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.Reuse content