Get the stories that matter to you sent straight to your inbox with our daily newsletter. Subscribe Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

FOLLOWING an article published in the Daily Record on 26 May, 2016, headlined “Cops: Mob rule outside Hampden blocked us from getting in to help” in print, and “Cops claim mob rule outside Hampden stopped them getting in to deal with battling Rangers and Hibs fans,” online, a man complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Record had breached of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

IPSO upheld the complaint and has required the Daily Record to publish this decision as a remedy to the breach.

The article reported that police officers outside Hampden Park claimed that they were prevented by Rangers supporters from entering the stadium to deal with the disorder that was taking place on the pitch.

It quoted an unnamed police officer who said that a “mob mentality” prevailed outside the stadium, and accused parents of using their children to block roads.

The officer said that supporters “started hitting and spitting at the vans, trying to rock the vans, kicking the vans, trying the doors. This isn’t a few bad eggs in the crowd, this was everyone walking past us”.

It said that the officer was “addressing criticism of the police reaction to the Hibs fans’ pitch invasion”.

The article also quoted three other police sources, who supported the account given by the police officer.

The complainant said that he was outside the stadium as police vans attempted to make their way through Rangers supporters.

He said that while there was sarcastic applause from the majority of fans and some “mild verbal abuse” directed at the police due to their late arrival, there were no confrontations.

He said that it was nonsense to suggest that parents were using their children to block the road.

He denied that anybody hit or spat at police vans, and said it was inaccurate to report that “everybody walking past” had taken part in what the article said had taken place.

He said that the article was totally fabricated and there were thousands of witnesses who would say likewise.

The newspaper said that it had received an email from somebody who identified himself as a serving police officer who described the incident in detail; it said it had been unable to verify whether or not the person who sent the email was in fact a police officer.

It said that the journalist checked the account with two further police sources, neither of whom were present at the incident. It also said it had contacted the General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation who said that some of the accounts he had heard accorded with the account in the email.

It said that these allegations had been presented as claims rather than facts in the article, and that it had taken sufficient care over the article’s accuracy.

The Committee found that the newspaper had taken insufficient steps to take care over the accuracy of the article.

Given the seriousness of the allegations, and given that the unidentified source appeared to be a police officer who wanted to address criticism over the conduct of the police following the match, it was concerning that the newspaper had sought to corroborate the account only with police contacts who were not present during the alleged incidents.

Additionally, the claims had been published in such a way that they gave the significantly misleading impression that they had been corroborated by multiple inde- pendent eyewitnesses. The complaint was upheld as a breach of Clause 1.