Accuracy

The report’s commentary was as follows:

Campaigners against the ultra-low emission zone held a protest in central London today.  Local protestors and mainstream politicians were joined by conspiracy theorists and far right groups.  It follows news a judicial review is to be held into plans to expand ULEZ to all of London’s boroughs in August.  The Mayor’s office say the expansion plans will continue without delay.

A number of complainants said it was inaccurate to say “conspiracy theorists and far right groups” were present at the demonstration.  We therefore considered whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the statement.

In relation to “conspiracy theorists”, the evidence included:

• people attending with banners and placards referring to Stop World Control, a group which says, for example, “the pandemic is being used to implement worldwide tyranny”.

• people with banners warning of the dangers of the UN’s Agenda 2030 and the role of the World Economic Forum – both of which are regular subjects of conspiracy theories.

• footage of Piers Corbyn addressing demonstrators in which he described the organisers of the Trafalgar Square event as “a controlled opposition organisation”, a term generally understood to mean controlled by the Government.  Mr Corbyn is a well-known for rejecting the scientific evidence for climate change and campaigning against Covid-19 vaccination.

We considered this evidence sufficient to justify the report’s reference to the presence of conspiracy theorists.  Accordingly, this aspect of complaint was not upheld.

In relation to “far right groups”, we recognised that the groups named above might have far right (or indeed far left) adherents, but did not consider this to be evidence of the presence of “far right groups”.  The programme-makers directed our attention to the deployment by some demonstrators of Nazi imagery, symbolism and slogans directed against the Mayor of London which we accepted was consistent with tactics used predominantly by certain far right groups, but we saw no grounds for concluding that they were used exclusively by such groups.  We also noted the presence of an individual who seemed, from social media postings, very likely to have been associated with the presence of a far right group at a previous demonstration, but the evidence fell short of establishing that he was an adherent of that group, and we saw no evidence that other representatives of the group were present.  While it was clear from our dealings with the programme-makers that the statement about the presence of far right groups had been made in good faith, we assessed the evidence differently.  In our judgement it was suggestive of the presence of far right groups but fell short of establishing that such groups had in fact been represented among the demonstrators.  This aspect of the complaint was upheld.

Impartiality

A frequent point of complaint was that the report promoted a pro-ULEZ agenda by suggesting those demonstrating against its extension were predominantly made up of conspiracy theorists and adherents of the far right.  We saw nothing in the wording of the report which would have given viewers the impression that such viewpoints were predominant, or even widely shared, among those taking part, and found no evidence that the report was influenced by a pro-ULEZ agenda.  This point of complaint was not upheld.

Some complaints, however, identified bias in the extent to which the report appeared to support disputed claims made by the Mayor of London.  We noted that, at a People’s Question Time at Ealing Town Hall on 2 March 2023, the Mayor had caused controversy by describing anti-ULEZ protesters outside as being “in coalition with the far Right” and “joining hands with some of those outside who are part of a far right group” (as well as being at risk of aligning themselves with “Covid deniers and vaccine deniers”), and that he had subsequently reiterated his comments in interview and defended them when challenged by Conservative members of the London Assembly.  These comments had the effect of making the composition of future ULEZ demonstrations a potentially controversial topic, and in the circumstances we thought it unsurprising that some complainants regarded the wording of the report as endorsing the Mayor’s position.  While it was legitimate to report facts which were consistent with that position (such as the presence of conspiracy theorists, some of whom were preoccupied with Covid as noted above), the statement that far right groups were present might well have been perceived as lending a degree of corroboration to the Mayor’s comments which, on our assessment of the evidence, was not warranted.  The result was an impression, entirely unintended by the programme-makers, of bias in the reporting of a controversial matter, and the complaints have been partly upheld in relation to impartiality.

Harm and Offence

Some complainants said was offensive to the majority of those who attended the demonstration to associate them with “conspiracy theorists and far right groups”, and some who had attended the demonstration said it was offensive to them personally.  As set out above, the report began by referring to “Campaigners against the ultra-low emission zone” and then referred to “Local protestors and mainstream politicians”.  Viewers in general would therefore have understood there was a distinction between those who were described as local protestors opposed to the expansion of the ULEZ and others who were present at the protest who were described as “conspiracy theorists and far right groups”.  We do not agree the report either depicted the majority of those who took part in the protest as conspiracy theorists or members of far right groups or gave any individuals present legitimate grounds for offence, and the complaints were not upheld in this respect.

Accuracy: partly upheld

Impartiality: partly upheld

Harm and Offence: not upheld