05442-25 Moshelian v The National

Summary of Complaint

1. Michelle Moshelian complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The National breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Nandy says ‘reprehensible’ fans must be let into match”, published on 21 October 2025.

2. The article, which appeared on page 6, reported on the Culture Secretary’s response to an urgent question in the Commons regarding the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv football club fans attending a football match. The first paragraph of the article reported that she "admitted that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans barred from going to a football match in England are ‘reprehensible’ – after pledging that their attendance would be ensured by the Government". The article also quoted her as having said: "there are a minority of supporters in every club, and in this club in particular, whose behaviour is reprehensible, but that is not the case for all fans"; and, "the risk assessment is based in no small part on the risk posed to those fans that are attending to support Maccabi Tel Aviv because they are Israeli and because they are Jewish."

3. The article also reported that "[t]he team’s supporters were banned because of their history of football hooliganism, including violence and rioting, according to Birmingham’s safety advisory group", and that "Maccabi Tel Aviv fans are notorious for football hooliganism, with supporters involved in rioting in Amsterdam last year."

4. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format.

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She said it gave the misleading impression that the Culture Secretary described all Maccabi Tel Aviv fans as "reprehensible". She said she actually – as set out in the quote in the article – referred to a minority of supporters only.

6. The complainant also she did not consider the article accurately reported on the reason for the ban. She said that official statements said fans were banned from attending due to "current intelligence and previous incidents, including violent clashes and hate crime offences". She said there was no statement solely blamed the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. She also said it was inaccurate to describe the fans as "notorious" as she considered this to be opinion; she added that other football teams had a documented history of violence and were not described as “notorious”. She also said that, after the article’s publication, the match took place without the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans and 11 arrests were made. The complainant said this demonstrated that any blame attributed to the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans was misplaced.

7. The complainant also said that the article was misleading as it omitted to report that: a dossier had been submitted to the police prior to the ban; other football club fans with a history of violence had not been banned; and the Maccabi Tel Aviv fan ban appeared to be uniquely influenced by geopolitical factors.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. It said that the text of the article made clear that the Culture Secretary was not referring to all fans, and her exact words on the topic were included in the article. It said that, given the Culture Secretary had said that all Maccabi Tel Aviv fans should have been allowed into the football match, and had not indicated that any fans should be barred from attending the match, the “reprehensible” fans were among those she said should have been let into the match.

9. The publication also noted the article made clear that the ban was also "in no small part on the risk posed to those fans". It also said that the ban cited the incident that took place at a previous Maccabi Tel Aviv game in Amsterdam. The publication said this made clear the reason for the ban, including the risk to Maccabi Tel Aviv fans.

10. It also did not consider describing the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans as "notorious" was inaccurate - it considered the very existence of the ban illustrated this, as did the Culture Secretary specifying concerns about the behaviour of fans in "this club in particular" in her response.

11. The publication also said that it did not consider that omitting the information cited by the complainant rendered the article inaccurate, and noted that newspapers have the right to choose which piece of information they publish, as long as this does not lead to a breach of the Code.

Relevant Clause Provisions

1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

12. The Committee noted that the Culture Secretary had described some fans as “reprehensible” in response to the urgent question in the Commons. Where the Culture Secretary had said certain fans were reprehensible, but that all fans should be allowed to watch the game, it did not consider it was inaccurate to summarise this as “‘reprehensible’ fans must be let into match”.

13. The Committee acknowledged that the headline could possibly be understood to mean that all Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had been described as reprehensible. However, the article provided the necessary clarification, by including a quote from the Culture Secretary: "there are a minority of supporters in every club, and in this club in particular, whose behaviour is reprehensible, but that is not the case for all fans". This very explicit reference made clear that the Culture Secretary was not referring to all fans. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

14. Turning to whether the article accurately described the reason for the ban, the Committee took into account that the article was reporting on comments made by the Culture Secretary about the ban. It did not purport to report the full reasoning given for the ban by the relevant authorities, and it was entitled to summarise the reasoning for the ban – provided it did so accurately. The Committee also noted that the article clearly set out that the ban was "in no small part” due to “the risk posed” to Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. The Committee therefore considered that the article made clear that the behaviour of Maccabi fans was not the sole motivation for the ban, and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

15. The Committee considered that the term “notorious” was inherently subjective. It also noted the large amount of coverage relating to the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, including the then-recent news coverage of the fans’ behaviour in Amsterdam. It considered, in these circumstances, that it was not inaccurate for the newspaper to characterise the fans as “notorious” – there was a basis for the newspaper’s subjective assessment of the fans as such. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

16. Finally, the Committee considered the omissions raised by the complainant. As noted above, the article focused on the Culture Secretary’s response to the ban. rather than the reasoning for the ban. It was therefore not inaccurate for the article to omit to reference the further information flagged by the complainant, which related to the circumstances of the ban and the perceived motivations for the ban being put in place. These omissions did not raise a breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

17. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 22/10/2026

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 03/02/2026

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.