IPSO rejects complaint from sister of London Bridge attack pint runner over use of Facebook post

mike_field

Vital Football Legend
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ipso-rejects-complaint-from-sister-of-london-bridge-attack-pint-runner-over-use-of-facebook-post/

A woman who shared a viral image of her brother calmly fleeing the London Bridge terror attack with a pint of beer has complained its use by three news websites breached the Editors’ Code.

--------

This has made my day.

"I was speculating on the identity.....of my brother." :1:
 
You just love those snappy thread titles don't you Mike. lol


 
I can't seem to access the article. What was the verdict based on? Are images shared on social media deemed to be public property?
 
In short BB, she didn't complain about the first offender 'a journalist friend' who got it published in the Liverpool Echo.

She went after the Sun, Mirror and Metro who subsequently covered it. She claimed a breach of accuracy and privacy.

She claimed she didn't share her comments publicly but up to 1358 people may have been able to see the post, including those she tagged.

The trio of papers pointed out that they based their reports on the original report (which received no complaint) so hadn't 'sourced' it in a manner that breached her privacy.

The accuracy element she claimed was based on her 'speculating on the identity of the man pictured' and that whilst she was accurate (it was her brother) the papers didn't take further steps to verify her claim.

IPSO ruled:

“...the fact the complainant’s brother was, or appeared to be, the person photographed, was not private information about her” and that her name had not been reported nor anything that identified their relationship.

"IPSO also ruled that the “nature of the information and the manner in which it had been previously circulated” meant Armstrong did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to it."
 
Oh, so if she hadn't shared it with the Liverpool Echo, the others wouldn't have been able to publish it?