01567-24 Neeves v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Katie Neeves complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “EXCLUSIVE UN lauds trans activist as 'inspiration' at women's rights meet, despite admissions that she used to steal and wear her sister's panties because it 'felt so right'”, published on 8 March 2024.

2. The article reported on the complainant’s role as a UN Women UK delegate. It said that the “UN ha[d] praised trans activist Katie Neeves as an 'inspiration' for women's rights talks in New York, despite her confessions about stealing and wearing her sister's panties when she was a boy.” The article said the complainant had “revealed her trans backstory, and how as a boy he would 'secretly dress in my sister's clothes' because it 'felt so right' even as he felt 'shame and self-loathing' because 'it was dirty.'” The article also said that the complainant “has come under fire in the past for her accounts of her childhood confusion about her sex identity, which she says started when she was just three or four years old. In a video of a diversity training workshop that emerged in 2022, Neeves revealed how he used to steal his sister's 'knickers' — a British term for women's underwear — and wear them.”

3. The article reported that the “UN told DailyMail.com that Neeves was a 'guest attendee' of the 68th annual event and did not represent the world body. 'Katie is one of over 6,000 guest attendees from the UK virtually attending CSW68, where they will listen to and learn with guests from around the world,' said the email. 'They will bring practical ideas and inspiration back to their organizations and communities in the UK.'”

4. The article also included a video of the complainant speaking about her childhood; the article included the following quotes from the video: “'In my childhood, I used to secretly dress in my sister's clothes whenever I had the opportunity,' Neeves says in the video. 'And whenever I did it, it felt so right. But then those feelings of being right were very quickly overtaken by feelings of guilt, shame, and self-loathing. Because what I was doing was wrong, it was dirty, it was naughty, and not what respectable people did.'”

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it reported that she stole her sister’s underwear. She said that she had never stolen her sister’s underwear. She added that, during trans awareness training she delivered, she would reference one of her earliest memories: her mother caught her trying on her sister’s underwear when she was aged three or four.

6. The complainant also said that the article had omitted her age at the time of the memory, which suggested she had worn the underwear at an older age as a sexual fetish. The complainant said this was not the case; she tried on her sister’s outer clothes until she was 18 in secret, due to the fact that she had gender dysphoria.

7. The complainant said that the article had omitted part of the statement made by the UN, in breach of Clause 1. She provided the full statement, and noted that the following had been removed: “The UK attendees come from a range of social backgrounds, ages, race and ethnicities, genders, sexualities and disabilities. […] Taking action to Invest in Women: Accelerate Progress. They are not spokespeople or representatives of UN Women or UN Women UK but guest attendees who want to play a part in accelerating gender equality."

8. She also that said she had not spoken at the conference and questioned why the publication had singled her out.

9. The complainant also said the article breached Clause 10 as it included a video which had been secretly filmed at a training session she had delivered, without her permission. The complainant said that clips from this session had been posted to X (formerly known as Twitter) and had been taken out of context, and presented as part of “a trans-hostile narrative”. The complainant said the publication knew the video had been secretly filmed and therefore, it should remove the video from the article.

10. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Turning first to the question of whether the use of the terms “stealing” and “steal” were inaccurate, the publication said that it was not in dispute that the complainant took her sister’s underwear without permission – this could accurately be described as “stealing”. It also said that the article explained that this had happened when the complainant was a child. In addition, it said that the complainant also explained she was a child in the video, which was included in the article. It said the inclusion of the video would allow readers to reach their own interpretation of what had happened.

11. The publication did not consider omitting part of the UN’s statement rendered the article inaccurate. It said the Code does not cover the selection of information and that the inclusion of information within articles was a matter of editorial discretion. It also said that the complainant had not explained why the omission of parts of the statement rendered the article significantly inaccurate.

12. The publication said the video of the complainant had been posted on X two years prior to the article’s publication; it provided a link to the post in question. It said the video had, therefore, been in the public domain for at least two years prior to its inclusion in the article. It said that the footage had not been obtained by any journalist working on behalf of the publication, nor had it requested that a third-party obtain the footage.

13. In response, the complainant said that the term “child” was misleading as there is a huge difference in responsibility between doing something at the age of three and the age of fifteen, however both ages could be described as a “child”.

14. The complainant said omitting the sentence “[t]he UK attendees come from a range of social backgrounds, ages, race and ethnicities, genders, sexualities and disabilities” from the statement significantly changed the narrative of the story. She said that, without this sentence, there was an implication that her attendance at the conference somehow prevented a cisgender woman from attending. She said that most attendees were cisgender women, and that she was one of 6000 attendees of all genders. She said her gender was irrelevant as a qualification to be an attendee, yet it was used against her in 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.

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.

Findings of the Committee

15. The Committee first considered whether reporting in the headline and the text of the article that the complainant used to steal and wear her sister’s “panties” and had made confessions about stealing and wearing her sister’s underwear breached Clause 1. The Committee noted that the complainant accepted that she had previously disclosed that she had tried on her sister’s underwear when she was three or four years old. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s concern that the article did not make sufficiently clear her age at the time and her objection to the words “steal” and “stealing” in circumstances where the complainant had simply tried on the underwear. However, the Committee noted that the publication had included a video in the article in which the complainant was seen recalling that one of her earliest memories was from the age of three or four when she had started to cross dress and that the text of the article also explained that the complainant’s “childhood confusion about her sex identity had started when she was three or four” before reporting that the complainant “used to steal his sister’s ‘knickers’”. The article, on several occasions, reported that this had occurred when the complainant was “a boy”. Given that the complainant accepted that she had tried on her sister’s underwear when she was three or four, and the article and accompanying video also made clear that the complainant was recalling events from her early childhood, the Committee did not consider that the article was significantly misleading in reporting the statements which the complainant had made on this subject. Where the article made clear that this had occurred in the complainant’s early childhood, the Committee considered that the references in the article to “steal” or “stealing” when referring to the complainant’s conduct were used as figures of speech which did not amount to a claim that the complainant had engaged in criminal activity. The complainant also accepted that she had tried on her sister’s underwear without her knowledge or consent and in all these circumstances, the Committee did not find the references to be significantly inaccurate in breach of Clause 1.

16. The Committee next considered whether omitting portions of the UN Women UK’s statement was inaccurate. It noted that newspapers are entitled to select which information they include in articles, provided the Code is not otherwise breached. In this case, the Committee did not consider that the omissions highlighted by the complainant – the removal of “[t]he UK attendees come from a range of social backgrounds, ages, race and ethnicities, genders, sexualities and disabilities" – rendered the article inaccurate. It considered this to be the case where the article focused on the complainant’s actions as a child and her role as a delegate, rather than – for instance – the specifics of the UN delegates system. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

17. The Committee acknowledged that the complainant was concerned by the article’s focus on her, given that she had not spoken at the conference and was one of 6000 delegates. It again noted that newspapers are entitled to select which information they publish or choose to focus on. In this case, it was not inaccurate for the newspaper to focus on the complainant, given it did not state she had spoken at the conference and the article did not include any other information which was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1.

18. Clause 10 serves to limit the circumstances in which newspapers and agents acting on their behalf can engage in misrepresentation or subterfuge. It does not relate to wider concerns about how material has been obtained, nor does it place a requirement on publications to obtain permission prior to publishing footage.

19. In regard to the alleged breach of Clause 10, the Committee noted that the publication had provided a link to an X post which contained a video of the complainant. This included the clip that had been included in the article. The Committee noted the complainant’s position that this footage had been filmed in secret – without her permission – by someone who had attended the training. However, at the time the article was published, the video from which the clip was extracted was in the public domain; the newspaper had not, therefore, engaged, either directly or through an agent, in making or procuring the recording. The Committee did not consider that the publication engaged in any form of subterfuge or misrepresentation in how it had obtained this footage, and there was no breach of Clause 10.

20. The Committee also considered the complainant’s concern that the video has been presented as part of a “trans-hostile narrative”, in breach of Clause 10. This Clause does not relate to the context in which footage is used. In addition, while Clause 1 relates to the publication of inaccurate misleading, and distorted information – provided the Code is not otherwise breached – the selection of material for publication to support a certain position or point of view does not represent a breach of the Code. There was no breach of the Code on this point.

Conclusions

21. The complaint was not upheld under Clause 1 and Clause 10.

Remedial action required

22. N/A

Date complaint received: 11/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/08/2024