What settlement did Tory MP Mark Pritchard reach with the Sunday Mirror that led to this statement in the paper's "corrections and complaints" column?
Mark Pritchard MP
Following our article of September 28 concerning the investigation into Brooks Newmark MP and the exchange of explicit pictures online with an undercover freelance reporter, although the Sunday Mirror did not publish any allegations about Mark Pritchard MP, we are happy to make clear that Mr Pritchard was not at any time suspected or accused of sending inappropriate or explicit messages and/or pictures to anyone via social media or otherwise. In addition, Mr Pritchard is not married and is single."
On Sunday, Pritchard tweeted: "Glad to have reached 'amicable settlement' with Sunday Mirror and have now withdrawn my complaint from IPSO. The settlement is confidential."
His complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) followed the Mirror's publication on 28 September of a sting operation carried out against a fellow Tory MP, Brooks Newmark.
Pritchard was not named in the story, but he - along with several other MPs - was the recipient of a tweet from a male reporter posing as a woman called Sophie Wittams.
It was a lure supposedly to net only Newmark, although it was widely regarded at the time as a fishing expedition. Pritchard was upset because, as a single man, he thought it inappropriate to invade his privacy.
Ipso, in spite of Pritchard withdrawing his complaint, said last Sunday that it would continue to investigate the matter.
It would be a departure for a press regulator to investigate a privacy complaint in the absence of a complaint, and it does appear that Ipso has now modified its stance.
I understand that it is awaiting answers to queries to the parties involved and, on the basis of those replies, will then decide whether, in the wider public interest, it should continue to hold an inquiry.
It would evidently help to clarify whether there had been a breach of the editors' code of practice.
I cannot leave it there, however. Why did Pritchard suddenly decide to withdraw his complaint? And what exactly was the nature of the settlement?
When I contacted him he emailed back to say that due to the nature of his agreement with the paper he had nothing to add to what the Sunday Mirror had published.
It is common enough when someone takes legal action against a newspaper for there to be a confidential settlement. But a complaint to a regulator is of a different order. It isn't a legal matter, so why should it be secret?
It suggested that Pritchard had been paid money by the Mirror in order to persuade him to withdraw his complaint.
And lo and behold, I discover that the Mirror did not pay him directly. Instead, the paper paid a donation to a military charity of Pritchard's choice. It may have been only a token sum, but that's beside the point.
Pritchard, having made a public song and dance about his privacy being invaded, is now the beneficiary of a hole-in-the-corner deal that led to him withdrawing his complaint.
Where's the principle in an elected politician doing that? And, incidentally, why did the Mirror feel it needed to do any kind of deal to avoid him continuing with his complaint?
In the interests of transparency, we need to know much more about this affair. I now look to Ipso to get to the bottom of this. It is important for the public to know the story behind the sordid story.
