Decision of the Complaints Committee – 00120-20 Moses v
Metro.co.uk
Summary of Complaint
1. Sian Moses complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that Metro.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 “Youth support worker ‘said
she could turn any woman gay’”, published on 26 November 2019 and an article
headlined “Youth worker who boasted ‘I can turn any woman gay’ allowed back to
work”, published on 24 December 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 reported that the woman had “denied eleven
charges of unacceptable professional conduct and argued that it was Colleague A
who had made the sexual advances towards her.” It listed allegations against her
such as her having allegedly told the married colleague that “I can turn any
woman gay”. The article also included photos of the children’s home official,
which had been taken from her Facebook page, and one of her walking down the
street.
3. The second article included much of the same content. This
article reported on the outcome of the hearing, which was that her behaviour
was “inappropriate” but did not amount to unacceptable professional conduct to
lose her job. It also included the allegation that she “had made remarks of a
sexual nature – including a reference to her nickname being ‘Tina Turner’
because she could ‘turn any woman gay’ and that she liked ‘little blondes’”.
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” and the second article had additionally said she called herself
“Tina Turner” because she could “turn” women gay. The complainant said that it
was her colleagues who said this, and gave her this nickname, 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 towards 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 photographs that had been taken from her Facebook profile
and a photo of her on the street that was taken without her knowledge. The
complainant said that her Facebook profile was set so it could only be seen by
friends and friends of friends, and could not be seen by journalists and it
therefore breached her privacy to publish these photos.
6. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 11
as it named her, when it was the other, unnamed, colleague who had made the
sexual advances towards her.
7. The complainant also said that the articles breached Clause 12
as they discriminated against her as a lesbian.
8. The publication said it did not accept any breaches of the
Code. It said that the reference to the complainant making comments of a sexual
nature came from the findings of the hearing. It also said that it had included
the complainant’s counter-allegation, that she had been the victim of the
sexual advances, within the articles. It was not necessary to include the
marital status or sexual orientation of the colleague, as the articles reported
on the complainant’s hearing, and the colleague’s sexuality or marital status
were not relevant. Additionally, it said that both the headlines referred only
to the complainant and not to the colleague.
9. The publication said that the two photos did not intrude into
the complainant’s privacy. The photos from Facebook were openly available, and
it provided screenshots to support this. The photograph of the complainant
outside was taken on a public street and did not depict her engaging in any
sensitive, private or compromising acts – it was simply a picture of her
walking. It also said that it was entitled to report on her official hearing.
10. The publication considered that it was unclear exactly what
sexual misconduct the complainant was alleging to be the victim of; it appeared
that she was claiming to be the victim of the conduct she had been accused of,
meaning unacceptable professional conduct. It did not consider that its
articles had identified the complainant as a victim of sexual assault, nor did
it consider that “advances” having been made towards her reached the threshold
required for “sexual assault” under Clause 11. The publication said that it had
merely reported the allegations, which had been the subject of an open hearing
where the complainant had been named; the complainant’s claims were not the
subject of the tribunal’s investigation. Furthermore, it noted that the police
had seen and reviewed text messages between the complainant and her colleague
and had concluded that their relationship was consensual, and this had been
noted in the findings of the tribunal. It also noted that the police had not
considered the complainant to be a victim of sexual abuse.
11. The publication said its articles had not been 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
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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
16. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that it was her
colleagues who had said that she could “turn any woman gay” and had nicknamed
her “Tina Turner”. 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. After the hearing was concluded, prior to publication of the
second article, the Fitness to Practice Committee of the Education Workforce
Council issued its decision which stated that it “was satisfied that Ms Moses
did say she could ’turn any woman gay’, or words to that effect” and that she
had accepted the joke relating to calling her “Tina Turner”. The Committee
therefore found that the publication had taken care to avoid inaccuracy in both
articles in reporting what was heard in the complainant’s hearing and there was
no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
17. 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.
The first article was written whilst the hearing was ongoing and there was no
suggestion that she had been found guilty, and the second article reported that
the “disciplinary hearing ruled her behaviour was ‘inappropriate’ but did not
amount to unacceptable professional conduct to lose her job”. There was no
failure to take care over the accuracy of the article on this point.
18. The Committee found that it was not misleading to omit 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.
19. The Committee found that the Facebook pictures were openly
available on the complainant’s profile. It also noted 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 a reasonable expectation of privacy. Neither of the images
disclosed anything private about the complainant. There was no breach of Clause
2.
Findings of the Committee
20. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that it was her
colleagues who had said that she could “turn any woman gay” and had nicknamed
her “Tina Turner”. 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. After the hearing was concluded, prior to publication of the
second article, the Fitness to Practice Committee of the Education Workforce
Council issued its decision which stated that it “was satisfied that Ms Moses
did say she could ’turn any woman gay’, or words to that effect” and that she
had accepted the joke relating to calling her “Tina Turner”. The Committee
therefore found that the publication had taken care to avoid inaccuracy in both
articles in reporting what was heard in the complainant’s hearing and there was
no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
21. 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.
The first article was written whilst the hearing was ongoing and there was no
suggestion that she had been found guilty, and the second article reported that
the “disciplinary hearing ruled her behaviour was ‘inappropriate’ but did not
amount to unacceptable professional conduct to lose her job”. There was no
failure to take care over the accuracy of the article on this point.
22. The Committee found that it was not misleading to omit 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.
23. The Committee found that the Facebook pictures were openly
available on the complainant’s profile. It also noted 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 a reasonable expectation of privacy. Neither of the images
disclosed anything private about the complainant. There was no breach of Clause
2.
24. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that she had in
fact had been the victim of the allegations set out in the articles. 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.
25. 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
26. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
27. N/A
Date complaint received: 02/01/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 05/06/2020