Decision of the Complaints Committee – 00027-20 Moses v
walesonline.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Sian Moses complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that walesonline.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2
(Privacy), Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault) and Clause 12 (Discrimination)
of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Children's home youth
worker touched married colleague's breast and boasted she could turn any woman
gay, hearing told”, published on 26 November 2019, and an article headlined
“Children's home youth worker used excessive force to restrain vulnerable
teenagers, hearing told”, published on 29 November 2019.
2. The first article reported on a hearing before the
Fitness to Practice Committee of the Education Workforce Council into
allegations made against a children’s home official that she had made sexual
advances and comments towards another female, a married co-worker referred to
as “Colleague A”, whilst on duty. The article contained a quote from the
alleged victim “She said: "Moses began making inappropriate comments towards
me like 'I could have you if I wanted you' and 'I can turn any woman gay'.” It
also reported that “Moses argues that the roles were reversed and that it was
Colleague A who made the advances towards her.” The article also included a
photo of the children’s home official walking down the street. After this
article was published, the Fitness to Practice Committee of the Education
Workforce Council found the children’s home official’s behaviour did not amount
to unacceptable professional conduct.
3. The second article also reported on the hearing, but the
focus was on allegations that the official had used excessive force against
children in the home. It also included the allegation that she had “boasted ‘I
can turn any straight woman gay’” and her claim that she was the recipient of
the unwanted advances.
4. The complainant, the children’s home official who was
facing the allegations, said that the articles were inaccurate in breach of
Clause 1. She said they inaccurately reported that she had said that she could
“turn any woman gay”. It was, in fact, her colleagues who had said this, not
her. She also said it was inaccurate to report that she had allegedly made
sexual advances towards her colleague; in fact, she was the one who had
received the unwanted sexual advances. The complainant also said it was
inaccurate not to report that the colleague she had been accused of making
advances toward was married to a woman; the headlines made it seem that the
colleague was heterosexual and married to a man.
5. The complainant also said that the articles breached
Clause 2 because they included a photo of her on the street that was taken
without her knowledge.
6. In addition, she said that the articles breached Clause
11 as they named her, when it was the other, unnamed, colleague who had made
the sexual advances towards her.
She also considered that the articles breached Clause 12 as
they discriminated against her as a lesbian.
7. The publication did not accept any breaches of the Code.
It said that the references to the complainant making comments of a sexual
nature came from the findings of the hearing.
8. The publication said that the photo did not intrude into
the complainant’s privacy. It had been taken in a public place and did not
contain any private information about her. Furthermore, it did not consider
that the alleged sexual advances amounted to sexual assault, and it noted that
this had been confirmed by the police. On this basis, it did not consider that
the terms of Clause 11 were engaged.
9. The publication said that it had not acted in a way that
was discriminatory towards the complainant. It had not used any discriminatory
references, and whilst it had reported on her gender and sexual orientation,
this was genuinely relevant to the story as it was heard in the context of the
sexual advances she had allegedly made.
Relevant Code Provisions
10. Clause 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.
11. Clause 2 (Privacy)*
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any
individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's
reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's
own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material
complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without
their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
12. Clause 11 (Victims of sexual assault)
The press must not identify or publish material likely to
lead to the identification of a victim of sexual assault unless there is
adequate justification and they are legally free to do so. Journalists are
entitled to make enquiries but must take care and exercise discretion to avoid
the unjustified disclosure of the identity of a victim of sexual assault.
13. Clause 12 (Discrimination)
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference
to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual
orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion,
gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability
must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Findings of the Committee
14. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that it
was her colleagues who had said that she could “turn any woman gay”. It was the
publication’s position that these were allegations that had been made during
the hearing, and it had accurately reported them. The complainant had not
demonstrated that these allegations were not made during the hearing and due
care had been taken in reporting them as allegations. The Committee therefore
found that the publication had taken care to avoid inaccuracy in both articles
in reporting what was heard at the complainant’s disciplinary hearing and there
was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
15. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that she
had been the victim of sexual advances made by Colleague A. The Committee found
that the newspaper was entitled to report on the hearing before the Fitness to
Practice Committee, which concerned the allegations which had been made against
the complainant. The articles made clear that these were allegations which the
complainant denied, and her position that the advances were made by Colleague
A. Both articles also made clear that the hearing was ongoing. There was no
failure to take care over the accuracy of the article on this point. There was
no breach of Clause 1.
16. The Committee found that it was not misleading to omit
the sexual orientation or marital status of Colleague A from the articles, as
these matters had no bearing on the report of the complainant’s hearing. It did
not find that either of the headlines implied that Colleague A was married to a
man. There was no breach of Clause 1.
17. The Committee found that the photograph, which had been
taken without the complainant’s knowledge, had been taken on a public street
and simply showed her likeness, and not any private activity about which she
had no reasonable expectation of privacy. In addition, the image did not
disclose anything private about the complainant. There was no breach of Clause
2.
18. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that sexual
advances had been made towards her. However, the publication had not identified
the complainant as a victim of sexual assault; “sexual advances” do not meet
this threshold. In light of this, the terms of Clause 11 had not been engaged.
19. The Committee noted that the articles referred to the
complainant’s sexual orientation and gender. Neither of the articles used
prejudicial or pejorative references to either her sexual orientation or
gender, and, due to the allegations heard at the hearing, the complainant’s
sexual orientation was genuinely relevant to the story. There was no breach of
Clause 12.
Conclusions
20. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
21. N/A
Date complaint received: 02/01/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/06/2020
Back to ruling listing