Unit 1 FACT SHEET Ashley Hill

Regulatory Bodies

Regulatory bodies are organisations that are often put in place by the government, to
establish and maintain a national standard and to ensure they are followed.

The purpose of regulatory bodies is that they impose requirements, standards and
restrictions on businesses and organisations. They do this to stop any wrongful
actions against others or things such as false advertising or discrimination and these
are then followed by sanctions such as fines. In the UK there are two regulatory
bodies that oversee the production of magazine content, these are IPSO and ASA
(for advertisements).

IPSO
https://www.ipso.co.uk/
The IPSO stands for the Independent Press Standard Organization. The IPSO are
regulators for the newspaper and magazine industry in
the UK. They hold newspaper and magazine
organisations accountable for their actions and protect
individual rights as well as uphold a high standard of
journalism in the UK and this helps the press keep
and maintain freedom of expression.
The purpose of the IPSO is that they enforce and
discipline newspapers and magazines for breaking the
codes they have put in place by issuing fines. The
IPSO is a fairly recent organisation as it was only established on the 8th of
September 2014. The reason for the creation of the organisation was there was an
upset with the previous regulator for the press which was the Press Complaints
Commission also known as PCCThe upset of the PCC was caused by heavy
criticism, particularly during the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practice and ethics
of the Press, of its ineffectiveness which led to it being closed .The IPSO is funded by
the Regulatory Funding Company also known as the RFC . The responsibilities of
the IPSO include protecting individual rights and uphold a high standard of
journalism.

How They Do It
The IPSO uses the Editors Code of Practice to regulate the newspapers and
magazines. The Editors Code of Practice is a set of rules and standards that the
newspapers, magazines and regulators agree to follow. The Editors Code of Practice
is written and administered by the Editors Code Committee and is enforced by the
IPSO. The code sets the base for the highest standards that the members of the
press must follow. The code must be followed to the letter as described. The code
means that all work ready to be published is rigorously checked by all editorial staff
and external contributors. The Editor’s Code is used to limit the amount of
complaints received for a media product, however, if one is filed and deemed correct
by the Editors Code Committee there will be consequences for those involved.
 Editor’s Code of Practice

Code Application

Accuracy
The accuracy code covers the use of inaccurate or
misleading information and images including
headlines that are not supported by the text. The
code enforces that if a misleading statement or
distortion has been published then the code informs
that it must be corrected, promptly and with due
prominence. This should then be followed by an
apology. The code also specifies that a publication
should be reported fairly and accurately.The
purpose for this code is that it stops any misleading
facts that for example could end up becoming
harmful or distressing to people. It is also used to try and prevent propaganda as a
whole in the press.

This code links to the production of magazines as the producers must not publish
inaccurate, misleading information or images in their articles, headlines or images.
Producers must check for any breaches before publishing the magazine otherwise
they can potentially get a complaint from the public that would be sent to the IPSO
and then there would be a ruling.

The accuracy code links to Empire magazine as they use many images and include
many articles inside their magazine, however many images and articles inside their
magazines are linked to films which are not consistently realistic however they are
not able to mislead the audience by adding or subtracting anything from an image
which could make it more appealing as this can be considered misleading. Empire
magazine producers must make sure they are getting accurate information to make
sure they do not use any misleading information.

Harassment
This code is in place against journalists
harassing, intimidating or persistently pursuing an
individual for their purpose. The purpose for this
code is that it protects people from the
harassment of journalists and to stop journalists
from questioning, telephoning, pursuing or
photographing individuals once the individual has
not given permission. When journalists are asked to leave the property of the
individual they must do so and not follow the individual.
The harassment code also includes that journalists must identify themselves and
who they represent.

This code links to the production of magazines as the editors of the magazines must
make sure their employers follow this code and not harass individuals they are
looking to contact.The magazine company must also take care and check to make
sure they do not use non-compliant materials from other sources.

This code also links to Empire magazine as their journalists for their magazine must
not harass, intimidate or pursue persistently to get what they desire. The editors for
Empire magazine will also observe to make sure they are following the rules in the
code. Empire magazine producers need to make sure they do not use any non-
compliant material from other external sources.

Discrimination
This code covers the use of
prejudice or pejorative reference
about an individual including race,
colour, religion, sex, gender identity
and sexual orientation.The code also
covers against the reference of any
physical or mental illness or disability.
The purpose of this code is that it
prevents any harm or offence to those in that particular group. For example the use
of prejudiced thoughts against people of a different race are not allowed as offence
can be taken. The purpose of the code is also to protect the press from publishing
anything that is linked to this code and getting backlash from the public.

This code links to the production of magazines as magazines in their articles can not
include any prejudiced connotations of people. This means that the producers must
make sure that the content that they are writing about can't offend people by singling
them out. If this code is not followed then there would be a big backlash from the
public and consequences from the regulatory body.

Empire magazine is affected by this code specifically because they are a very
trusted and well known magazine so they must not include prejudiced references
about others in their magazine as this can hurt their reputation with the public and
press. This can affect the sales of the magazine. The producers of Empire magazine
must have the magazine checked before it gets published to avoid any of this.

Judgment
Judgment
The judgement I have chosen is against the sun magazine. The magazine was
accused of breaking codes (11) Victims of sexual assault, as the article in the
magazine reference that somebody was raped as detailed in the magazine ,(1)
Accuracy, (2) Privacy, (3) Harrasment. The article within the magazine was about an
affair that a man had with a woman who was rescued from sex slavery. The article
reported that the complainant had resigned after having an affair with a volunteer he
helped rescue from sex slavery’’. The article then went on to state that when the
affair had ended in 2019, the women ended up going to the police and stated that
the complainant had raped her in Australia. After no charges the women went to the
Charity Commission, which began a probe last year. The complainant then quit as
chairman of Essex-based British Pakistani Christian Ltd. The article also included a
photograph of the complainant. The complainant reported that the magazine had
gotten the dates of certain aspects wrong such as the date he resigned and also
stated that he was never investigated for rape in the UK and that it was only in
Australia where he was investigated. The complainant stated that the magazine
breached rule 1, 2 and 3 which are privacy, Accuracy and Harassment. There were
interviews with the women as well. The judgement of the complaint found that the
magazine did not breach any of the codes and that the magazine was not in the
wrong. The following is the full description of the complaint.

3. The article then went on to state that “[w]hen the affair ended in 2019, she told
police [the complainant] had raped her in Australia. Police there and in the UK
investigated but did not bring charges. [The woman] went to the Charity
Commission, which began a probe last year. [The complainant] then quit as
chairman of Essex-based British Pakistani Christian Ltd.” The article was also
accompanied by a photograph of the complainant.
4. The article also appeared online, in substantially the same form, under the
headline “Christian charity boss quits after affair with volunteer he rescued from sex
slavery”. This version of the article also included the same photograph of the
complainant – this was captioned “Wilson Chowdhry quit amid a probe from the
Charity Commission”.

5. Prior to the article’s publication, a journalist contacted the complainant, his wife,
and the charity, and put several questions to each party. The journalist first
contacted the charity on 23 May 2022, and all parties exchanged several emails over
the course of a week; the correspondence ceased after the charity asked the
journalist to say who they worked for and they declined to do so.

6. As well as exchanging emails prior to the article’s publication, the journalist also
called and then exchanged text messages with a number which the complainant said
belonged to his daughter. The sequence of those calls and texts was as follows: two
calls occurred on 23 May 2022; the second call was answered and a conversation
took place between the complainant’s 18 year-old daughter and a journalist. After
this call a text was subsequently sent to the journalist from the number at 5:47pm:

I’m a teenager and don’t appreciate these calls.

7. A further call was made after this text message was sent; the journalist then texted
the number with the following message:

Mr Chowdhry please don’t pretend this is not your phone. Your daughter answered it
claiming at first it was a wrong number and then that you were not in. She agreed to
pass on a message.

Will you please get in touch so I can discuss with you the way you ran the BPCA, the
circumstances around your departure but continued involvement and other important
matters.

My brief chat with your daughter was polite and the BPCA website and annual
accounts clearly promotes her role in its work, including with the media.

I have no interest in seeking any comment from her. But you and your wife can help
with my enquiries. You can see from the internet what I do.

I look forward to talking to you.

8. Another text was then sent from the number to the journalist:

As I’ve said before I’m a teenager and will report you to [the local] Council in regards
to safeguarding. If you continue to message me [sic] I will report you to the police.

No further calls were made, or text messages sent, after this text.

9. The complainant said that the article included several inaccuracies in breach of
Clause 1 (Accuracy). He said that he had not helped a “sex slave” and had not
“rescued” her – as reported by the articles and online version of the headline. He
said that he first met her in November 2018, which was six months after she had left
Pakistan – the country where she had allegedly been held captive. He further said
that he had not had an “affair” with the woman; rather, they had agreed to be friends
unless his wife left him, at which point he would enter into a romantic relationship
with the woman. However, the woman had “blackmailed” him into a relationship. He
also disputed that she had been a “sex slave”.

10. The complainant also said that the article inaccurately reported on the timing and
circumstances of his resignation from the charity. He said that he had resigned of his
own volition “long before the woman had approached the Charity Commission”; he
resigned in May 2019, and the Charity Commission first approached the charity in
August of the same year. He also said that the print version of the article was
inaccurate in its reporting of when the Charity Commission “probe” began; it had not
begun “last year” – in 2021. Rather, it had begun in 2019. He said that this
inaccuracy was deliberate, and was done in an attempt to make the article more
current.

11. The complainant further said that he had not been investigated for rape charges
in the UK; only Australian police investigated the matter. He said that the article had
also omitted criminal allegations he had made against the woman, while focussing
on allegations against him – which he said rendered the article inaccurate.

12. The complainant further said that the article breached Clause 2 (Privacy), as he
considered it contained private information about his personal and family life.

13. The complainant also expressed concern that a journalist working on behalf of
The Sun had breached Clause 3 (Harassment). He said that, during a two-day event
– a Christian music festival – held in early June 2022, he had been approached by a
man who he believed to be the journalist; as the man resembled a photograph which
accompanied an article written by the journalist, though he did not realise this until
after the encounter when he had searched for him online. He said the following
interaction had occurred between himself and the man who he believed to be the
journalist:

The man: I know you from somewhere, don’t I?

The complainant: I don’t know.

The man: Ah that’s right [unrelated name]

The complainant: I don’t remember that but please put your detail down on this form
so that I can stay in touch.

14. The complainant said that the same man had approached him the next day; he
had looked at the complainant and smiled then – when asked by the complainant
where they had met – had walked away, “lifting a [finger] and touching his forehead
on the side”. The complainant said that he found the interactions “bizarre and scary”,
and further said that the man had been seen, by a third party who the complainant
did not identify, following him and his daughter around the event. The complainant
also said that he believed the individual asked people to film him at the event, though
he said that he had not approached the people who he believed were filming him or
received any other confirmation of this.

15. The complainant further said that the same journalist had breached Clause 3, as
he had not identified which publication he worked for when explicitly asked by the
charity via email on 30 May 2022.

16. The complainant further expressed concern that the journalist had breached
Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 6 (Children) by phoning and texting a phone
number which he said belonged to his daughter, and not respecting the request that
he desist contacting the number. He said that his daughter was in her last year of
school and completing her A-Level exams at the time of the calls and texts, and they
had caused her a great deal of stress and intruded on her schoolwork.

17. The publication did not accept that the Code had been breached. It first set out
the steps that the journalist had taken to ensure the accuracy of the article: he had
questioned the woman who made the allegations against the complainant at length,
and had put allegations made by the complainant to her; he had requested specific
evidence from the woman to support her claims; the journalist had “[e]ngaged in a
detailed right of reply process” with the complainant, his wife, the charity, and the
Charity Commission; and made inquiries with several third-parties. The publication
also provided a letter from the woman who had made the allegations, prepared for
the attention of IPSO, setting out the “integrity, professionalism, [and] impartiality” of
the reporter.

18. Turning to the specific breaches of Clause 1 alleged by the complainant, the
publication said that the language used in the article – that he had “helped rescue”
her from sex slavery – covered the charity’s role in the woman’s recovery from sex
slavery. It said that the charity had organised counselling for the woman, appeared
alongside her in media appearances and coordinated such appearances on her
behalf, and arranged and promoted petitions and fundraisers for her cause. It said
that the complainant was personally involved in these activities as the founder,
chairman, and “dominant force” behind the charity.

19. It also said that the complainant and the charity itself had “publicly credited” the
charity with rescuing the woman. For example, the complainant had posted to a
Facebook group – using his personal Facebook account – an article about the
woman’s alleged experiences. In the post which accompanied the article, the
complainant had written: “British Pakistani Christian Association helped free her from
Pakistan”. A further email, sent from the charity’s admin account to a magazine and
signed “Wilson”, said:

Although the British Pakistani Christian Association (BPCA) only became cognisant
of Lara’s plight later on this piece, we immediately mobilised to her help with
counselling, extra costs associated with her safe exit, housing when she arrived back
in Australia and on-going support and counselling. We were committed to not only
emancipating her from Pakistan but also from the collateral damage (PTSD, mental
trauma, potential homelessness) all concomitant [sic] on leaving her abusive
situation.

Therefore, the publication did not accept that it could be inaccurate to report that the
complainant “helped rescue” the woman.

20. The publication also did not accept that it was inaccurate to report that the
complainant had had a “sexual affair” with the woman. The complainant had
admitted to the journalist, during pre-publication correspondence, that: he had
become “romantically linked” to the woman after speaking to her on the phone; had
exchanged sexual text messages with the woman (copies of which were provided to
IPSO); had shared a hotel room with the woman on a trip abroad; and had admitted
to ‘moral failures’. It also said that the woman had told the journalist that she and the
complainant had a “romantic and sexual relationship”. The publication also provided
a recording of a phone call between the complainant and the woman, in which he
referenced the pair engaging in a sex act together and in which the complainant and
the woman both said “I love you”.

21. The newspaper also said that the woman’s allegations that she had been a “sex
slave” had been previously documented in other publications, and that the
complainant had provided a comment to another publication supporting her account.

22. Turning to the complainant’s concerns regarding the timeline of his resignation
and the Charity Commission’s probe, the publication noted that the Companies
House register for the charity showed the date of his resignation as June 2019 –
rather than May 2019, as the complainant had alleged. It also noted that the Charity
Commission had confirmed in direct correspondence with the journalist that its probe
had begun in June 2019. Therefore, it did not accept that it was inaccurate to report
that the complainant “then” quit after the woman had approached the Charity
Commission (as reported by the print article) or that he had quit “amid” the probe (as
reported by the online version of the article).

23. The publication accepted that the article was inaccurate to report that the probe
began “last year” – in 2021 – and that it had in fact begun in 2019. It amended the
online version of the article to make this clear once the inaccuracy was brought to its
attention via the IPSO process. However, it said that this inaccuracy was “trivial and
inconsequential” because it did not affect the thrust of the article: that the
complainant had resigned after a woman had approached the Commission with
allegations about his behaviour. It also noted that, prior to publication, the
complainant had told the journalist that his ”timeline for events [wa]s very well off the
radar but I’ll let [the journalist] realise for yourself at the right time”; he had not said
precisely what he disputed. It therefore considered it to be “deeply unfair” that the
complainant sought to complain on this point when he had declined the opportunity
to correct the inaccuracy prior to publication.
24. Turning to the question of whether police in the UK had investigated rape
allegations against the complainant, the publication noted that – in direct
correspondence with the journalist – the complainant himself had said that a UK
police force had investigated rape charges against him: “It should be noted that while
newspapers and the Charity Commission and Australian and Essex Police were
investigating me for rape[…]” and “Fawkner Police in Australia and Essex Police had
already dropped her false rape charges”. It further noted that the Charity
Commission had told the reporter that “[t]he allegations of criminality were referred to
the police in Australia and the UK”. It also provided emails sent from UK police
officers to the woman, indicating that they were liaising with their Australian
counterparts on the matter; one of the emails referred to an officer’s hope to have
“the suspect interviewed in regard to the allegations”.

25. The publication did not accept that omitting the fact that the complainant had
made allegations against the woman rendered the article inaccurate; it said that the
focus of the article was on the Charity Commission’s probe and the complainant’s
resignation, neither of which were – by the complainant’s own account – related to
his own allegations against the woman. Notwithstanding this, it said that the
journalist had taken the allegations seriously, and had put them to the woman as well
as a source which the complainant had said would corroborate his allegations. It said
that both of them had refuted the complainant’s depiction of events.

26. Turning to the complainant’s Clause 2 concerns, the publication said that the
article did not include information which intruded into the complainant’s private or
family life: he was the trustee of a charity, which received grant funds, and which had
been the subject of a critical report from the Charity Commission. He had been
contacted via official email channels and a phone number which the journalist knew
he had previously used for charity business and to contact the woman who he had
had the affair with, and the questions related to serious allegations against the
complainant – which the journalist had a duty to put to him for comment.

27. The publication did not accept that the journalist had followed the complainant at
the two-day event in breach of Clause 3 because the journalist was not present at
the event. He had not physically followed the complainant on that or any other
occasion – nor had he caused anyone else to place the complainant under
surveillance. It also said that the picture which the complainant said showed the
journalist was of a different man entirely.
28. The publication also did not accept that the journalist had declined to identify who
he worked for in breach of Clause 3. It said that, at the time (30 May 2022) when the
journalist had been asked to identify which publication he was acting on behalf of, he
was acting in a freelance capacity and not on behalf of any newspaper – he had only
later approached The Sun with his story on 8 June 2022, after his research was
completed. The publication provided the email from the journalist offering the story to
the publication to demonstrate this. Regardless, the publication noted that the
journalist had clearly identified himself as a journalist in both emails and phone calls,
and had also invited the complainant and his daughter to look him up on the internet.

29. The publication did not accept that the journalist’s phone call to the complainant’s
daughter breached the terms of Clause 3 or Clause 6. It said that the journalist had
good reason to believe the number belonged to the complainant himself: it was the
number used to communicate with the woman during their affair, and to send her
sexually explicit text messages, and the complainant had previously supplied this
telephone to media outlets and politicians when conducting charity business. It also
did not accept that the message “I’m a teenager and don’t appreciate these calls”
represented an honest or genuine request to desist, and considered that it was sent
either by the complainant or at his instigation

30. The publication said that the journalist had called the phone number at 5:16pm
on 23 May 2022, and had not left a message. He had subsequently called the
number again five minutes later, and said he had the following conversation with a
woman who answered the phone:

Woman: Hello

Journalist: Is that Wilson’s phone?

Woman: No

Journalist: Hello

Woman: Wrong number.

Journalist: Is that [complainant’s wife]?

Woman: No
Journalist: So who is that?

Woman: Erm, it’s Hannah

Journalist: Oh right so you are the daughter?

Woman: Yeah

Journalist: Right is your dad there?

Woman: Erm, no, he’s just left

Journalist: Alright, is your mum there?

Woman: Erm, no, not right now

Journalist: Alright. Any [sic] you’re involved in the charity

Woman: Yeah

Journalist: Are you a trustee?

Woman: Yeah

Journalist: Alright so maybe we can talk about the Charity Commission report.

Woman: Oh, erm, you’ll have to talk to [the complainant’s wife] about that

Journalist: [Complainant’s wife] your mum?

Woman: Yeah

Journalist: Right, so when is she going be to back? [sic]

Woman: Erm, what time is it…OK she’ll be back home soon so I can call you when
she’s back.

Journalist: Alright. Has my number come up?

Woman: Yes
Journalist: Alright, so if you could give me a call when your mum gets in that would
be great.

Woman: OK.

Journalist: Thanks a lot. You haven’t asked who it is yet. It’s [journalist’s name].

Woman: Oh. Ok

Journalist: Thanks very much. Bye

Woman: Bye

31. The publication said that the content of the call clearly demonstrated that: the
journalist believed the phone belonged to the complainant; the journalist had
emphasised that he wished to discuss the Charity Commission’s probe; the
complainant’s daughter had said that she was a trustee of the charity; and the
journalist had given his name. After the phone call, and having received texts asking
him to desist from contacting the number, the journalist had then verified – via
Companies House – that the complainant’s daughter was 18 years old at the time of
the phone call, and therefore not a child.

32. The publication then said that, taking this information into account, there was no
breach of Clause 6: the complainant’s daughter was 18 years old at the time of the
call, and not a child, and the call did not demonstrate unnecessary intrusion into her
school life; the complainant had appeared to have accepted that his daughter’s
involvement with the charity’s work did not intrude on her school life, given that she
promoted the charity on her social media accounts and her role in the charity was
promoted in the charity’s newsletter and website. In any case, it said, the journalist
was clearly seeking comment from the complainant, not his daughter.

33. The complainant reiterated that he had not had a “sexual affair” with the woman;
they had not engaged in vaginal sex and he was not physically attracted to her. He
further said that the sexual text messages provided by the publication lacked
important context.

34. The complainant said that the emails and posts supporting the woman’s claims
which had been sent from accounts associated with the charity had been drafted by
the woman herself or her supporters. He provided texts to demonstrate this, in which
the woman said: “Also the latest blog post is a disaster. It has so many mistakes and
nobody writes your quotes better than I do. So may I please amend it?”

35. He said the woman had also written the quote attributed to him which described
her as a “sex slave”, which was published by a separate publication. He further said
that the petitions posted by the charity in her support were actually created by the
woman and her supporter, rather than by him. He said that he had his own email
address, which he would have used for emails that he deemed “very personal” and
that emails sent from a generic charity email address and signed by him were not
necessarily written by him. He further said that the Facebook account under his
name was accessible to a number of charity volunteers – including the woman. He
said, therefore, the publication could not say that the Facebook posts from this
account, despite being under his name, to support its position, as the posts may not
have been written by him. He also said that, at the time of the posts, the charity
believed the woman’s story – but that this was no longer the case.

36. The complainant further said that the articles which the publication had provided,
which it said supported the position that the woman had been a “sex slave”, did not
show this. He said, in fact, what was described in the articles just showed normal
living conditions and attitudes towards women in Pakistan.

37. With regards to his resignation, the complainant said that he resigned of his own
volition, and that the woman had never made a formal complaint to trustees at the
charity – she had only complained to a charity donor. The complainant said that he
had resigned because the woman was “threatening to publicly shame” him, and that
charity trustees “understood that there was a moral failure in not having curbed all of
[the woman’s] attention from the beginning and were made aware that [he] was in an
undesired relationship under duress”. He said that, regardless of whether the Charity
Commission probe had begun in June 2019, he had still resigned well before this: in
May 2019. He further said that the Charity Commission had only approached the
charity in August 2019 with the allegations, and provided IPSO with what he said
was the first email, dated 23 August 2019, alerting the charity to the allegations. The
email included the following:

You may be aware of allegations made against a former trustee of the charity,
Wilson Chowdhry. The Charity Commission has received a complaint and we are in
the process of considering the information provided. […] We did not proactively
contact the media in this case but we were asked to confirm whether we were aware
of the allegations, which we confirmed to be the case. The allegations are extremely
serious and concern inappropriate behaviour by Mr Chowdhry […]

38. The complainant said that the Companies House register was inaccurate. He
accepted that it showed that he had resigned in June, but said this was an error due
to charity trustees being unsure how to remove his details from the register. He
reiterated that he resigned in May, and provided an email sent to the charity from the
Charity Commission, which said as follows:

I can confirm that Wilson Chowdhry was removed as a trustee on the charity’s
CCEW account by another trustee on 24/06/2019, which was before the Commission
case was opened.

39. Turning to the emails sent by the complainant in which he had said that UK
police had investigated rape charges against him by the woman, the complainant
said that this was an error – perhaps caused by speed-typing. He said that he was
only given one day to give comment, and therefore his response was made under
pressure. The complainant provided an email from a police officer, confirming that he
was never investigated for rape in the UK as the alleged crime took place in Australia
and therefore was not in the jurisdiction of police in the UK.

40. Regarding the phone call made to his daughter, the complainant said that she
had mistakenly said she was a trustee; this was not actually the case, and he
believed that she may have made the mistake as she was nervous. He also said that
the number called by the journalist did not appear on any website belonging to the
charity. He further noted that the journalist did not identify himself as a journalist on
the phone; rather, he had said that he wanted to discuss the Charity Commission
report, and so his daughter thought that he had been calling from the regulator. The
complainant further said that, regardless of whether or not she participated in charity
work, his daughter was a teenager and in full-time education at the time of the call.
The complainant also disputed that the journalist had been polite or courteous on the
phone, saying that the call had caused his daughter great anxiety.

41. The publication said that the complainant was still performing the role of trustee
in May 2019, and provided articles from the charity’s website which it said
demonstrated this: four referred to the complainant as the “Chairman of the BPCA”,
while two referred to him as the “president”. The publication also said that the
trustees’ report and financial statement stated that the complainant resigned on 22
June 2019. It also provided a WhatsApp message from a charity member, sent on 25
June 2019, which said:

In meeting, Wilson has resigned will be on charities commission site in next few days
talk tomorrow?

42. The publication said that this message, the articles and the trustee’s report and
financial statement all tallied with the timeline the woman had given the reporter: on
24 May 2019 she had first informed two charity members of the alleged misconduct;
in late May or early June she had told one of the members that she would be making
a complaint to the Charity Commission; on 27 June 2019 a safeguarding body –
acting on her behalf – submitted a complaint to the Commission. The publication
further noted that the Charity Commission had, separately, told the reporter that the
probe had begun in June 2019, even if the case was not formally opened until after
this date. The publication provided a copy of the email between the reporter and the
Charity Commission to support its position on this latter point.

43. The publication said, therefore, that care had been taken over the accuracy of
the article; the journalist was entitled to rely both on the resignation date recorded on
the Companies House register, and on the Commission’s response to his email.

44. The complainant said that the existence of an article written by him in May did
not contradict his position that he resigned in late May 2019 – he noted that May has
31 days, and the latest post provided by the publication was from 28 May 2019. He
also said that the charity member who had sent the WhatsApp message to the
woman -– provided by the publication to support its position that the complainant had
resigned in June – did not attend any charity trustee meetings, and so would not
have been present at his resignation.

45. The publication then provided an article from 28 June 2019 which also referred to
the complainant as the chairman of the charity. Therefore, it said, the complainant
was still giving his title as chairman at this time and had not since sought to have the
article corrected.

46. While the publication did not consider that the Code had been breached, towards
the end of IPSO’s investigation it offered to publish the following corrections in print
(in its regular Corrections and Clarifications column) and online (as a footnote to the
article):
In print

A 19 June article said that Wilson Chowdhry resigned as Chairman of the British
Pakistani Christian Association charity (BPCA) after having an affair with a
vulnerable female volunteer, and after the Charity Commission commenced its
investigation into the BPCA. Mr Chowdhry has asked us to state his position that he
resigned before the Commission investigation began. We are happy to do so.

Online

This article, now amended, originally stated that Wilson Chowdhry resigned as
Chairman of the British Pakistani Christian Association charity (BPCA) after having
an affair with a vulnerable female volunteer, and amid an investigation by the Charity
Commission into the BPCA. Mr Chowdhry has asked us to state his position that he
resigned before the Commission investigation began. We are happy to do so.

47. The complainant did not accept this as a resolution to his complaint.

Relevant Code Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,

promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology
published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the
regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when

reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly
between comment, conjecture and fact.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and
mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without
consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account
will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the
extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will
become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or

private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Clause 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing

individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and
must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they
represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and
take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

Clause 6 (Children)*

i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary
intrusion.

ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school without permission of the
school authorities.

iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving

their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible
adult consents.

iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material involving their welfare, nor
parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in
the child's interest.
v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole
justification for publishing details of a child's private life.

Findings of the Committee

48. The Committee first made clear that it was not in a position to make a finding on
whether the woman had been a “sex slave” as the article reported. The complainant
disputed this claim but, by his own account, he had not known the woman at the time
when she had allegedly been held as a “sex slave” and had no first-hand knowledge
of this time. Without the input of one of the directly affected first-parties, the
Committee was not in a position to make a finding on this point of complaint.

49. The complainant had also disputed that he had “rescued” the woman as he had
met her after she had left in Pakistan. Neither party disputed that the complainant
had not met the woman until after she had left Pakistan; however, the publication
had argued that “helped to rescue” covered the charity’s – and, by extension, the
complainant’s – ongoing role in the woman’s recovery from alleged sex slavery; for
instance, organising counselling, promoting fundraising and petitions, appearing
alongside her in media appearances, and liaising with media organisations on her
behalf. It had further noted that the charity had, itself, said that it had assisted the
woman in escaping from Pakistan; an email sent from the charity’s admin account
said that the charity had “help[ed her] with counselling, extra costs associated with
her safe exit, housing when she arrived back in Australia and on-going support and
counselling”. The same email went on to state that “[w]e were committed to not only
emancipating her from Pakistan[…]”

50. The Committee understood that the complainant had argued that the woman
herself may have drafted the above email from the charity’s admin account.
However, while he had later come to disbelieve the woman’s account, it was not in
dispute that he had at first believed her account and had offered her support and
assistance. The charity had publicly stated that it had assisted in the woman’s
rescue, and – at this time – the complainant was the chairman of the charity, and
had accompanied her to media appearances; for instance, a social media post from
the complainant referred to the charity having “helped free her from Pakistan”. On
this basis, the Committee did not consider that there had been a failure to take care
in reporting that the complainant had “helped rescue” the woman; publicly available
material disseminated by the charity itself was the source of this claim. The
Committee did not consider that describing the complainant’s involvement in this
manner was significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was, therefore,
no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

51. The Committee had sight of messages between the complainant and the woman
in which he referenced engaging in sex acts with the woman. In such circumstances,
it was not inaccurate for the article to report that he had had a “sexual affair” with the
woman. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

52. The Committee then examined the concerns about when the Charity
Commission’s investigation had begun. It was common ground that the article was
inaccurate in claiming that the Charity Commission’s investigation had begun “last
year” – in 2021 – when it had in fact begun in 2019.

53. However, the Committee did not consider that the inaccuracy was significant in
the context of the article as a whole, where it was not in dispute that the Charity
Commission had investigated the matter and had published a report into the matter
in May 2022 – which the article accurately reported. While the complainant had
expressed concerns that the inaccuracy had served to make the story appear “more
current” than it actually was, the Committee noted that the Charity Commission’s
report had been published a month prior to the article’s publication; it was a recent
matter, accurately reported as such. There was therefore no breach of Clause 1 on
this point.

54. Turning to the timing of the complainant’s resignation, the complainant had said
that this had occurred in May 2019 and well before the charity was aware of any
Charity Commission action in August 2019, whereas the article reported after the
probe began, he had “then” quit (while the online version reported that he had quit
“amid” the probe). However, publicly available Companies House documents gave
the complainant’s resignation date as June 2019, and the Commission had told the
reporter that this was the month during which the “probe” had begun. There was no
failure to take care in reporting that the complainant “then quit” after the probe
began, or to report that he quit “amid” the probe: this timeline was supported by
publicly available documents, the Commission’s comment, and the complainant had
not disputed it directly when the timeline was put to him. In any case, the Committee
did not consider that the limited possible discrepancy in the timeline to be significant
in the context of the article where the complainant had said that his resignation had
been prompted by the woman’s allegations: the reason for the investigation.
Therefore, it did not consider this inaccuracy to represent a significant inaccuracy in
need of correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). There was therefore no breach of
Clause 1 on this point, though the Committee welcomed the publication’s
amendment of the online version of the article and its offer to publish the
complainant’s position in print and online

55. The complainant had said that the article had breached Clause 1 because he
had not been investigated for rape charges in the UK. However, in circumstances
where the complainant had said in pre-publication correspondence with the journalist
that UK police had investigated the allegations, there was no failure to take care over
this claim – the source of it was the complainant himself, who was in the best
position to know who had investigated the matter. It was also not in dispute that the
matter had been referred to UK police by the Charity Commission, and the article did
not report that the complainant had been charged with any crime. Therefore, any
potential inaccuracy was not so significant as to require correction under the terms of
Clause 1 (ii). There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

56. The complainant had also said that the article breached Clause 1 as it omitted to
reference allegations that he had made against the woman. Newspapers have the
discretion over selecting material for publication, provided the Code is not otherwise
breached. Therefore, the question for the Committee was whether the omission of
this information rendered the article significantly inaccurate, distorted, or misleading.
In the context of an article focussing on the Charity Commission report and
allegations against the complainant, the Committee did not consider that omitting the
complainant’s own separate allegations against the woman constituted a breach of
Clause 1.

57. In reaching a decision on whether the article intruded into the complainant’s
private and family life in breach of Clause 2, the Committee noted that it reported on
serious allegations about his conduct while chairman of a charity. While the nature of
the alleged misconduct touched on his personal life, reporting it did not represent an
intrusion into his private and family life; the allegations against the complainant were
that he exploited his position in civil society, and reporting on these allegations did
not breach Clause 2.

58. The complainant had said that a man he believed to be a journalist working on
behalf of the publication had breached Clause 3 by: speaking to him briefly;
approaching him a second time to look at him; smiling at him while walking away;
and asking people to film him. He also said that the man had been seen following
him. The publication disputed that any journalist working on its behalf had been at
the event where this pattern of behaviour had taken place. The Committee noted that
it was not in a position to resolve this discrepancy but that – at any rate – the
behaviour described by the complainant did not breach the terms of Clause 3. It is
not against the terms of the Clause for journalists to attend the same events as the
subjects of articles, to approach them, to speak to them, or to record them where no
request to desist had been made. In such circumstances, there was no breach of
Clause 3 on this point.

59. The complainant had said that the journalist had also breached the terms of
Clause 3 by refusing to identify which publication he worked for on 30 May 2022.
The Committee was satisfied that, at this time, the journalist was not working on
behalf of The Sun. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 3 in the journalist not
saying that he was working on their behalf, where – on this date – it was not the case
that he was. The Committee further noted that, while the journalist had not been able
to specify which publication he was working on behalf of, he had made clear that he
was a journalist and that he was seeking comment in relation to a story he was
preparing, from the date of his first contact with the complainant on 23 May 2022.

60. The Committee next addressed the question of whether the journalist’s
interaction with the complainant’s daughter had breached the terms of Clause 3. The
Committee noted that the complainant’s daughter appeared to have texted the
journalist saying: “I’m a teenager and don’t appreciate these calls”. The journalist
had called once more and sent a text after receiving this message. The Committee
therefore had to consider whether the journalist had ignored a request to desist from
contacting the complainant’s daughter.

61. The Committee noted from the text message sent to the daughter that it was
clear that the journalist was seeking comment from the complainant, rather than his
daughter, and had inadvertently contacted a number which the complainant said
belonged to her – which was the same number which the complainant had used to
communicate with the woman who he’d allegedly had an affair with. The Committee
further noted that, during the call itself – the transcript of which was not disputed by
the complainant – the daughter had not indicated that she did not wish to be
contacted, and had agreed to call the journalist back. In addition, the journalist did
not request a comment from the daughter, and – after one phone call and the text
message aimed at the complainant – he had refrained from calling the number
further, and had continued his enquiries via email. On balance, therefore, the
Committee did not consider that there was a breach of Clause 3 arising from the
phone call.

62. Turning to the question of whether the inadvertent contact with the daughter had
breached Clause 6 by intruding into the daughter’s time at school, the Committee
first noted that the terms of Clause 6 (i) were still engaged despite her being 18
years old, where she was still – at the time of the alleged breach – in full-time
secondary-level education. The Committee then noted that the journalist had not
sought to contact the daughter, and had been unaware that the phone was in her
possession at the time that the call was made. It further noted that she held roles
within the charity, having been given access to a phone which had previously been
used for charity business – and which had the same number as the phone which the
complainant had used to communicate with the woman who had alleged that she
had an affair with him – as well as playing a public role in the charity; promoting it on
her social media account, and making appearances on the charity’s website on
social media channels. In such circumstances, an approach by the journalist about a
matter concerning the charity – which resulted in her answering phone calls – would
not represent an intrusion into her schooling. Finally, the Committee noted that the
contact related to the charity only; she was not contacted in relation to any details
about her private life, or in any capacity relating to her schooling. Taking these
factors into account, the Committee did not consider that there had been a breach of
Clause 6.

Conclusion(s)

63. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial Action Required

64. N/A

Date complaint received: 18/06/2022

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 25/01/2023

 ASA
https://www.asa.org.uk/
The ASA is a regulatory body that responds to complaints about advertisements and
takes action on them. The ASA
stands for Advertising Standards
Authority. The ASA regulates
advertising within the uk and
regulates the following, press ads,
radio and tv ads, ads on the internet,
ad claims on companies, posters and
billboards, leaflets commercial email
and texts, ads at the cinema and
direct email . The ASA regulates ads
wherever they may appear. The ASA
have recently been monitoring online advertising as more businesses and
companies are using the internet to spread their advertising. The ASA makes sure
that ads that are published are appropriate for certain audiences depending where
they are posted. The ASA always puts people first and not just those who
complain.The in 1962 CAP established the ASA as the independent advertising
regulator under the newly created code. It was created to work with the new self
regulatory system in the public interest. In 1988 the ASA had legal backup for
example misleading and refusal to cooperate resulted in legal action. The
responsibility of the ASA is to respond to complaints from consumers and
businesses and take action to ban advertisements which are misleading, harmful,
offensive or irresponsible. The ASA also monitor s ads to make sure they are following
the rules.

How They Do It
The ASA uses the Cap Code to regulate advertisements and to monitor
advertisements. The Cap Code is the rule book for Non-Broadcast advertisements,
sales promotions and direct marketing communications. The Cap Code must be
followed by all advertisers and agencies as well as media. The Cap Code specifies
the standards for accuracy and honesty that businesses must follow. This includes
specific conditions such as advertising to children. The Cap Code includes rules
about harm and offence which basically specifies that ads must not cause serious
harm or widespread offence.

Cap Code
Code Application
Misleading Advertising
The misleading code for ASA covers many things such as marketing
communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. The summary of
the code is that it covers that advertisements must not try to trick people into doing or
buying things that are not of similarity to the advertisement. The code specifies that
the advertisement does not mislead anyone unless it is an obvious exaggeration
then the advertiser is not in the wrong. The purpose of the code is to prevent
advertisers from misleading the public as it is unethical as the consumer may spend
money on a product or service that they don't need or want.

This code applies to advertisements within magazines as products are advertised

often within magazines and they must not mislead people by exaggerating the
purpose of a product, this is only allowed if the exaggeration is obviously not real.
The marketers that release advertisements in a magazine must state significant
limitations and qualifications. Advertisers in the magazine must not use any words
and photos that could mislead as well because this could cause complaints and
sanction and could affect the magazine.

This code applies specifically to Empire magazine as Empire uses many

advertisements. Due to Empire magazine using these advertisements they have to
also check the advertisements to see if they are following the misleading advertising
code and have the ability to refuse the use of the advertisement if it does comply
with this code. If there is a complaint against the advertisement this can cause some
repercussions against Empire magazine.

Harm and Offence

The harm and offence code is used to stop any harm or offence that the public may
feel from an advertisement; the code is then used to indicate to the advertisers what
they should do and not do. The harm and offence is in place to protect the public
from any harm and/or offence that an advertisement moffence. Such material may
include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence,
humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language
(for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and
maternity, race, religion or belief and sex. Marketers should take account of the
prevailing standards in society and the context in which a marketing communication
is likely to appear to minimise the risk of causing harm or serious or widespread
offence

This links to the production of magazines as advertisements within a magazine could

break this code which can cause harm and offence which can lead to a backlash
against the magazine of which the advertisement was advertised in. To stop this
from happening the producers of the magazine should check the advertisement to
determine whether it breaks this code to protect the advertiser and the magazine.

This code specifically applies to Empire magazine as they use advertisements in

their magazine. To not break this code the producers of Empire magazine should
check all advertisements for any breaches of this code. This will then stop any harm
or offence against the public and stop any backlash or consequences by the
Regulatory body.

Privacy
This code that the ASA has in place is to stop and protect individuals against any
unwarranted infringements of privacy. This code is used in general to stop any
advertisements that rely on information of or about an individual that has not been
acquired with permission from the individual.

This code of conduct applies to the production of magazines as they use

advertisements in their magazine. To not break this code the producers of a
magazine should check all advertisements for any breaches of this code.

This code of conduct applies to Empire magazine as they use advertisements in their
magazines to stop any advertisements Empire should check all advertisements for
any breaches of privacy used in them and report the advertisement and not use it in
the magazine to stop any consequences from the regulatory body.

Judgment
The judgement I have chosen is of a magazine, I have chosen a different magazine
to Empire as they have no rulings against them from ASA. This ruling was taken up
as a complaint was issued against them as a member of the public described one of
the models in the magazine to be unhealthily thin. Due to this it was taken that the
advertisement in the magazine breached rule 1.3 which is the responsible advertising
code. After the complaint the Max Mara Fashion Group Srl replied saying that they did not
believe that the model was unhealthily thin and that they specifically chose the model for
their particular beauty. They also went on to describe what the model was wearing and that
only her hands and face were uncovered.
The ASA accepted that none of the model’s flesh was visible. She was wearing a thin
maxi length black dress which had long sleeves and she was posed in mid-step,
looking down, with her arms hanging down by her side and her shoulder length hair
partially obscuring her face. We noted that she was photographed from the side,
which drew attention to the shape of her body and highlighted her very thin frame
and the protrusion of her hip bone which was visible through the fabric. We also
considered that the contrast of the ad’s background lighting, which had a sepia tone,
against the black dress, further accentuated the silhouette of her frame and the
model’s sombre facial expression and posture gave her a gaunt appearance. We
therefore considered that she appeared unhealthily thin. For those reasons we
considered that the model appeared underweight and therefore concluded that the
ad was irresponsible.
Due to all of these considerations the ASA took action. The action that was given
was The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Max Mara Fashion
Group Srl t/a Max Mara to ensure that the images in their ads were prepared
responsibly.