91Èȱ¬

This is disgraceful - I saw the picture of PC Ian Terry and it stopped me in my tracks. I had to do a double-take, the original news story made headlines around here as PC Terry only lived a few miles away so his face was very familiar - how could someone be so thoughtless? I only hope no members of his family saw the picture and I sincerely hope someone has been severely disciplined over this mistake.

Don't worry James, it happens.

"The intention was to use images of individuals which are cleared for this kind of use. Instead an image of Pc Terry was used. We have taken steps to ensure the error is not repeated."

No doubt PC Terry's image will not be used in the wrong circumstances again, but is this an isolated case, or does the 91Èȱ¬ have a history of selecting images in a casual manner.

A very good friend of mine had cause to correspond with the 91Èȱ¬ over an image of himself appearing in "headline" material for an NHS investigation. After ten days had passed the 91Èȱ¬ claimed the image was taken at a completely different hospital and, in the meantime, edited the material. My friend knows that the image was of him, and it was silly of the 91Èȱ¬ not to admit to the mistake.

In the case of PC Terry the 91Èȱ¬ couldn't do anything else but admit to a mistake. It doesn't amount to progress however.

#1. At 10:29pm on 17 Mar 2010, suzyk2002 wrote:

"This is disgraceful - I saw the picture of PC Ian Terry and it stopped me in my tracks."

"Unfortunate" would be the word most people, outside of family, colleagues and immediate friends, would use.

"I had to do a double-take, the original news story made headlines around here as PC Terry only lived a few miles away so his face was very familiar - how could someone be so thoughtless?"

Because some people even today would not recognise this person if shown a picture, I suspect that many viewers would still not recognise this person even now, so one small error in cataloguing could have caused a problem that would not have been noticed until someone from 91Èȱ¬ Manchester (as being the most likely to recognise and see the error) came across it or the mistake is broadcast. So no thoughtless or malice intent at all, just a genuine error.

Well done in stepping up promptly to address the inadvertent error and to apologise for any distress caused.

This was an unforgivable oversight. My wife and I spotted the error immediately and I tried straight away to telephone to complain. Having tried several times and finding the line continually engaged I sent a complaint online. I have no acknowledgement of that.

I am astounded that NEWS Editors did not identify the subject of the photo when we as lay-people could do so!

It is not enough to put an acknowledgement on this site. What has been done to appease his family and others effected?

Don't be so harsh, Inky #6.

When did you last make a mistake that upset somebody else? And what did you do once you found out, apart from apologise to whoever you'd upset?

Someone who never makes mistakes never makes anything... although like Bismarck I prefer to learn from other people's mistakes rather than my own :)

i noticed straight away ! and emailed complaint as soon i saw it , i can understand it was a mistake , however it beggars belief that it was not vetted ? what the friends and family would have felt would have be aweful. also looking at the bigger picture , what would have been the consequences if , say for instance they were doing a report on something more unsavory , and put a picture up of some random person ?

Sorry Boilerplated but I still think it's disgraceful - I don't get het up about too much but this one seemed to strike a cord, maybe because the poor guy was relatively local to me. Maybe it didn't help that the caption over the picture also read "PC Plod"

Yes we all make mistakes and I'm sure as soon as they found out they were mortified, maybe they'll take more care in the future.

The incident was unfortunate and avoidable, hopefully lessons have been learned.

#6 This is a notorious example of the 91Èȱ¬ Duty Office and it's complaints procedures. There was a time when the DO lines were answered within a minute, and complaints such as this one directed to the Newsroom immediately and a personal answer from someone their transferred to the complainer. Unfortunately the 91Èȱ¬ no longer seems to care. Indeed transmission faults too are ignored now. The classic farming out to third parties failure. EMs seemingly are queued for answer (if at all) at a future time too.

I saw this item and immediately tried to contact the 91Èȱ¬, it was bad enough they used the photo but they also labled it PC PLOD, I sent an immediate email of complaint to which I have as yet not received a reply, I do not accept the excuse of a simple mistake etc, I do not think that a global communications organisation of the sophistication of the 91Èȱ¬ can claim a simple mistake, they are awash with corporate lawyers advising on libel and copyright issues, and surely all items for inclusion on a national news item should be carefully vetted, what are editors for? they are responsible, and to let an item like this get through the net warrants further comment

Also I have been scanning bulletins all day and no statements of regret, this blog is the only reference I can find to the incident, and I find it disgracefull that an organisation as big as the 91Èȱ¬ can hide an appology in a blog.

I wonder what would happen if the Police had made a mistake like this and hidden the appology in a blog.

Come on 91Èȱ¬ stand up and be counted lets have a proper appology.

I too immediately e-mailed a complaint during news at 6, then telephoned the newsdesk at local 91Èȱ¬ news in Manchester in view of the local connection. I have to say that at Manchester they were very helpful in taking details and promising to address the issue, yet no personal response either by phone or e-mail was made. Possibly the number of complaints to this disgraceful and lazy display of journalism was too high to make individual replies?
Whether they saw this or not I sincerely hope that the editor of this news programme has personally contacted Ian Terry's family to apologise; I also hope that the team who put together this short article were hauled over the coals and have also made an apology. This was offensive in the extreme on 2 grounds. a) Far more seriously in using PC Terry's photo in such a manner when a library shot should have been used and b) the offensive term of 'Mr Plod' over the top did not help. No other professions carried such a derogatory term.
As per my e-mail last night - Shame on you 91Èȱ¬. I believe we pay our licence for quality journalism - not shoddy offensive pieces. Please confirm to this blog if an apology has been made to Ian's family???!!!

I saw the news report and telephoned the 91Èȱ¬ to inform them of their disgraceful actions, eventually getting through.

I work in a Midlands Police Force and recognised PC Terry straight away and could not quite believe what I saw.

I still don't understand how the 91Èȱ¬ came to use the image of PC Terry, the 91Èȱ¬ have not explained who was responsible and what led to this taking place?

You still have a lot of explaining to do even though you have apologised.

Shameful.

There was also a mistake on the 91Èȱ¬ News at Six on Tuesday 16 March.

In the report about the Honda car recall in USA: "It's the latest in a long line of problems that the Japanese company has had with its cars".

Wrong. All the recent recalls have been with Toyota, not Honda.

Most of you are quite funny. The fact that you immediately tried to contact the 91Èȱ¬ in your fit of Daily Mail style outrage has made me chuckle. Honestly. It was a picture and someone used it by mistake. They obviously have a database of images for their reports which someone had obviously labelled incorrectly. Get over it and worry about important issues affecting the world right now.

Oh, and #14 I must respond as you clearly do no research whatsoever before you post. Honda has recalled many thousands of cars before this week:

Replying to 15. Alex:

9 recalls by Toyota - see TOYOTA RECALLS: STORY SO FAR on " - 10 if Toyota decide to recall the Corolla in that report.

Ooops, that link should be

#15

Couldn't agree more. To err is human and all that.

Concerned for this officers family, I immediately telephoned the complaints line and was also met with a constantly busy signal. However I emailed Northwest Tonight and was promptly replied to and my complaint forwarded to the 6 O'clock News. I have now had an email from that team directing me to this blog - so well done after the event. In the meantime I also registered this complaint with OfCom and it has been acknowledged.

I accept that mistakes happen and I am satisfied that this was a genuine error. I hope that his family have not been too upset by this incident and will draw some comfort from the fact that ordinary people have not forgotten their loss and are prepared to stand up for them.

@ Alex. I am perfectly prepared to accept that this was a mistake, and that there was no malice behind the use of this image. I also think calls for people to lose their jobs are disproportionate. However, there should be accountability, and the person responsible should be censured.
I am one of the people that did complain immediately. I did so, not as a result of 'Daily Mail style outrage', but because Ian Terry was a personal friend of mind. I had the distinct honour of serving with him for almost 6 years prior to him joining the firearms department. I feel sure that many of Ian's family, friends & former colleagues would also have complained. This is because his loss is still felt by many, and the timing of this article came as his family are having to endure the stress of the inquest into his death.
I find your comment "Get over it and worry about important issues affecting the world right now" crass & insensitive. I feel assured that Ian's death, and the ongoing investigation into the circumstances surrounding it, is THE most important issue affecting the Terry family. They are hardly likely to "get over it" any time soon.

I texted the 91Èȱ¬ about this. Firstly, I felt it was lazy journalism and secondly it was very insensitive. And to Alex # 15, this not funny, this is about a real person and people who are connected to him. I don't think you would be so flippant if it was member of your family.

Poor effort 91Èȱ¬.There should be an apology on the news programme, not hidden away here.

Completely irresponsible, we emailed a complaint and received a reply.. Thanks for replying promptly, but that does not forgive the issue. It stopped us in our tracks.

Your attitude Alex # 15 is so typical of someone trying to use objectivity to the extreme. The 91Èȱ¬ has a responsibility to the license fee paying public. That is why it is accountable for its mistakes. That is why the 91Èȱ¬ appreciates the public pointing out its mistakes. The next time the article appeared in a later news bulletin, it had changed. Id just like to say well done everyone for contacting and emailing your complaints when you did, public outrage obviously worked how it should do!

James~As what # 2 remarked...You at least made the approriate comments regarding what mistakes that you made.....

(Dennis Junior)

#22. At 7:09pm on 22 Mar 2010, mel wrote:

"Completely irresponsible, we emailed a complaint and received a reply.. Thanks for replying promptly, but that does not forgive the issue. It stopped us in our tracks."

Let the first person who have never made a mistake cast the first stone....

"Your attitude Alex # 15 is so typical of someone trying to use objectivity to the extreme. The 91Èȱ¬ has a responsibility to the license fee paying public."

The TVL has nothing to do with this, and yes I do agree with Alex, much of the hyperbolic disgust shown here has been very "Daily Mail", the only people the 91Èȱ¬ actually have a responsibility to is the family of the person whose image was used accidentally - who I'm sure will have received an apology - as I said way up, 95% of the population probably never noticed the error and could well still be in total ignorance of the matter.

What I really do find objectionable is how some are so obviously using this person (and his families grief) as a vehicle for their own wish to bash the 91Èȱ¬. Oh and "suzyk2002" @ #9, yes the Caption used was unfortunate, but had the picture really been of an actor dressed as a policeman would it have been so inappropriate?

As I said, let the first person who have never miss-filed a document be the person to cast the first stone, as they say, the person who have never made a mistake is a person who have never done anything!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This is a classic example of the way statistics can pevert someone's viewpoint and indeed this blog. Maybe 50 people will be upset because they are close friends and relations (quite rightly so), and complain to this blog or the 91Èȱ¬, but 5,000,000 probably would not have recognised the individual concerned and would have simply seen the report for what it was (so no apology to them needed).

A simple private apology from the 91Èȱ¬ to near relatives is all that is needed.

no.24
no one is using this as a vehicle to bash the 91Èȱ¬ we all are genuinely outraged for the lack of editorial responsibility in vetting a news item, for god sake this is supposed to be the best news organisation in the world.

Also we are tend to be a bit parochial about our colleagues and their families, we tend to make sure their welfare needs are catered for, the main reason for this is because their is a high probability that any one of us could be a victim of deadly circumstance at any time, also we work in unique circumstance, because god forbid if any thing happens to a fellow officer we tend to have to tell the relatives ourselves, how often as a part of your working life do you perform such tasks.

no.26
put away your crystal ball about numbers, I can assure you that I have personal knowledge of hundreds of people who were outraged by this, and I am also aware of the lack of response from the 91Èȱ¬ I contacted them within ten mins of the item, I am still waiting for a reply, also as the 91Èȱ¬ have made no reference to the size of the complaint or how many or to who appologies were made we will never know,as far as I can see this blog has been the 91Èȱ¬'s only response and is not sufficient,I suspect a request for official numbers of complaints would open a lot of eyes.

now after that rant all of you please look at the police roll of honour trust web site (PROHT) it is an organisation dedicated to looking after the surviving relatives of Officers Killed on duty, it quietly gets on with what we all think is an amazing job and should be applauded, we in the service all consider ourselves to be part of one big family, and as we were all upset by this we expect the 91Èȱ¬ to do the honourable thing and appologise properly.

27. At 07:46am on 27 Mar 2010, frankpol wrote:

"no.24
no one is using this as a vehicle to bash the 91Èȱ¬ we all are genuinely outraged for the lack of editorial responsibility in vetting a news item,"

Whilst everyone else is genuinely outraged by how and why this person died, not how his picture came to be used elsewhere...

Stop trying to shift the guilt (of the police force) onto the 91Èȱ¬.

"no.26
put away your crystal ball about numbers, I can assure you that I have personal knowledge of hundreds of people who were outraged by this"

Whilst others could, no doubt, find thousands who were not outraged, how many people at just one Football match today will even know about this 91Èȱ¬ error for example, and if they do, how many will understand how such a cataloguing error can occur, on the other hand ask them if they can understand how one police office can fatally shoot another office whilst on exercise and I suspect it will be very difficult to find more than a few - and they will most likely be either (ex-)military or (ex-)police.

"we in the service all consider ourselves to be part of one big family, and as we were all upset by this we expect the 91Èȱ¬ to do the honourable thing and appologise properly"

When are the police going to stop protecting their own (yet again, if Joe Public had shot someone with their legally owned shotgun or firearm they would have been up in court months ago), when is this person who "unlawfully killed" their fellow office going top stand trial, when are those who were responsible for H&S policy in the force going to stand charged with H&S issues, when is someone from the top Brass going to resign, these are the sorts of questions that most people are asking.
You seem more concerned about a 91Èȱ¬'s clerical error than you are about (your own?) forces actions in all this!

Sorry to be so blunt but perhaps those in the police force should be more concerned about their own actions in this whole sorry chain of events rather than the 91Èȱ¬'s, as you say "we in the service all consider ourselves to be part of one big family"...

Oh, and before you ask, or suggest otherwise, no I'm not someone who makes a habit out of bashing the police metaphorically speaking, quite the opposite actually. Rather than looking outwards, for someone to blame, you really need to look closer to home.

# 24 yep it does boilerplated, I pay my license fee, but no I am just a member of the public, how can my view have any value whatsoever?

I am not a 'Daily Mail' reader or religious. But I did find it distateful that the pic was used. I could have kept my mouth shut and ignored it. Would that have made it ok? if we all had'nt bothered maybe they would have used it again on a later bulletin? Who cares!!!! (yep bit of a problem in this country a lack of solidarity)

Maybe we should all see the world through your eyes, whatever your 'issue' is thats close to your heart, a copper is also a human being behind the status and believe it or not there are certain issues i have about this particular system (but im not prepared to let that influence my opinion here, hows that for objectivity!).

The bottom line was the guy was not a police officer anymore because he is deceased, so that is misrepresentation. So stop slagging peoples opinion off. Oh and stick to the original complaint and dont use this blog to start another!! The original issue is not vetting pics properly!!!!!!!

29. At 09:27am on 08 Apr 2010, mel wrote:

"# 24 yep it does boilerplated, I pay my license fee,"

Then read the words on the back of it! You will notice that it is a licence to use a television reew3cceving device, nothing more and nothing less. The TVL is irrelevant.

I've experienced at least four such media blunders when I was working in Uganda and Kenya - these things happen though and as Boilerplated quite rightly indicated above, cataloging errors are not difficult to make.

At least the 91Èȱ¬ has the decency to acknowledge the unfortunate mistake and apologise publicly for the error... more than I can say for what happened in Africa. The 91Èȱ¬'s intent was certainly not malicious and I would be disappointed if the mistake was not forgiven by those affected.