01561-24 Kelly v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Aidan Kelly complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment), and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Meet the doctors who doled out puberty blockers to a generation of vulnerable children, including a girl just because she liked Thomas the Tank Engine as a toddler - and how some are still offering the powerful drugs privately...”, published on 10 April 2024.

2. The article included the complainant in a list of professionals it said had “doled out” puberty blockers. It said the complainant was a “psychologist [who] previously worked at GIDS [Gender Identity Development Service] from 2016 to 2021”. A picture of the complainant was included alongside this description.

3. The complainant was referred to the publication on 16 April. The newspaper did not contact the complainant within 28 days of the complaint being referred to it by IPSO. IPSO then contacted the publication directly on 15 May. The publication then did not respond to IPSO until 10 June.

4. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. He disputed that he had ever “doled out” puberty blockers, and said the term “doled out” gave the impression he had liberally prescribed puberty blockers to children - which he disputed. He said, as a psychologist, he did not have the ability to prescribe the blockers as he was not a medical doctor and therefore not qualified to do so. He said that, while he was part of teams making assessments on whether to prescribe the blockers, he did not make the decision for the medication to be prescribed and only a “tiny” number of children he saw went on to be prescribed puberty blockers. He also said that, while the article clarified that he was a psychologist, the text of the headline, accompanied by the image of him, gave a strong impression that he had prescribed the drugs.

5. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 12 for the same reasons listed above. He also said the article breached Clause 3 because he said the image of him alongside what he considered an inflammatory headline could incite harassment of him.

6. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to state the complainant had “doled out” blockers. It disputed the meaning of “doled out” as described by the complainant and cited a dictionary which defined “doling out” as “to give or deliver in small portions”. It added that the headline did not state the complainant prescribed the blockers, and the text of the article made clear the complainant was a psychologist. It also said that, as the complainant worked at GIDS, which did prescribe blockers, and his website said he had specialist skills “in making recommendations for gender affirming medical treatments [….] for adults and children”, there was a basis to report that the complainant “doled out” the medication.

7. To support its position, the publication also supplied a video of the complainant speaking at a conference where, in reference to blockers, he stated: “I've never given it to someone who's 10, but probably 11 or 12 you know which is really, really young.”

8. The publication did not accept that the complainant’s concerns engaged Clause 3 and Clause 12 of the Code. It said "inciting harassment” was not something which Clause 3 encompasses, and the Clause relates to the behaviour of journalists in the news-gathering process, not the effect an article might have on people who featured in it.

9. The complainant said he had been quoted selectively in the video provided by the publication. He stated that what he had said in full was:

"the hypothalamic blocker is available dependant on puberty, so the youngest you can get it, so depending how far into puberty you are you could, in theory, get the blocker as young as, I've never given it to someone who's 10, but probably 11 or 12 you know which is really, really young."

10. The complainant stated that he had never “given” or recommended any child as young as eleven or twelve for the treatment. Rather, the video showed him explaining that the youngest a person could be to qualify for the blocker would be eleven or twelve.

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 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 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

11. The Committee firstly expressed concern at Mail Online’s systemic delays in dealing with complaints.

12. The Committee acknowledged that the complainant and the publication attributed different definitions to the term “doled out” and the Committee accepted that the term was open to interpretation. The complainant’s principal complaint was that the headline was inaccurate because he did not prescribe puberty blockers at all. In assessing the complaint, the Committee noted that the headline did not say that each of the individuals featured had prescribed puberty blockers and it considered that, in the context in which it was used, the term meant dispensed, given that the text of the article went on to describe the varying roles played by the individuals. The article accurately described the complainant’s current position and his background, namely that he had formerly been a member of staff at GIDS between 2016-2021 and noted that the article reported elsewhere that GIDS had “roll[ed] out puberty blockers”. In circumstances where the complainant accepted he had been part of the clinical process at GIDS which led to children being prescribed puberty blockers, the Committee did not consider it was significantly inaccurate to characterise him as one of one of “the doctors who doled out puberty blockers”, particularly as the article made clear that the complainant had worked at GIDS as a psychologist. There was no breach of Clause 1.

13. Clause 12 is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability, rather than concerns that reporting is inaccurate Clause 3 does not relate to the behaviour of the general public, but the way journalists behave when gathering news, including the nature and extent of their contacts with the subject of the story. Where the complainant’s concerns on these points did not relate to the terms of either Clause, there was no breach of the Code.

Conclusions

14. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

15. N/A

Date complaint received: 11/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 30/09/2024