Response to Press Complaints body over father custody case


We believe Section 1 the 'accuracy' of the article where the use of the phrase 'dangerous fugitive' should be fully explained as unless the father in question has a history of criminal activity that is a grossly exaggerated statement that would impact on this fathers ability to continue to protect his children.

He is also NOT alone in how the paper in question has on many occasions used exaggerated claims and is sensationalising and using lurid phrases to greatly distort the facts of the case when custody issues are being addressed. Their connections to the Scottish Speculative Society ensures those distortions will continue unless this is addressed ASAP.

Section 2 'Privacy' By naming this father his privacy has been breached as well as his children and may undermine ongoing court hearings.

Section 3 the newspaper is effectively 'harassing' the father and his children greatly exaggerating a one sided version of events.

Section 4. Intrusion into grief. This father like many others facing similar in Scottish courts may be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder triggered by the manner in which the legal system in Scotland operates. We ourselves have first hand knowledge of the extreme psychological and financial pressures being imposed on fathers.

Section12. Discrimination clearly the article has been written with an anti-father bias with claims of him being 'dangerous'.

Finally in The Public Interest? How can a story claiming a father is a 'dangerous fugitive' be in the public interest but to use sensational journalism to heighten what is already a difficult issue for a biological father and his children who they CLAIM by the police as having kidnapped them. Only those involved in the procurement of children for their seedy care homes within the child theft network in Scotland could make such despicable claims. Only a legal system that uses ANY excuse to KIDNAP children into Scottish care homes with a history of disgraceful abuse could that term be considered appropriate.

We have been collating evidence for decades as to how the British media, censored via media lawyers, are grossly distorting how divorce courts are operating to the massive undermining of fathers and the biological protection they provide to their children.

We ask that the previously attached evidence be taken into account when addressing all of the above. We also believe the suppression of this information ie Confidentiality is blocking the exposure and true extent of what is being hidden from the public for so long by a complicit media that provides a smokescreen for the horrors going on within a secret court regime. The internet will ensure that is remedied with victims having a voice that has been blocked by that media for so very long. We cannot and will not allow that to happen.

We would finally state that any organisation or regulatory body that would consider the continued 'confidentiality' of such serious matters may themselves be classed as complicit in the very issues raised in the previous correspondence.


I am writing to follow up on our earlier email.

IPSO considers complaints made under the terms of the Editorsí Code of Practice.

So that we can be sure we have understood your complaint, we need you to specify the Clause(s) of the Code under which you wish to complain. Please use the following link to find the Editors' Code of Practice if you need to refer to it:

We look forward to receiving this information, and would be grateful for your response within the next seven days.

With best wishes

Todd Stammers
Systems Handler

Gate House
1 Farringdon Street

Tel: 0300 123 2220

IPSO is the independent regulator of the newspaper and magazine industry. We exist to promote and uphold the highest professional standards of journalism in the UK, and to support members of the public in seeking redress where they believe that the Editors' Code of Practice has been breached. We are able to consider concerns about editorial content in newspapers and magazines, and about the conduct of journalists.