Essex Police has had a complaint against The Telegraph rejected by IPSO following a visit to columnist Allison Pearson by two uniformed officers on Remembrance Sunday.
Pearson was visited by police in November 2024, apparently to discuss a potentially inflammatory post on X by the comment writer.
Pearson said she was accused of a “non-crime hate incident” by police. The Telegraph also reported that she was questioned over an “alleged hate crime”.
Essex Police said Pearson was wrong to claim officers described the matter as a “non-crime hate incident” and provided a transcript of video taken filmed by officers at the time. IPSO rejected the complaints, saying the Telegraph had taken sufficient care to establish the facts ahead of publication.
The IPSO report states that The Telegraph emailed Essex Police press office at 2.26pm on Tuesday, 12 November, 2024, the day before publication.
The email said: “A Daily Telegraph columnist […] was visited on Sunday at 9.40am by two police officers who told she had been reported for a non-crime hate incident. She was told by them it related to a social media post a year ago which a complainant felt was inciting racial hatred. She lives at [address]. Can you confirm if this is correct, why it was done and whether it was proportionate in light of the reforms to the NCHI criteria in the past year.”
At 4.03pm the force press office responded: “I’ve just had a conversation with some officers with knowledge of this. Given what they’ve told me and what the now-live investigation is focusing on, it feels like an odd and potentially dangerous approach to take from the Telegraph’s side? I would very strongly urge you not to publish anything on this – but I acknowledge your stance on this is that ‘he would say that’. Are you aware what the investigation relates to?”
A further email at 6.02pm from the same force press office said: “We’re investigating a report which was passed to us by another force. The report relates to a social media post which was subsequently removed. An investigation is now being carried out under section 17 of the Public Order Act. As part of that investigation, officers attended an address in [town] on Sunday 10 November to invite a woman to attend a voluntary interview on the matter. At this stage, we’re awaiting confirmation of her available dates.
“NOTES / GUIDANCE Please be aware that it is clear that the Telegraph is not aware of the precise details of the report and to insinuate that, at this stage, the report is being treated as anything other than a criminal matter would be factually inaccurate. This does not mean that the report will result in criminal action, but at this stage it is an ongoing, live investigation. Please also be aware that the woman in question is yet to provide a voluntary account and we would again urge you to allow that to take place before any story is published to protect the integrity of her account. You will also be aware that any account given outside of a police setting could be treated as evidential and risks impacting on the investigation.”
Rejecting the complaint, IPSO said: “While the complainant had said that it had not been given sufficient time to respond to this email, it had responded within four hours, with both a for-publication comment and a not-for-publication note. Neither the comment nor the background note responded to the claim that the writer had been told that she had been ‘told she had been reported for a non crime hate incident’. While both pieces of correspondence made clear that the police were investigating the matter as a potential criminal offence, the position regarding what the writer had been told during the visit had not been disputed or corrected.”
IPSO added: ” The complainant had said that the articles should not have been published, as the publication was not aware of the full circumstances of the case, and had attempted to dissuade the newspaper from publishing the articles under complaint. The committee noted that, on occasion, the press will report on ongoing investigations, and the code does not forbid it from doing so. It further noted the role that the press plays in reporting on the criminal justice system, and that – provided that the code is not breached – there is no bar on the media reporting on ongoing and developing cases, and doing so can serve the public interest, for example by holding institutions to account, or by reporting on matters of ongoing public debate.”
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
