Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Girl hits a dead end in bid to drive out 'illegal' road signs

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 10 September 2008
A TEENAGE waitress has failed in an ambitious bid to challenge the legality of Edinburgh's road signs.
Leanne Cochrane, from Prestonpans, refused to accept a fine for driving into the Cowgate late at night and fought the charge in court.

The 19-year-old left court in tears yesterday after being unable to prove that the no-entry signs – which operat
e between 10pm and 5am – were unlawful.

After rejecting her pleas, a justice of the peace fined her £150 and gave her three penalty points on her licence.

The court heard how the waitress was caught driving in the restricted area last October and was charged under the Road Traffic Act.

She had driven past the signs as she travelled from the Grassmarket into the Cowgate at about 12.45am.

JP Ewan Hawthorn told Edinburgh Justice of the Peace Court: "I have given this case a great deal of thought because it has some difficult issues.

"However, most of those issues have been resolved, in my mind at least, by looking at the 1988 Road Traffic Act."

The JP said Cochrane, who represented herself in court, had failed to prove that the sign had not been authorised.

"I have to conclude that this sign was lawful," said Mr Hawthorn.

"I conclude that you are, beyond reasonable doubt, guilty.

"Having heard the evidence and reached the verdict that I have, I am going to impose a fine of £150 and three penalty points."

Cochrane, of Preston Terrace, has been given time to pay the fine but left the court in tears with her father.

The ban on driving along the road between Robertson's Close and George IV Bridge was introduced in a bid to improve road safety.

It was imposed following two late night hit-and-run accidents which took place in the Cowgate in two years.

Since the curb on traffic, the number of accidents has fallen dramatically from 35 in the three years before the ban – including one fatal and three serious – to ten, only one of which was serious, in the three years after.

Community leaders later called for the ban to be scrapped amid claims it caused antisocial behaviour, by encouraging drunks to loiter in the street.

Bruce Young, of the Association of British Drivers, said it was important motorists should challenge local authorities in cases where they genuinely believe signs are carelessly placed.

He said: "Unfortunately, many councils are being quite slapdash about signage.

"What is also unfortunate, is that for people who do challenge them and lose, it can be quite costly."

Cochrane could not be contacted for comment following the case.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 10 September 2008 2:30 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Jane Plane,

10/09/2008 11:58:20
Hmm - was she in tears because she wasn't right or was it the 3 points & £150 fine? Or was it the fact that she probably has a £5K lawyers bill to pay ?? Who advised her it was a good idea to take such a case to court? Unbelieveable.
2

geekpie,

forfar 10/09/2008 12:02:24
I'm fed up with people getting away with driving offences on technicalities, and I'm delighted that this female has to accept her (very minor) punishment.
3

Dileas,

10/09/2008 12:07:09
I have a certain amount of sympathy with her - I was not a lot older when I was first booked for parking - "for stopping on the public highway for longer than necessary to put down or pick up a passenger or to load or unload goods", max. fine £2.

This was long before parking restrictions as we know them. A copper booked me. Apparently it was illegal to park anywhere it did not specifically say that you could.

I had never had a problem with the police before and wanted the AA to fight the case to clear my name! It was a matter of principle but the AA told me quite kindly not to waste their time.
4

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 10/09/2008 12:09:56
She has a point, although obviously caught red-handed. Road signs at one point were kept fairly straightforward. The more ifs and buts and stuff you have to read to comprehend them, the more likely it is that people will make genuine mistakes as well as people who know about them deliberately abusing the situation. If you're in a car that's moving the time you have to take in information like this may mean you're past the sign before you've understood it.

So - not many marks out of 10 for the authorities who consider this type of signage as effective.
5

Dileas,

10/09/2008 12:12:21
Geekpie said "I'm fed up with people getting away with driving offences on technicalities" but the legislation is quite specific on size, shape, colour and placing of road signs to protect the public and avoid confusing signage.

Unfortunately, local authorities are so anti-driver these days (as well as sheer incompetent) that it is quite possible for signage to be inadequate.

For instance, speed limit changes must be marked on both sides of the road or carriageway. How often do we see one missing or turned around to show the opposite side to oncoming traffic. These are improperly placed and therefore have no effect in law.

I accept however that local authorities would prefer not to have to bother maintaining signs, just as they can't be bothered maintaining the roads.
6

,

10/09/2008 12:13:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

James (1),

10/09/2008 12:20:42
The signs in the Cowgate are very clear and show an illuminated big red and white NO ENTRY.
If you come from the Grassmarket there is also a sign (if it was working) telling ALL TRAFFIC to turn up Victoria Street.
Why this female felt that she could ignore the
No Entry and then claim the problem was the sign is beyond me.
I personally do not like red traffic lights but I do not ignore them just because some company doing road works has placed temporary ones on the road and might not have done so legally.
8

Diana,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 12:20:47
Going by the council's ideas, it would then be logical to shut down all roads at all times - that way there's be no more accidents at all.

I'm glad I don't have to drive through the city centre. I'll stick to shopping in the "out of town" shopping centres. This city is stupid.
9

the dog,

embra 10/09/2008 12:26:15
legal or not the signs are there and should be obeyed,
should have plead guilty paid the £60 fine and taken the three points that would have been given, then fight the legalities of the signage, dozy lassie's now even more out of pocket
10

Dileas,

10/09/2008 12:27:40
Scallywag (6) - drivers "chancing their arm" know they do so at their peril - a court is likely to impose a higher penalty if they are wrong and drivers know that. On the other hand, they should challenge situations where they think signage is illegal for sound reasons (the JP here took time to refer to the Act, so there was at least a prima facie argument for challenge).

I don't agree that the council will bother to make corrections "if you write" - they are endemically inert.

As for the point that "30mph means the maximum speed limit. A red traffic signal means stop ..." in this instance a No Entry sign DOES NOT mean no entry (except between 10pm and 5am) - and, as Mr Angry said above, you have to read the small print in passing to know that.
11

David Harrington,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 12:32:26
Interesting comment from the ABD which says a lot about this organisation - he is suggesting that people should have the right to bring frivelous cases against councils at our expense; there is nothing "unfortunate" about it - she knew exactly what she was getting into
12

Dileas,

10/09/2008 12:41:39
Scallywag (10)said "How come we don't know that it is you who is turing the speed limit sign round the wrong way to justify and get away with your speeding on a certain street."
You would have to prove that I did and I am sure that there is an offence, probably "perverting the course of justice" (imprisonable) which would quite correctly penalise me if you were able to!

He also said "All the council has to do in these cases, is prove that it has taken reasonable steps to maintain the sign. That will be either through a planned inspection schedule or through notification systems such as Clarence."
Sorry - he is wrong although I am sure that local authorities would like that to be the case. While they are misplaced or missing the signs are legally ineffective and any fines paid during the breach are required to be cancelled.

He also said "As for your parking fine that looks like it was correctly issued given the law at the time. The roads were never meant to be used to accommodate stationary parked vehicles. What exactly is your point, after all ignorance is no defense."
For once, we agree - the fine WAS correctly issued and ignorance IS no defence. My point was my sense of immature outrage (which I suspect may have motivated Miss Cochrane) that I had inadvertently "broken my duck" by parking in a stretch of street that ALWAYS had a line of vehicles parked there. It was only on this day that the police officer concerned decided to enforce that law on this particular street.
13

Bored,

10/09/2008 12:49:57
#12 Dileas
The no entry sign referred to in this instance is an illuminated sign. It is switched off during the hours when entry is permitted into the Cowgate and switched on when entry is not allowed. It is a BIG sign and when visable DOES mean no entry.
14

James (1),

10/09/2008 12:52:12
#12 I think you are mixing up what was said and applying it to this incident.
The No Entry sign is a very large illuminated red and white sign that switches on at 10pm.
There is need to read any other sign to get the meaning of No Entry.
If that does not stop you in your tracks then there is no hope of you reading any information sign which is much smaller that the BIG RED ONE!
15

Sue Baru,

Petrolhead in a petticoat 10/09/2008 12:57:08
She probably represented herself because her lawyer knew it would be a waste of time. While I am usually sympathetic to other motorists, these signs are actually doing something useful and the incovenience to drivers having to go the long way round is minimal at that time of night.
16

Dileas,

10/09/2008 13:00:41
(16) and (17) - Ah, I hadn't realised that the sign was visible only when illuminated! I am much more comfortable with that then!
17

Victorian-Ian . oap Edinburgh district .,

10/09/2008 13:07:47
#1 She represented herself or did you miss that point?
18

Jane Plane,

10/09/2008 13:08:49
#14 - Thanks. That is exactly what I meant. Its a pity that #7 wasn't able to understand that before insulting my intelligence. And we still dont actually have their opinion about the actual article. Hey ho, some people on this forum would rather nitpick that comment.
19

Irn-Bruce,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 13:08:53
Wow! The EEN web editors have filed this story under the "Edinburgh", "Scotland" AND "UK" sections.

It must be of huge significance!
20

raythebear,

edinburgh 10/09/2008 13:14:51
she should appeal
21

Journalistic licence,

10/09/2008 13:19:03
Help ma boab #3, a £2 fine must have been a very long time ago. Could you no' have argues that yer horse had stopped tae take a dump and was hindered by constipation?
22

Ron D,

Enybru 10/09/2008 13:23:18
What's this? A car driver who doesn't think the road signs apply to them? Well I never.
23

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 13:28:16
Unfortunately, she should have done a bit more research in this---and there's no point bursting into tears about it.

Here are a few examples of Edinburghsignage that ARE NOT in accordance with the regulations though...

1. The 1.5 tonne weight restriction on the West Approach Road -- 1.5 Tonnes isn't a valid figure for a weight restriction and a weight restriction cannot be qualified "except buses".
2. The taxi ranks and disabled spaces on the cobbled parts of Frederick Street and Castle Street -- Stainless steel studs in the ground are not valid markers. The bays should be marked using the specified dotted white lines.
3. The "no entry" sign at West Register Street Lane -- the qualifcation "Except goods vehicles over 3 tonnes" is not a valid qualification.
4. The disabled spaces near Canongate adjacent to the parliament building and Holyrood Palace -- they are incorrectly marked on the road, the incorrect width and the sign plate is incorrectly worded.

If anyone has any more specific examples, please post them.
24

Teofilio Cubillas,

10/09/2008 13:33:33
#14 #21

1. She didn't take the case to court. She was taken to court (by the procurator fiscal)and appeared as the accused.

2. Costs can only be awarded in civil cases. This lady was prosecuted under the criminal law and represented herself as she is entitled to do. There is no question of her (or any other accused person for that matter) having to meet prosecution costs in the case of a criminal trial, however flimsy their defence may be.
25

Journalistic licence,

10/09/2008 13:34:53
Wummin drivers!!!

Anyway, what actually happened was that she did obey the sign at first and drove up Victoria Street only to find it was blocked by a large metal fence that had blown over in the wind, narrowly missing some American tourists. She then had to turn round and drive back down Victoria Street in the wrong direction and was then going to drive up Candlemaker Row but was put off by two coffee vendors fighting each other, so took the route along the Cowgate. You have to have some sympathy with her.
26

Disgruntled Black cab customer,

10/09/2008 13:36:01
Perhaps if more of us questioned some of these road signs and restrictions our glorious city would run a lot smoother.
Latest 1 being shandwick place open to busese and taxis only.
Next will be haymarket restricted to buses, taxis and trams only!!!!
27

raythebear,

edinburgh 10/09/2008 13:43:08
I would like to know if the council has the neccessary authorisations for the sign and plate combination
28

raythebear,

edinburgh 10/09/2008 13:51:21
#33 the council did have the required permissions for the no entry signs at george street/ charlotte square
29

Dileas,

10/09/2008 13:52:06
Scallywag (31) - I expect that the law specifies two speed limit change signs so that if one is obscured by say passing vehicles (offside) or parked vehicles (nearside) the other is still visible to oncoming traffic. If only one is permanently visible because the other is obscured or missing, there is a good chance that the remaining one will be temporarily obscured. It seems a sensible requirement to me.

And in fairness, I don't think he was "let off" on a technicality" - the prosecution failed because the regulations had not been met.

There was a time when police officers could be counted on to exercise good common sense (which was why Britain's police were the envy of the world) and did "let people off" when they thought it best served justice. These days are gone and no one is "let off" - but the stretching of enforcement sometimes strays over the limit of permissibility. Sad to say.
30

raythebear,

edinburgh 10/09/2008 13:53:19
#34 but if they dont then she her case is proven and the signs are illegal
31

shopgirl08,

edin 10/09/2008 14:12:01
I agree with James (1) and everything he posted - this girl must have been driving blind not to see the massive brightly lit sign. I have no sympathy for her whatsoever. She was wrong, she's been proven wrong and now she has to pay for it. It doesn't matter about any other signs in the city which may or may not be legal, this case is about one sign and it has been proven legal. Case closed.
32

20something,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 14:23:18
The signs are obvious and it's common knowledge that you can't drive through the cowgate at that time so no excuses. She is a chancer and has had to pay the fine she deserves. It probably should be more to pay for the waste of time due to her pointless challenge.
33

Gopher,

edinburgh 10/09/2008 14:42:39
This girl was very unlucky. Look at the number of cars etc that traverse Princes Street illegally, but get away with it because there are no police in sight or the ones present are not interested. Also, similar scenario in Waverly Station. The number of cars that park illegally but are never challenged by the transport police. They are only interested in pursuing youngsters or ethnic minorities.
34

Dr DoGood,

edinburgh 10/09/2008 15:16:01
she broke the law got caught end of story
35

me150,

10/09/2008 15:20:53
These signs may be large and clear but have any of you travelled downhill from the high street at the Raddison, Niddry Street, down to the Cowgate. Once you arrive there you are driving illegally in a traffic free zone.

There is nowhere to go, if you turn left or right into the Cowgate you can be nicked but Niddry Street is one way so you can't go back!!!!!!
36

raythebear,

musselburgh 10/09/2008 15:48:47
#38 The 1988 Road Traffic Act is the legislation that she was charged under, doh!!! It doesnt determine what signs the council can and cant use. The fact that the JP may not have asked just shows that he doesnt have a clue either. As said elsewhere though, also sounds like she shouldve done a bit more research and and probably an FOI to the council.
I dont have to be bothered because I wasnt the one fined.
37

raythebear,

edinburgh 10/09/2008 15:51:05
#45 no you cant be nicked as you never drove through the signs, similar to driving down Blair Street. You are only causing an offence if you drive past the signs (assuming they are legal)
38

NorT,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 15:52:19
The girl was quite right to defend this matter but obviously did not do enough research. The traffic order for this road closure is flawed as are the signbs and their siting. Many other people just get warnings for doing the same thing.
39

gorgeousgorgieboy,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 15:52:37
There used to be a sign on the cemetery wall at the end of Dalry rd - beginning of Gorgie rd.

It was made out of the end of a round wooden beer barrel and bore the legend "Nae Hibbies".

I dont think it was legal though.
40

me150,

10/09/2008 15:54:40
Yes but you have no way of proving where you entered the Cowgate. If you entered at Niddry Street and were stopped at at Candlemaker Row do you think you are going to be believed?
41

raythebear,

edinburgh 10/09/2008 15:56:37
#50 personally i couldnt care less what the police believe, they are the ones who have to prove that you broke the law
42

FC Barcelona,

10/09/2008 16:11:27
just another example of someone not taking responsibilty for their actions, oh how its always someone else's fault eh ? glad she got hit with a fine and points
43

James (1),

10/09/2008 16:14:43
#50 it is not the driving in the Cowgate that is illegal. It is the driving past the illuminated no entry signs at each end of the Cowgate that gets you done.
You can enter via Blair Street or Niddry Street 24 hours a day but after 10pm and until 5am you need to exit via Guthrie Street.
#51 it is very simple for the police to prove this offence and your participation in the process of proof is not necessary.
44

shandyman,

10/09/2008 16:15:32
These signs would not be out of place on a christmas tree,
We all know what "no entry" signs look like except in Edinburgh where you are presented with a "no entry" sign that comprises of over 400 led bulbs, once you join the dots you might be able to work out what it means, but you only have a second to do it.
"The JP said Cochrane, who represented herself in court, had failed to prove that the sign had not been authorised."
Hmmm, how could she prove a negative.
If the authorisation was questioned surely it would be easier if the prosecuter produced it.
45

bigladatthebackpost,

edinburgh 10/09/2008 16:17:04
Aren't you then meant to go up Guthrie Street me150? Bypassing all the signs but still having a nice wee illegal drive in the process?
46

raythebear,

edinburgh 10/09/2008 16:26:53
#55 exactly, the council either has an authorisation or it doesnt
47

raythebear,

edinburgh 10/09/2008 16:29:08
#54 pc james, the signs say no entry so surely it is not an offence to exit at either end?
48

Incandescent,

10/09/2008 16:44:53
#2 Geekpie - Children don't walk to school at that time of night, so perhaps you should focus on something, anything related to Forfar instead.

#13 Harrington - anough of your standard knee jerk anti-motorist rants.

#52 Gorgie Tony - "12 months in prison"? Oh dear, you've really lost it, haven't you?

#57 Gorgie Tony - "seat strap"? Perhaps it would've been better if you hadn't remembered. Do you even possess a (still valid) licence?

#55 #58 - Regardless of whether the JP had "satisfied himself" (!) or not, the no-entry sign requires a valid Road Traffic Order to be legal, and it is the existence or lack of this that ultimately decides whether the driver broke the law.



49

James (1),

10/09/2008 16:50:27
#59 You are not getting this are you? Of course it is!
The sign being discussed means no entry! If you agree on this then it may or may not come as a surprise to you to find that those signs being spoken about have no entry on both sides of them. So travelling East you "should" if you are paying attention clearly see a big bright red and white no entry sign. Travelling West you also see a no entry sign. There are two signs on each side of the road displaying no entry and as soon as you drive past them the offence is committed.
Proof required two police officer seeing you do it. (Actually one seeing you do it is enough)
Class closed for today. Drive carefully!
50

Incandescent,

10/09/2008 16:54:37
To those complaining about "costs" to the taxpayer and council.

1.She represented herself, there is no mention of the council employing defence.

2.She was challenging a fixed penalty ticket (£30) and was fined a further £120 for having the gall to challenge it - seems fair enough (except perhaps to Tony).
51

Number1,

Under that bit 10/09/2008 16:55:22
#27 Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head
You go on about the 'Edinburgh Signage'.
What about the ones that get ignored on a daily basis.
The '4 space' taxi ranks that always seem to have 8-9 cabs in them.
The multitude of cars going along Princes St EVERY day during the restricted times. (17 I counted today within the space of 2 minutes).
The double-parking fiasco that is Marchmont.
Cars blocking the West End box-juntions during rush hour.
Cars using bus lanes when they're not meant to.
And many, many more misdemeanours that go un-punished day after day!

This city is farcical when it comes to the highway code!
52

calum,

10/09/2008 17:04:12
Gorgie_Tony - You've lost the plot, you're completely barking!
53

raythebear,

edinburgh 10/09/2008 17:12:50
#61 dont think they are double sided so i think you need your eyes checked
54

calum,

10/09/2008 17:28:08
#67 - "little boy", eh? Now we're perhaps plumbing depths where you'd rather not go. Besides, you suggest a year in the jail for a 19-year old lassie who went through a prohibition sign? And you think that is proportionate? As I said, barking.
Why the sudden knowledge and praise of all things to do with the police? You were the one who keeps complaining about them because some nasty schoolboys from the local area (back to the depths, Tony) keep calling you names in the street. As I said last night, give your doc a call or write to the Sunday Post.
55

Anonym,

10/09/2008 17:35:57
No need to be abusive just because someone disagrees with you Tony!

I seem to recal that the restrictions on driving along the cowgate were initially far from clear. The original pathetic sign seemed to imply that entering the cowgate at any time OTHER than the restricted hours was not allowed.

This is why it was soon replaced with a huge bright red light up job.

I don't think the no entry signs are double sided, James. If you passed the first one at 21:59 hours and 59 seconds, then you'd have to wait till 05:00 hours to leave? No way pal!
56

calum,

10/09/2008 17:46:11
#70 - Mature people would suggest locking up a young woman for an offence such as that. And you are seriously unbalanced and have no sensense of proportion - in the past on these pages you have suggested beatings, floggings, capital punishment etc. for minor offences. And if you really believe all the tripe you post on these pages then you seriously need to seek help from your GP who will prescribe suitable medication or direct you towards appropriate counselling. Grown up enough for you?
57

calum,

10/09/2008 17:47:15
"Mature people would NOT suggest ....."
58

Number1,

behind the door 10/09/2008 17:48:24
Now now gentlemen!


....How about those Red Socks!
59

caroleanne,

10/09/2008 17:56:51
I suspect the reason she maybe upset and also why she went to court in the first place was - as a 'new' driver you have to resit your test once you have 6 points.

Maybe she has 3 points already and thought it was worth the risk?
60

calum,

10/09/2008 18:35:56
#76 - Back to the cane, the birch, flogging and little boys again. Over the years of posting you really do have a fixation about these things.
So what is it tonight? Are you now saying you are old? I seem to remember you claim to be disabled? and Gay? What handle are you going to attach your wretched life to for some support next time? Get help, please.
Still, no doubt as Frankie Howerd would have said, "Don't mock the afflicted", so I won't.
61

shandyman,

10/09/2008 20:18:53
#59 #66
These signs are double sided you can enter the cowgate by various streets and drive along the cowgate till your hearts content,until you come to the sign preventing you leaving the cowgate east or west, so you have to do a 3 point turn and drive past all the pedestrians again (thereby increasing the danger to them) and God help you if you don't know you can exit via Guthrie St. you would be driving up and down the cowgate till 5am trying to find your way out
62

James (1),

10/09/2008 20:34:18
#66 you clearly do not know what you are speaking about!
The next time you are in the Cowgate after 10pm and look at the no entry signs (pick any one) you will see it has the same no entry sign on both sides.
Once you have done this please do not feel you need to apologise as I see from your previous post that logic and reason are strangers to you. That leads me to believe admitting your wrong is another stranger you have yet to meet.
Everyone who actually knows the area will confirm the signs are double sided.
You obviously drive using the same attention the female found guilty was applying.
63

James (1),

10/09/2008 20:43:35
#65 Tony you speak as if you know what you are saying is fact but in reality it is fiction. The PF can and does take one police officers evidence for Road Traffic as that is all that is required. Clearly two officers is better and three is .... you get the picture?
64

Grumpy,

Sitting bewildered at the West End traffic lights 10/09/2008 21:06:26
Going west at the West End tere is a no entry sign at the traffic lights. It doesn't say WHERE the no entry applies to. There ar two sets of lights under it - one for going left, the otehr to go straight ahead. The sign is actually opposite the lane for turning left. But the sign really means no entry into Shandwick Place. And where is the sign on the other side of the road - outside Ryan's Bar completely impossible to see for the queue of buses. And the sign at Ryan's Bar is larger than the legally permitted size. So as case law says (See the Peepipo website) if the signs are improperly displayed, then the law cannot be enforced.
65

Chris W,

11/09/2008 08:24:15
What utter insanity to state that accidents have reduced because they've banned traffic. It is a bit like saying if we banned aircraft there'd be less air crashes. The crass stupidity of those in charge of our roads who act like petty third world dictators is unbelievable. Good on Leanne for trying to fight them.
Leanne: if you are reading this, there is no mention above of the traffic orders necessary to make such a restriction legal, did you ask for these? Suggest you contact Bruce Young (lothian at abd.org.uk) and don't just accept the court's judgement.
66

Matt there,

somewhere 12/09/2008 00:13:10
The problem is that too may courts allow councils to get away with sloppy, slapdash and illegal work.

"Oh, well, that sign might be of the wrong design, or the wrong type of sign, or in the wrong place, and perhaps the yellow lines aren't legal, and maybe the council did not bother to apply for a Road Traffic Act, before putting the sign up and possibly they did put the speed limit sign up in the wrong section of road, but I'll find the person guilty anyway, because I am sure the council probably meant well."

That's what happens, but it isn't good enough.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.