Decision of the Complaints Committee 01555-19 Mermaids
and Gendered Intelligence v The Sunday Times
Summary of complaint
1. Mermaids and
Gendered Intelligence complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that The Sunday Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2
(Privacy) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices or subterfuge) of the Editors’
Code of Practice in an article headlined “Child sex-change charity Mermaids
handed £500,000 by national lottery”, published on 16 December 2018, and an
article headlined “Trans clinic fears damage to children as activists harass
staff”, published on 17 February 2019. The articles were also published in
substantially the same form online.
2. The first
article reported that Mermaids, a charity which supports gender diverse and
transgender youth, had been awarded £500,000 by the national lottery. It
reported that the chief executive of the charity had announced the grant on a
“private Mermaids Facebook group”, and had told members that she was “very
excited [by the] amazing news” but was “not allowed to publicise [it]
externally”. The article said that Mermaids was a charity which “campaigns for
children to be given prohibited sex change treatment” and “wants to overturn an
NHS ban on under-16s being treated with cross-sex hormones”. Against that
background, the article reported that the decision to grant the charity the payment
had been criticised from a variety of sources.
3. The second
article reported that doctors from within the NHS’s only gender clinic for
children, had raised concerns that the clinic was “exposing young patients to
‘long-term damage’ because of its ‘inability to stand up to the pressure’ from
‘highly politicised’ campaigners and families demanding fast-track gender
transition”. The article said that a report into staff concerns had been
commissioned in 2018, and an official review had subsequently been drawn up in
response to the criticisms. The article said that the report had found that the
clinic had “close relationships with organisations that are identified as part
of the pro-trans lobby such as Gendered Intelligence and Mermaids, and [went]
to some lengths to placate them.” The article said that sources within the
clinic had said that Mermaids were “critical” of the service provided by the
clinic and had claimed that claiming that “its refusal to treat children more
quickly leads many to attempt suicide”. One staff member was quoted as saying,
“We are caught in the middle. We are accused of going too quickly by some
people and too slowly by others”.
4. The complainant,
Mermaids, said that its Chief Executive had announced the lottery funding on a
closed and private Facebook group, which could only be accessed by invitation
following a careful vetting process including stringent security checks and a
requirement to agree to rules and codes of conduct. The complainant said that
the information about the grant had not been made public at the time of
publication. It said that accessing the Facebook group, and publishing the
comments which were made by the charity’s Chief Executive in the first article,
without consent, the newspaper had breached Clause 2 and Clause 10. The
complainant said that the journalist’s conduct was of particular concern, given
that private and personal matters were discussed on the group, including
medical information about children.
5. The complainant
also said that the first article was inaccurate, in breach of Clause 1, to
report that as a charity, it “campaigns for children to be given prohibited sex
change treatment” and “wants to overturn an NHS ban on under-16s being treated
with cross-sex hormones”.
6. The complainants
said that the headline to the second article had asserted, as fact, that
Mermaids and Gendered Intelligence as organisations had harassed staff at the
NHS clinic, in breach of Clause 1. It said that this was an unsubstantiated
allegation of a serious criminal offence and noted that no examples were given
in the article of harassment or alleged harassment in respect of its staff. In
response to a request by IPSO, the complainants acknowledged that it had not
seen the report, or the clinic’s review into the report’s findings.
7. The newspaper
did not accept any breach of the Code. It denied that it had accessed
information by use of subterfuge or misrepresentation or in a manner which
breached Clause 2. It said that the statement from Mermaid’s Chief Executive
had made on a Facebook group with 1,970 members, and had been provided to the
reporter by a source who had legitimate access to the group. It said that it
was unable to provide further information on this source, in light of the
obligations placed upon it under Clause 14 of the Code. It said that article
did not reveal details of any individual's private or family lives or
correspondence.
8. Without
prejudice to this position, the newspaper said that there was a clear public
interest in revealing the award of a large sum of public money to a
“controversial” charity. It said lottery tickets are bought by millions of
people across the UK and the public have a legitimate interest in knowing what
the proceeds are being spent on. It noted that as soon as the grant was made
public, there was a significant debate, and the Big Lottery Fund launched a
review into the award.
9. The newspaper
said that it was a matter of public record that Mermaids had repeatedly stated
that the NHS ban on under-16s being treated with cross-sex hormones - sex
change treatment which is currently prohibited - should be overturned. It said
that in written evidence to the House of Commons' Women and Equalities
Committee inquiry on transgender equality, Mermaids stated that the age limit
of "[greater than] 16 years before cross sex hormones are offered" is
an area that "require[s] urgent revision”, and described it as an
"arbitrary time limit not related to individual need." The newspaper
noted that in oral evidence to the Committee the Chair of Mermaids, said
"around 15" was an "appropriate age" for cross-sex
hormones.
10. The newspaper
disagreed that the headline to the second article had asserted, as fact, that
the complainants had harassed staff at the clinic; it noted that the activists
accused of harassment were not identified. Without prejudice to this argument,
the newspaper provided the following extract from the report into the clinic:
"All of the staff who spoke to me have shown an acute
awareness and sensitivity to this very difficult socio-cultural landscape
within which the service is operating... However, all of them have been clear
that the service has not been able to maintain real neutrality, forming close
relationships with organisations that are identified as part of the pro trans
lobby such as Gendered Intelligence and Mermaid [sic] and going to some length
to placate them... This inability to stand up to the trans lobby has been a
major area of concern and also is closely related to the staff fear of
intimidation”
11. The newspaper
also provided an extract from the review into the report:
“A particular issue that emerged for the trust and clinical
staff within the service has been the pressure from strongly held views by
various pressure groups, namely the transaffirmative and trans-critical
lobbies. This continual interest, critical scrutiny and often very strongly
held opinions has created an atmosphere of significant persecution for staff
and the need to repeatedly address some of the issues emerging from groups
having definite agendas”
12. The newspaper
acknowledged that the review had not named the “pressure groups” alleged to
have created an “atmosphere of significant persecution for staff” at GIDS, but
said that the report, to which the review was responding, repeatedly named the
complainants. It said that they were the only pressure groups, of any sort, who
were named in the report and, therefore, it was reasonable to conclude that
these were the groups to which the review was referring.
Relevant Code Provisions
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.
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.
Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*
i) The press must
not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or
clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone
calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or
photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without consent.
ii) Engaging in
misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can
generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the
material cannot be obtained by other means.
Clause 14 (Confidential sources)
Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential
sources of information.
Findings of the Committee
13. The newspaper
said that its journalist had been approached by a confidential source who was a
member of the Facebook group, having joined it in line with its membership
specifications. This was not disputed by the complainant. The newspaper had
neither sought to obtain material for publication by use of subterfuge or
misrepresentation, nor done so via an agent; the terms of Clause 10 were not
engaged.
14. The Committee
noted that the Facebook group had privacy settings in place; however, it was a
group with a membership of 1,970 people. The comment posted by Mermaids’ Chief
Executive and reported in the first article did not reveal any private
information; it had disclosed the fact of a publicly funded national lottery
grant to the charity, and its Chief Executive’s reaction to it. No private
information about members of the group had been disclosed. Taking into account
the nature of the information and the fact that it had been disclosed to a
large audience, the Committee concluded that the complainant did not have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to this information; nor did its
publication in the first article under complaint represent an intrusion. There
was no breach of Clause 2.
15. It was not in
dispute that Mermaids had stated publicly that the current age limit of 16
years before cross sex hormones are offered is an area that "require[s]
urgent revision”. It was also accepted that the charity considered 15 to be an
"appropriate age" for cross-sex hormones. In those circumstances, it
was neither inaccurate nor misleading to report that the complainant “campaigns
for children to be given prohibited sexchange treatment” or that it “wants to
overturn an NHS ban on under-16s being treated with cross-sex hormones”. There
was no breach of Clause 1 in respect of the first article.
16. The Committee
acknowledged the complainants' position that the headline to the second
article-namely that "activists" were harassing staff at the
clinic-would be understood to be a reference to them given that they were named
in the text of the article. The complainants said the headline was not
presented as a claim, but as established fact, which they said was without
basis. The Committee noted that the article reported on a report which had been compiled by the then staff
governor of the clinic in which concerns had been identified about the clinic’s
"inability to stand up to the pressure" from "highly
politicised" campaigners. The article explained, further, that the
official review drawn up in response to the report identified lobbying by
pressure groups as having created
"an atmosphere of significant persecution” and that a minority of
clinicians had said that they felt that they were "subject to
bullying". The newspaper accepted that the complainants had not been
identified in the review, but said that the review had been produced in
response to the report in which the complainants were the only pressure groups
who were named; this was not disputed by the complainants. The Committee noted
the specific references to the complainants in the article: that they are part of the pro-trans lobby
which the clinic “went to some lengths to placate”; that one of the
complainants had been critical of the service provided by the clinic for not
treating children more quickly; and that
a member of staff had commented, with reference to one of the complainants,
that the staff were caught in the middle and were “accused of going too quickly
by some people and too slowly by others”.
The Committee considered that, in light of the nature of the article,
the headline would be understood to be a reference to the concerns which had
been raised in the report and the review, rather than as a statement of
unequivocal fact. To the extent that
readers would understand the complainants to be the activists to which the
headline referred, the Committee found that the headline was not significantly
inaccurate in light of the criticisms made in the report of the trans lobby, of
which the complainants were identified as being part, and the criticisms made
of them, by implication, in the review. The nature of those criticisms was also
set out in the article. In those
circumstances, the headline was not inaccurate or misleading in breach of
Clause 1.
Conclusions
17. The complaint
was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 19/02/2019
Date decision issued: 26/09/2019