeting among themselves and decided to vote for CJ anyway, on the familiar "he's done more good than harm" basis - pretty much your view, too, I think. I didn't push the point. What can you do? But I think that more people will come round in time to my (and Ernie's) way of thinking.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with the question.

[Mick Norris]

SNIP and I agree with those who think that Council should have voted him out. SNIP

What did your ECF Delegate(s) say when you expressed that view to them before the AGM?

The relevant Board had a meeting among themselves and decided to vote for CJ anyway, on the familiar "he's done more good than harm" basis - pretty much your view, too, I think. I didn't push the point. What can you do? But I think that more people will come round in time to my (and Ernie's) way of thinking.

OK, glad to see you brought it up with them - no one in Manchester (outside of our Council) has brought it up with me either before or after the ECF AGM, so I assume most chess players don't know or don't care

[Sean Hewitt]

...I assume most chess players don't know or don't care

Agreed. I suspect it's a bit of both.