False benefit cheat claim by national press

furrypolka

Hi all

Some advice needed on a battle I seem to be taking on on behalf of my father, please.

My dad has been disabled for 30 years after an accident at work and then a series of botched operations. In all, he has had over 10 ops on his back and neck, he also has problems with the arteries in his legs and suffers with angina (He is nearly 70 years old now). He also experiences anxiety and depression.

He cannot walk long distances; however he does play bowls recreationally, this was recommended by his doctor to keep him as active as possible while also relieving the depression and being cooped up all day watching TV which is all he did for many years.

This is a brief overview of the medical issues he has suffered over the last 30 years; he has spent long periods of time in hospital and these are some of the main memories I have as a child.

Anyway, tonight he received a knock on the door and he opened it and (unfortunately) let a Sun journalist in, while photographs were taken from the opposite side of the road by a photographer.

She informed him that she was doing a story on benefit cheats and had been given his name.

As you can imagine, this has caused him a huge amount of distress and has the potential to make him very ill indeed.

I am so angry I can hardly speak, but I cannot let this go - sensible and calm advice would be fab about how to tackle this, stop anything being printed and take it further - not for any monetary compensation, but because I feel that this is an absolutely unacceptable way to behave.

I wish my dad knew who was behind this, someone reported him to the DWP last year and he had to undergo all the assessment tests again because of it, which again made him ill, obviously they found that he was not a fraud and was genuinely disabled (because he is), so how on earth can these journalists get away with this behaviour and how do they sleep at night...

Many thanks for any help and calming influences!

wiccanlou

You will need to contact the Press Complaints Commission for advice on how to proceed, the link I have included has the code that the reporters and their editors must follow have a read through and see if this falls under any of this http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

The next link is how to make a complaint. http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/makingacomplaint.html

I hate the press especially the sun!

Notmyrealname

Find a good solicitor in case it makes it into the news. He may be able to get a tidy sum suing them for slander and as they're one of Murdocks papers currently being put through the wringer I doubt he'd lose.

DylanO

I don't understand what the issue is? Your father let her in and consented to answer questions - he's an adult, that's his choice. If he's not a cheat then he has nothing to worry about.

You've not given any information on the types of questions asked, and you've not shown any questionable behaviour by the journalist. She knocked at a door, was invited in and she conducted an interview with a willing subject - what exactly are you objecting to?

You say you "seem" to be taking on this "battle" - there is no battle and there is no need for you to be taking on anything.

DylanO

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Find a good solicitor in case it makes it into the news. He may be able to get a tidy sum suing them for slander and as they're one of Murdocks papers currently being put through the wringer I doubt he'd lose.

1. You don't know what, if anything will be published - everything depends on what is published
2. It is libel not slander
3. Libel action is very expensive so you need to be very sure you have a case before you bankrupt yourself with legal fees
4. It is 'Murdoch's' not 'Murdocks'
5. The libel action will be taken at face value - anything not related to that issue will be rightly ignored, claiming otherwise (when you don't even understand the basics) is ridiculous, unhelpful and willfully stupid

furrypolka

They took photographs without his permission and refused to delete them, they argued their way in to the home of a vulnerable older man (he would not be assertive enough to ask her to leave, he was NOT a willing subject), they have suggested strongly that they will be featuring him in an article and they have left him absolutely distraught, very distressed and in a state where I am concerned for his health given his history of anxiety and heart problems.

I think I have the right to be angry and want to make sure that nothing goes to press!

Sorry if this was not clear.

furrypolka

PS, thanks wiccan, I will contact the PCC as I see they have an advice service for issues pre-publication.

Anubis_2

Did he answer questions? It used to be they could not print without comment from the "accused." However it's probably changed as I am goung back many years.

DylanO

furrypolka wrote: »

They took photographs without his permission and refused to delete them, they argued their way in to the home of a vulnerable older man (he would not be assertive enough to ask her to leave, he was NOT a willing subject), they have suggested strongly that they will be featuring him in an article and they have left him absolutely distraught, very distressed and in a state where I am concerned for his health given his history of anxiety and heart problems.

I think I have the right to be angry and want to make sure that nothing goes to press!

Sorry if this was not clear.

They don't need his permission to take photographs of him in a public place (and on his doorstep is a public place) nor do they need to delete the photographs if requested. If he's assertive enough to demand photographs are deleted then he's assertive enough to ask them to leave. Which is all he had to do. If they refused then he had every right to telephone the police.

If he allowed them in (as you state he did) and answered the questions put to him then he was a willing interviewee. Did he let her in? Did he tell her to leave? Did he phone the police? If yes to the first question and no to the others, you will find it impossible to claim that he was not a willing interviewee, because the objective facts show him to be one.

I repeat again - if he is not a cheat then he has nothing to worry about, but you will not be able to stop anything being printed. If your father has stated that he cannot walk more than say 5m without assistance but he has been videoed doing so, then they can print that without fear of legal action. There are armies of lawyers employed by news organisations to ensure compliance - especially in this day and age.

Attempting to silence the press is a silly tack to take. I suggest you telephone the reporter in question and ask for clarification. You should be aware that she will have recorded the interview and taken copious shorthand notes, so she will be able to back up everything she says with evidence. What you may have heard may not be the complete, ungarnished truth.

What right do you feel you have to stop anything going to press?

furrypolka

I feel I have a right to attempt to stop lies being printed about my dad. He is not a benefit cheat, he has never lied about his mobility - he is able to walk short distances, not all people with a disability use wheelchairs - but I think this is related to a malicious call to the DWP hotline last year which was fully investigated with the conclusion that it was a false accusation and my father has been fully assessed as disabled and entitled to the small amount of financial support that he gets to help him through life.

My father is not a well man (it was my mother who took on the photographer), he is very vulnerable and I am seriously concerned that if his name was printed in a national newspaper with the sort of lies suggested by the journalist who saw him today, he would probably never leave the house again and in fact I would be seriously concerned for his health.

If you felt that your father was being put at risk by the threat of lies being printed in a national newspaper about him, would you stand by and do nothing?

DylanO

furrypolka wrote: »

I feel I have a right to attempt to stop lies being printed about my dad. He is not a benefit cheat, he has never lied about his mobility - he is able to walk short distances, not all people with a disability use wheelchairs - but I think this is related to a malicious call to the DWP hotline last year which was fully investigated with the conclusion that it was a false accusation and my father has been fully assessed as disabled and entitled to the small amount of financial support that he gets to help him through life.

My father is not a well man (it was my mother who took on the photographer), he is very vulnerable and I am seriously concerned that if his name was printed in a national newspaper with the sort of lies suggested by the journalist who saw him today, he would probably never leave the house again and in fact I would be seriously concerned for his health.

If you felt that your father was being put at risk by the threat of lies being printed in a national newspaper about him, would you stand by and do nothing?

So the answer to all of my questions is that - yes, he was a willing interviewee. Your mother could have told the reporter to leave - why didn't she?

You may not want to hear this - but national newspapers do not go around printing unfounded lies for malicious reasons. So if your father has done nothing wrong then he has nothing to worry about.

There's a difference between only "being able to walk short distances" and playing a long game of boules without rest or sitting down. Both cannot be true - especially if one is claiming benefits for the former, and yet inexplicably doing the latter. So if the Sun prints that then they are not printing lies - they are printing the objective truth. They can print anything your father said to them - he said it willingly, and with your mother's support. If she was able to 'take on' the photographer, then she certainly has it within her to ask someone to leave her house.

You have every right to attempt to stop lies being printed - but you don't know what is being published, and unless you have a lot of money to spare - you can't afford to find out and then stop them printing the objective truth.

You still haven't explained what behaviour you think was unprofessional or out of order?