Resolution Statement – 00320-24 A complainant v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. A complainant complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 6 (Children) and Clause 14 (Confidential Sources) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in the preparation and publication of an article headlined “EXCLUSIVE Headteacher 'used Nword to describe black pupils' at 'toxic' primary school at centre of racism and bullying storm: Third of pupils have now been pulled from lessons by their worried parents”, published on 30 July 2023.

2. The article, which appeared online only, reported on allegations at a local school. Bullet points under the headline said: “EXCLUSIVE: Pupils leaving [a named school] in droves” and “Headteacher [the complainant] allegedly used the N-word to describe black children”. It then opened by reporting:

“Teachers, governors and pupils are leaving a 'toxic' primary school in droves over allegations of 'commonplace' racism, bullying and serious failings.

[A named school] in Malmesbury, Wiltshire, has lost around a third of its pupils as parents pull their children out amid a plethora of concerns.

Causing the most consternation is an allegation that in November 2021, the Headteacher [the complainant] - who took over headship in late 2019 - used the N-word to describe a group of black children.

The whistleblower, an experienced and long-serving teacher, claims that she was put on a support plan and told to complete demeaning tasks, became frightened at work and felt victimised.

She resigned in May 2022, citing that 'I did not feel I could continue working in a school where racism, bullying and victimisation were commonplace, especially when such allegations were covered up'.

Following the alleged incident, all school staff were sent on a diversity awareness course.”

3. Further to this, the article reported: “The whistleblower isn't the only teacher to have walked out, with about 22 staff leaving since the new head's arrival. In the past three months alone, three staff members have resigned including the assistant headteacher. Many of them cited [the complainant’s] behaviour as the reason in exit interviews and at least two staff members were close to taking their own lives, according to an insider”.

4. Additionally, it added:

“In another alleged incident, death threats were sent to a pupil via an online learning platform. According to the insider, it's believed one pupil accessed another pupil's account to send the threatening messages.

When the victim's parents got involved and asked the school if the police were informed, the senior leadership team reportedly claimed that they had been - but couldn't provide a crime reference number or other information. On checking with the police, it was confirmed that no report had ever been made in relation to the incident.

It's alleged that members of the senior leadership team called the boy - who was accepted to be an innocent party - in for a meeting and effectively told him that the police will be coming to question him about it. It's said the boy was left in tears and scared about what might happen next.

In a shock move in June, more than half the [the school’s] governing body resigned, losing six out of seven foundation governors and the school's only local authority governor.

It came after the board had attempted to investigate numerous allegations made against the headteacher – and were reportedly blocked by Wiltshire Council”.

5. Finally, at its close, it also reported: “MailOnline contacted [the school] for comment”.

6. The article also included a photograph of the complainant. The photograph, taken from the shoulders upward, showed the complainant’s face. It was captioned: “[the school’s] headteacher [the complainant] is accused of using the Nword to describe a group of black pupils”.

7. The complainant said that the article contained numerous inaccuracies in breach of Clause 1 – overall, they stated that it had been based on information maliciously leaked to the publication, and the publication had failed to do due diligence prior to reporting it. The complainant also said that the article only reported one side of the story, in breach of Clause 1.

8. Firstly, they stated that they had not used the n-word to describe any specific individual, and in particular, no specific child – rather, they had used it when “referring to when groups of people and rappers use it amongst themselves”. They stated that the matter had been investigated , and they had been cleared with no further action brought. In support of their position, they supplied a summary of an external report into their actions.

9. Further, the complainant said that the article inaccurately and misleadingly suggested that all staff and pupils who had left the school had done so due to the complainant’s actions. The complainant said not all of the staff’s departures could be attributed to the complainant. The complainant also stated that the governors at the school had not resigned due to their actions, and that the article was inaccurate to suggest this.

10. The complainant also objected to the description of the environment at the school – they said racism and bullying were not “commonplace”, and that the school had been found by OFSTED to be a “warm and nurturing place”. They also said that there had been no evidence of whistleblowing activity, and that no individual had been put on a “support plan”, told to complete “demeaning tasks”, or “victimised”.

11. The complainant also complained about the article’s description of the incident involving one pupil sending threatening messages to another – the complainant stated the police had informed them that they had “done everything [they] can”, and that a crime reference number was not provided to them as the police stated it was for the parents of the child to report the incident themselves.

12. Further, the complainant stated that the article breached Clause 2 (Privacy) because it reported their name, and included a photograph of them, without their permission. They also believe it had been based on their internal HR file – and reiterated that the article reported internal allegations which should not have been public.

13. Moreover, the complainant stated that the publication’s reporter had breached Clause 3 (Harassment) due to his actions prior to the article’s publication – they objected to his tone in correspondence, and stated that he had suggested on social media, and in emails prior to the article’s publication, that he may write further articles on the matter in question. The complainant also stated that the article itself breached Clause 3, as they believed it had been reported without due diligence, and had led to bullying and harassment in their local community.

14. Further, the complainant stated that the article breached Clause 6 (Children) because of the impact it had had both on children at the school, and on their own children. They also stated that it breached Clause 14 (Confidential Sources), again because it reported information and allegations which they considered had been leaked.

15. On 27 March, IPSO began an investigation into the complaint.

16. The publication did not accept a breach of the Clause 1. It stated, firstly, that the article was clearly based on allegations, and was not reported as fact – it said that it was entitled to report on allegations, where they were distinguished as such. It stated that the article was based on information provided by a whistleblower, and it noted that there was an “overwhelming” public interest in reporting the allegations, given they concerned a headteacher.

17. Regarding the claim that the complainant used the “n-word” – the publication stated that this allegation had been made by a fellow teacher, and that the initial allegation demonstrated that the complainant was accused of describing a group of black children with the word. It supplied IPSO with the initial allegation. It also stated that any difference between “pupil” and “children”, such as in the headline, was not significant, given that it was not unreasonable to assume that “children” would including “pupils” – it said it had used the terms “interchangeably”. The publication also supplied further emails from staff at the school which, it said, evidenced that there had been “no repercussions” against the complainant following the allegation.

18. Regarding the statement that staff, pupils and governors had left the school following the complainant’s appointment and due to their actions, the publication supplied witness statements from numerous teachers, as well as quotes from their exit interviews - they said the statements demonstrated, while the complainant may disagree, it was “beyond dispute” that numerous staff had cited the complainant as a reason for their exit, or expressed concerns about working with the complainant. Similarly, the publication also supplied resignation letters from a number of governors of the school – many expressed concerns that issues raised at the school had not been adequately addressed.

19. The publication also expressed concerns about the independent report into the complainant’s actions, which the complainant supplied. It stated that it was “completely contradicted” by the first-hand witness statements from various members of staff at the school. It also stated that the independent report validated the need to report the allegations, given concerns they had not been properly investigated.

20. The publication disputed the complainant’s claims regarding the “whistleblower”. It said the article clearly reported the claims of a teacher on this point, which the teacher was entitled to make, and which it was entitled to report – it noted that the complainant was not in a position to know how the teacher in question felt about the actions taken at the school. It supplied IPSO with testimony from said teacher. In response to the complainant’s concerns that the article inaccurately reported on the environment at the school – such as that it was “toxic” – the publication again referred to the statements provided by numerous staff. It also stated that the complainant’s complaint regarding the online safeguarding incident did not contradict the information reported in the article.

21. The publication also noted that it had contacted the complainant for comment, and had given them a right of reply – its reporter had emailed and phoned the complainant prior to the article’s publication.

22. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It stated that, while it had reported information from private documents, there was a clear public interest in doing so. It also added that these had not come directly from the complainant’s HR file. Further, it stated that the image of the complainant had been taken from the school’s website.

23. It also added that the complainant’s concerns under Clause 3, Clause 6 and Clause 14 did not engage the terms of the Editors’ Code.

24. In response, the complainant maintained that the article was based on information that had been maliciously leaked, and that the publication had failed to do due diligence prior to the article’s publication.

25. The complainant also maintained that they had been cleared of wrongdoing by the investigation, and objected to the publication’s comments regarding the investigation – they stated that it had been conducted by an HR consultant, independent from the school itself. The complainant also objected to the suggestion that the allegations against them had not been adequately addressed; an investigation had been conducted and, they said, they would have been removed from their role, or disciplined, had the allegations been upheld.

26. They also noted that the article had caused “widespread” damage to the school, and to the local community.

Relevant Clause 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.

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.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental 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.

Clause 3 (Harassment)*

i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.

iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.

Clause 6 (Children)*

i) All pupils should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion.

ii) They must not be approached or photographed at school without permission of the school authorities.

iii) Children under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents.

iv) Children under 16 must not be paid for material involving their welfare, nor parents or guardians for material about their children or wards, unless it is clearly in the child's interest.

v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's private life.

Clause 14 (Confidential sources)

Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information.

Mediated Outcome

27. During the course of IPSO’s investigation, on 1 July, the publication offered to remove the article, and any associated links over which it had editorial control, to resolve the matter.

28. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to their satisfaction and, subsequently, the publication confirmed the proposed resolution had been actioned.

29. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code. 

Date complaint received: 15/01/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/07/2024