Spectator apologises for Barclay censorship

Sir Peregrine Worsthorne, columnist for The First Post and former editor of the Sunday Telegraph, has received a grovelling apology from the Spectator for editing out a critical reference he had made about the magazine's owners, the Barclay brothers, in a book review. Worsthorne complained to the Press Complaints Commission after his review of Stephen Robinson's biography of former Daily Telegraph editor Lord Deedes was changed to make it appear that the veteran writer had described his colleagues as a "stinking mob", when in fact he had been referring to the paper's management.

The apology, published on page 45 of this week's issue of the Spectator, stated: "The review was edited, against Sir Peregrine's wishes, leaving the reader with the incorrect impression that Lord Deedes had called his colleagues a 'stinking mob'. We carried a letter by Stephen Robinson on March 29 making clear that, in fact, Lord Deedes was referring specifically to the management of the company when he used this expression. We would like to apologise further to Sir Peregrine for the error."

Worsthorne's original piece made reference to Deedes's critical memo about the Barclays, when he referred to their regime as a "stinking mob". Referring to Deedes's decision to speak out against the Barclays (it is presumed this includes the Telegraph's chief executive Murdoch MacLennan), Worsthorne's original review read: "Deploring their recent bout of sackings, Deedes calls them 'a stinking mob'."

But the published version read: "Almost on his deathbed, throwing caution to the winds - as he must frequently have done all those years ago on the field of battle - Deedes does the duty which any journalist worth his salt must do at least once in a lifetime. Dear Bill lets his last colleagues feel the rough edge of his tongue, calling them 'a stinking mob'."

Worsthorne said he had complained at length about the alterations before publication and claimed he had been told they had to be made to avoid upsetting the Barclays. He says: "I said I thought it was a scandal. The choice was that all reference to the Barclays had to come out or the review would not run. It totally stands on its head what Bill was really like and I told them that everyone who saw it would think that the Spectator had gone mad. It can't be healthy that such a blatant piece of blue pencilling should go unnoticed."