01538-25 Green v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Samantha Green complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic”, published on 31 March 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on the front-page of the newspaper – opened by reporting that a “toddler was suspended from nursery after being accused of being transphobic or homophobic”, and that “Department for Education [DfE] data show the child, aged either three or four, was suspended from a state school in the 2022-23 academic year for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’”. The article went on to report that “[t]he school and further details of the case were not disclosed” and that “students could be excluded for multiple reasons”.

3. The article also appeared online in substantially the same format. It also had a sub-headline, which reported that a “Child [was] suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, official figures show.”

4. The complainant said that the headline was misleading as, while it said the toddler had been excluded “for being transphobic”, the dataset did not distinguish between homophobia and transphobia; rather, one of the possible reasons given for an exclusion was: “abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity". It was not clear, therefore, whether the child had been excluded for transphobic behaviour – they could have been excluded for being homophobic.

5. The complainant also said that the headline of the article was inaccurate as the dataset which the article was based on made clear that up to three reasons could be recorded for suspension or exclusion, and these reasons would be recorded without weighting or prioritisation. The complainant said therefore, there was no way to know what any particular child was excluded or suspended for, and whether the reason given in the article was the primary or sole reason for an exclusion. She noted that there was one line within the article which reported that there could be multiple reasons cited for the suspensions, but she did not consider that the single line was sufficient to make this clear.

6. The complainant also said the headline and article unduly focused on the question of transphobia, which further misrepresented the data - she said a large proportion of the article related to views which she considered to be gender critical and did not relate to homophobia.

7. The publication did not accept that Clause 1 had been breached. It said the grounds for the suspension were fully quoted in the online sub-headline, and were clearly explained in the rest of the article. It added that the article set out the basis for the headline - the statistics from the Department of Education for suspensions from state schools – and provided clear evidence for the headline's accuracy.

8. The publication also noted that the article acknowledged that there could have been up to two other reasons for this specific suspension. The publication said, regardless of whether this was the sole reason behind the suspension or just one factor, this did not mean that it was inaccurate to report it as having been cited as a reason for the exclusion.

9. The complainant noted that the online sub-headline, which set out that the child was “suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’”, did not appear in the print version of the article.

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.

Findings of the Committee

10. The Committee first considered whether the headline breached Clause 1 by reporting that a toddler had been “kicked out of nursery for being transphobic”. Neither party disputed that the reason given for the exclusion was “abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity”, or that this may have been one of up to three reasons for the exclusion. However, the complainant had said that, as the headline referred only to transphobia – and it was possible that the expulsion was due to homophobia – it was misleading.

11. The Committee was mindful that the opening paragraph of the print article - and the sub-headline of the online version of the article - referenced the exact reason given in the DfE dataset for the expulsion: “abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity”. Therefore, it was clear that the headline was focusing on one possible reason for the exclusion, and that the full reason given in the dataset referenced both abuse against gender identity and sexual orientation.

12. The Committee therefore considered whether the headline was inaccurate or misleading to focus on one of the reasons given by the dataset. It noted that the selection of material for publication is a matter of editorial discretion. This also means that publications have the discretion to choose what information to emphasise or focus on in its reporting, provided the Code is not otherwise breached. Given this, and where the article clearly set out the precise wording used in the dataset, the Committee did not consider that the publication’s decision to reference transphobia in its headline rendered it inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. This was particularly the case where neither party disputed that discrimination against gender identity was cited in the dataset as a reason for the exclusion. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

13. The complainant had also said that the headline was inaccurate as it was not clear from the data whether transphobia was the sole or primary reason for the expulsion. The Committee noted that the text of the article reported that “students could be excluded for multiple reasons”. It also noted that it was not in dispute that the reason given for the expulsion was “abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity”. Regardless of whether this was the sole or primary reason for the exclusion, it was clearly a factor – given it had been recorded in the data. In such circumstances, the headline did not breach Clause 1 on this point.

14. The complainant had also said the article breached Clause 1, as she considered it unduly focused on the question of transphobia – which she argued further misrepresented the DfE data. The Committee acknowledged that the complainant may have disagreed with the views presented within the article. However, the selection and sourcing of material for publication was a matter of editorial discretion, provided the Code is not otherwise breached. Therefore, the focus on the question of transphobia did not, in and of itself, represent a breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

15. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

16. N/A

Date complaint received: 31/03/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 29/10/2025