APPENDIX 89
Memorandum submitted by Mrs Iris Baker
I understand you are involved in a Government
inquiry into the Press Complaints Commission. They have written
to me and suggested I may want to write to you with my view of
the way my complaint was dealt with.
I have enclosed copies of letters and press
story that caused my complaint, so you may understand a little
of the events that happened.
My points are still the same:
1. I still do not understand why the story
was reported in the way it was, and I have never been given a
satisfactory reason why any professional reporter felt that this
was the correct way to report a story albeit that story was already
three months old. I still feel that it some way it was a personal
dig at myself by someone and I still believe I should have been
given the name of the reporter.
2. I did see and amend the editor's apology
before it was printed, hidden in the middle of the paper. I did
tell the Press Complaints Office that although I had accepted
the very poor apology, I was not happy that no real reprimand
was made to either the editor or reporter.
I was told by the Press Complaints Office that
I had been given an apology and that would be as much as I should
expect. My reply to them was "I don't really know why I put
any effort into complaining, as it's quite clear to me that any
newspaper anywhere can write anything they want about you, as
long as they say sorry after; unless of course you're rich and
famous and then you can sue!"
So my opinion is that for myself the Press Complaints
Office was a waste of time; and sadly, my opinion of the [Wiltshire
and Gloucestershire] Standard Newspaper's editor and reporters
is that they got a lot of satisfaction from printing stories about
people in a very biased and personal way and do not deserve the
titles of editor or reporter.
I hope this very small opinion from an ordinary
person is of help to you.
Please note that I have moved address since
this happened; also my son is innocent and was one of many people
set up at that time by a despicable person. I am still fighting
to get him released from solitary confinement in a terrible prison
where the words human rights have no meaning.
Annex
E-MAIL DATED 4 JULY 2002, FROM IRIS BAKER
TO THE PCC
I received your letter today 4 July. My answer
is No, I am not satisfied with Peter Davison's apology dated 17
June. Reasons being:
1. The story was three months old, they
did not need to print it.
2. I want to know who the reporter was and
how they got my name.
3. How does Mr Davison know whether any
malice was or was not intended as he hasn't spoken to the so-called
reporter and news editor yet as they are convienently on leave.
4. If this paper and editor were good at
their jobs why didn't they acknowledge through their paper the
petition that was handed in complaining about the story, over
60 people signed this and have not received an answer. They expected
that the editor would apologise for this in the paper.
5. Mr Davison being on leave at the time
of this story is not an excuse for bad reporting, and he should
not have to re-issue codes of practice notices to his staff.
6. Ask Mr Davison or the reporter that if
one of their family found themselves in trouble would they find
it acceptable three months later when the family had come to terms
with the situation that a newspaper should drag it all up again
causing unbelievable stress, not embarrassment as Mr Davison implies,
just unbelievable stress.
7. The reporter should also remember anyone
accused of any crime is innocent until proved guilty, will they
be reporting this if my son is found to be innocent, which we
as a family absolutely believe he is.
So as you see, No I am not happy with Mr Davison's
excuse for an apology.
I will also send a copy of this in the post,
plus copies will go to my local MP in the House of Commons, as
he is also looking into this.
21 January 2003
| 
