By Lucy Caulkett-
The UK press watchdog has rejected a recent complaint filed against Birmingham Live, also known as birminghammail.co.uk, which complained about inaccuracies published in Prince Harry’s book SPARE.
Michael Booley, an army instructor who featured in an article discussing Prince Harry’s autobiography, made his complaint under Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, centered around an article published on January 22, 2023.
The article reported on Booley’s comments regarding his experience accompanying Prince Harry on a flight training exercise, which the Duke had subsequently described in his autobiography. Booley claimed that the article had inaccurately portrayed his statements and raised concerns about the potential involvement of clandestine devices.
Booley argued that the article breached Clause 1, asserting that it had presented his statement that he was “staggered” and “in shock” in an inaccurate and misleading manner.
According to him, the shock he expressed was not due to the alleged inaccuracies in Prince Harry’s story, but rather because he was mentioned and complimented in the autobiography.
Additionally, Booley believed that the article inaccurately implied that he attributed the inaccuracies in the autobiography to Prince Harry, when he actually believed they resulted from ghostwriting. He also argued that the article cherry-picked parts of his conversation, thus breaching the terms of Clause 1.
Furthermore, he mentioned concerns about Clause 2 and Clause 10, indicating that he had heard unusual noises on his electronic devices, though he did not directly blame the publication for this.
In response to Booley’s complaints, Birmingham Live asserted that the article did not breach the Editors’ Code of Practice. They defended the accuracy of the report, emphasizing that Booley had not contested making statements such as “I am staggered by this. In shock even. Whilst the book compliments me, the recollection of the sorties and lessons is inaccurate, I’m afraid.”
The publication also noted that Booley had seen the context in which this quote would be used before the article was published and raised no objections.
Regarding the claim that inaccuracies in the book were attributed to the Duke, Birmingham Live cited Booley’s quote in the article where he stated, “I think the reference to the flying sorties has been dramatised. I think it’s a result of the ghostwriting.” The publication contended that there was no breach of Clause 1 in this regard.
Moreover, Birmingham Live defended their article selection process, explaining that newspapers have discretion over material selection, provided it doesn’t breach the Code.
In addressing Booley’s concerns about Clause 2 and Clause 10, the IPSO committee did not find sufficient evidence to suggest a possible breach of these clauses in relation to the complainant’s electronic devices.
As a result of the investigation, IPSO cleared Birmingham Live of any breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice, concluding that the article had not been inaccurate, distorted, or misleading, and that there was no evidence of clandestine devices or subterfuge in connection with Booley’s claims.