was not in dispute that such atrocities had occurred. Indeed, the newspaper had been able to

Dear Mr Kochanowski

I write further to our letter dated 6 October.

The Commission has now reached a decision in respect of the Giles Coren article. I enclose a copy, as promised, for your information.

Please do not hesitate to contact us in the future if we can be of assistance.

Yours sincerely

Commission's decision in the case of Complainants v The Times

A sufficient response to the complaint had been made.

The Commission noted that two complainants had complained that the Giles Coren column breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Code. The complainants raised similar concerns: that the column contained unsubstantiated historical inaccuracies - for example the claim that Poles used to 'amuse themselves" at Easter by locking Jews in the synagogue and setting fire to it - and pejorative references to Polish people, including the term 'Polack\ The newspaper defended its coverage, and argued that the columnist was entitled to set out his personal and prejudiced views in an opinion column.

The Commission initially considered the complaint under Clause 1 (Accuracy). The article was a comment piece, which would necessarily contain the subjective views of its author. The publication of robust comment was permitted by the terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy). Indeed, inherent in freedom of expression is the right for newspapers to publish challenging and partisan material, which inevitably includes judgements with which many will disagree.

In this context, the Commission considered the complainants" specific concerns in regard to the accuracy of the coverage. First, it noted the complainants' concern over the claim that Poles used to 'amuse themselves' by locking Jews in the synagogue and setting fire to it. It

was not in dispute that such atrocities had occurred. Indeed, the newspaper had been able to

provide details of incidents where Jews had been burnt in synagogues. Particular concern had been expressed by the complainants over the reference to Easter; they argued that the implication was that such activities were a regular occurrence at that time of year. However, the newspaper had been able to point to the massacres of Tetiev, which had occurred around the time of Easter in 1920. The Commission did not consider that readers generally would conclude that massacres took place at Easter on a regular basis. The phrase 'amuse themselves' constituted the reporters term of description - such an interpretation would not, of course, be universally accepted by readers.

One complainant had expressed specific concern over the reference in the column to Lithuania: the claim that its leaders had wiped out the Jewish population during the Second World War was, he said, inaccurate, as the country had been an occupied territory from 1940 to 1945. However, the article had referred to the 'invaders" - the Nazis. Indeed, the Commission was satisfied that readers generally would be aware that the Nazi Germany had occupied Lithuania at this time. Further, the newspaper had cited sources which claimed that Lithuanians - both with and without Nazi support - had persecuted the Jewish population in that country. The Commission emphasised again that the article constituted the columnist's particular stance, and was a piece of historical interpretation he was entitled to draw. Readers generally would not - in the Commission's view - be misled into believing that Lithuanians or Poles were responsible for the Holocaust in their countries, as had been suggested.

Another concern was over the association of Poland and Serbia - and the atrocities committed by Karadzic - in the column. However, the columnist had not suggested that Poland was responsible for his actions. Such a reference did not raise a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy).

While the majority of the coverage constituted the columnist's personal views on a controversial topic, the Commission noted that one complainant had raised concern that the article had inaccurately claimed that Poland had not gone through any process of

recrimination to deal with its past. The Commission understood the complainant's concern on this point, given that there had been national debate and an apology by the president.

However, the newspaper had published a number of letters in response to the article. One, written by Professor Antony Polonsky, had specifically addressed this point, and had made clear that the 'debate about the massacre in Jedwabne in July 1941 was the most serious, protracted and profound on the issue of Polish-Jewish relations since the end of the war', and had led to the publication of details of the investigation and an apology by the President of Poland on the sixtieth anniversary of the massacre. The Commission was satisfied that any misleading impression would have been addressed by the letter, and that the newspaper had therefore fulfilled its obligations under the terms of Clause 1 (Accuracy) in this regard.

Other letters published in response to the article disagreed with the columnist's views. Two had detailed that there were numerous occasions where Poles had helped Jewish people during the Holocaust, at great personal risk, and that many had been accorded the status of Righteous Among Nations - a point emphasised by both complainants. The columnist's failure to set this out did not render the coverage misleading. Indeed, the selection of material was a matter for editorial discretion. However, the publication of a variety of letters seemed a sensible approach to the response generated by the controversial coverage. The Commission did not consider that anything further was necessary in the circumstances.

Finally, the Commission turned to the complaint under Clause 12 (Discrimination). This clause prohibits prejudicial or pejorative reference to, amongst other things, an individual's race. It noted the complainants' argument that the columnist's suggestion that Poles should leave the country - and indeed his use of the offensive term Polack" - raised a breach of the spirit of this clause.

However, the Commission emphasised that this clause was designed to protect the rights of the individual and was not applicable to groups of people. Moreover, the terms of this clause did not specifically refer to nationality. The general references to Poles did not, therefore, raise any breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination).

Reference No. 083017