Blogs

Who’s that lurking in the bushes outside A&E? It’s the Daily Mail!

By Michelle Gribbon

 

A journalist working for the Daily Mail turned up at St George’s Hospital in South London on Friday night with a telescopic lens hoping to take pictures of drunk party goers.

The photographer was spotted by hospital security staff lurking in bushes near the Accident and Emergency department taking long-lens pictures.

When asked what he was doing, the journalist explained that he was working for The Daily Mail and handed over the contact details for picture editor Janet Tomlinson.

When the hospital’s General Manager called the picture desk requesting an explanation, she was told by Tomlinson that they were working on a piece about drunken party people wasting NHS resources and that photographers had been sent to a number of hospitals throughout the country. Tomlinson insisted that the photographer she had dispatched to St George’s was only working in a public area so there was no reason to seek permission. But the hospital disagreed saying all of the hospital grounds were private and there were concerns over patient confidentiality.

The photographer left when asked to do so only to return a few hours later to try his luck again. On this occasion he told security he’d sought consent from two people he’d snapped. How consent can reasonably be given by a drunk person– as that’s who he intended to photograph – after pub-closing time on a weekend night is another matter. It also raises questions about patient confidentiality if a photographer emerges from the bushes in the dark early hours of the morning to approach you as you leave A&E. In any event, he was asked to leave for the second time.

On Saturday, the hospital’s Deputy Head of Communications, Paul Sheringham rang Tomlinson at The Daily Mail to ensure that none of the pictures had been used. He told Hacked Off that he was concerned about the impact a story of this nature would have on patient confidentiality. “The irony is”, he said, “is if they’d got in touch with us and we thought it a legitimate piece of journalism about the NHS we would have helped them with interviews and case studies. Instead, they chose to turn up without permission.”

So far no pictures have appeared in the newspaper but it will be interesting to see if a story materialises from any of the other hospitals Daily Mail photographers were sent to in the early hours of the morning.

Although no pictures have yet been published it is very clear that the Daily Mail has breached the Editor’s Code of Practice relating to Clause 8 Hospitals and Clause 3, Privacy:

8. ii) The restrictions on intruding into privacy are particularly relevant to enquiries about individuals in hospitals or similar institutions.

3 *Privacy

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant’s own public disclosures of information.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.

Note – Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

And guess who is Chairman of the Editor’s Code Committee – the body responsible for writing the rules the industry has agreed to comply with? None other than the Editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre.

Thank you to Private Eye who first wrote about this incident in 12 December-19 December issue, ‘Spot the Balls’.

 

We rely on people like you to make a difference.

Give now to support the campaign for a free and accountable press.

 
Share:

5 Comments

Join the discussion and tell us your opinion.

Simon Carnereply
December 10, 2014 at 8:10 pm

More disappointing behaviour from the Dail Mail. But I suspect it’s actually Clause 3, not Clause 8, that this falls foul of.

Clause 3 says it is unacceptable to photograph individuals without their consent, when in “public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy”.

When Clause 8 talks of “non-public areas of hospitals”, it is (I suggest) referring to areas such as in-patient areas, ie bedrooms/wards, operating theatres, pathology labs etc, where members of the public would not be free to roam, as distinct from the foyer, the cafe and other areas where (well-behaved) members of the public are normally permitted to enter at will.

The bushes referred to in the article most likely fall into the the latter (“public”) category, notwithstanding that the grounds are privately owned (by the St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust, I believe).

Marc Dawsonreply
December 11, 2014 at 12:09 pm

What I repeatedly fail to understand given the atrocious behaviour of the tabloids over the last 30 years is why do people still buy these papers? We all know that they represent the lowest and most base aspects of human nature mainly greed and selfishness that they regard the general public as little more than a mindless mob of sheep and yet people still buy a paper every day. WHY?

Antigonereply
December 11, 2014 at 12:18 pm

Thanks for your comment. I’ve had another look at the Code and I think you’re right. I think Clause 8, ii is still relevant because it also relates to privacy. I shall update to include your suggestion.

BABS POULDENreply
December 12, 2014 at 12:06 am

I am really upset to read the news that such a thing could happen. I think that the security outside this department needs to be monitored by the police so that anyone breaking the law can be arrested and charged for encroaching upon the privacy of adults and children.

Simon Carnereply
December 12, 2014 at 12:31 am

Now that the main blog has been updated to include reference to Clause 3, perhaps my comment should be removed – otherwise, it looks like I am splitting hairs, rather than helping!

Leave a reply