01575-24 Neeves v The Sun

Summary of Complaint

1. Katie Neeves complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “All hail JK, warrior queen! Fighting for like-minded millions against trans zealots", published on 3 April 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page 10 – reported on tweets made by an author on their X social media profile page. These tweets listed ten trans women, including the complainant. Four of the women named in the tweets were convicted sex offenders. It stated that the author “posted pictures online of ten high-profile trans people and described them all as women. They included double rapist Isla Bryson, whom she mockingly called a ‘lovely Scottish lass’, as well as model Munroe Bergdorf and TV presenter India Willoughby”. The article said that the author was “fed up with seeing the rights and safety of women and girls being slowly but deliberately erased by the new religion that is trans ideology.” The article included an image caption which read: “REVOLT…JK Rowling and, right, some her tweets following the introduction of the new law”.

3. The article contained a screenshot of a tweet the author had posted which referenced the complainant in which she had said: “Katie Neeves has been appointed as the UN woman UK delegate. She switched from straight man to lesbian at the age of 48 and, in a leaked 2022 webinar, described how she used to enjoy stealing and wearing her sister’s underwear. A truly relatable representative!”

4. The article also appeared online under the headline “If foolish cops arrest JK Rowling they will face an army of like-minded women happy to fill up every prison cell”; this version of the article was published on 2 April 2024. This version included a larger screenshot of the tweet about the complainant. This screenshot included an image of the complainant in a UN Women UK promotional image accompanied by the text: “Delegates are joining with UN Women UK to make change and are not representatives or spokespeople for UN Women UK" at the bottom. The screenshot’s caption read: “Rowling weighed in on the appointment of Katie Neeves as UN Women's UK delegate”.

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it included a tweet which contained inaccurate information about her. She said that the tweet implied she was the only delegate for UN Women UK and, therefore, her selection had prevented a cisgender woman from taking on the role. She said she was one of 6000 people of all genders who were delegates and was not a “representative” – which was how she was described in the tweet. She said that a majority of the delegates were cisgender women, and that she had not spoken at the event but was there to listen and learn.

6. The complainant said that, on 4 March 2024, UN Women UK had posted a statement on their social media accounts, which read: "We are excited to announce that we have over 6000 delegates from the UK virtually attending CSW68, where they will listen to and learn with delegates from around the World. The UK delegates come from a range of social backgrounds, ages, race and ethnicities, genders, sexualities and disabilities. Together, they will bring practical ideas and inspiration back to their communities and organisations in the UK. taking action to Invest in Women: Accelerate progress." She said this made clear that she was not the only delegate.

7. The complainant also said the tweet was inaccurate as it stated she had stolen her sister's underwear. She said she had never stolen underwear or clothes from anyone. She said the tweet referred to a story she told during her trans awareness training sessions of one of her earliest memories to illustrate the gender dysphoria she experienced from a young age. She said that, when she was aged three or four, her mother caught her trying on her sister's underwear. She explained this happened only once and before puberty. However, the tweet had omitted her age at the time of the event, and she considered it had implied it was done due to a sexual fetish. She said the leaked webinar the tweet referenced was secretly filmed without her permission.

8. The complainant also said the article included her in a list of trans women which included four convicted sex offenders. She considered this inaccurately implied she was a danger to society, when she had never been accused of any crime.

9. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 1. The publication said that whether or not the complainant was the sole UN Women UK delegate or one of many was not a significant point in the context of the article under complaint: the article reported on the author’s position, which was that – given the complainant’s background – it was inappropriate for her to represent the UK at a formal body endorsing and supporting women's rights. However, while it did not accept a breach of the Code, 14 days after it become aware of the complaint, the publication offered to print the following clarification in its Corrections and Clarification section:

"We have been asked to clarify that Katie Neeves was not the only 'UN Women UK delegate', as a Tweet pictured in a 3 April article implied. She was one of over 6,000 people from a range of genders and sexualities who were delegates to the 68th UN Commission on the Status of Women."

10. On 2 May, 17 days after it become aware of the complaint, the publication offered to publish the following correction as a footnote to the online article:

“Katie Neeves was not the only 'UN Women UK delegate' as JK Rowling's tweet, included in the article, implies. She was one of over 6,000 people from a range of genders and sexualities who were delegates to the 68th UN Commission on the Status of Women. We are happy to clarify.”

11. The publication said the complainant’s interpretation of the tweet was “over-literal” and the difference between whether she “stole” or “wore” her sister’s underwear was not significant. It said it was not in dispute the complainant confessed to wearing her sister's underwear in secret. To support its position on this point, it provided an article which the complainant had written: “Creeping into my older sister’s bedroom one evening, I pulled a pair of knickers out of her drawers, carefully stepped into them”. The publication said to do this without an owner's knowledge was a violation of their privacy and property rights – a form of 'stealing', albeit not one that necessarily implied an intention to permanently deprive the owner. The publication said the tweet was not misleading and did not refer to a “sexual fetish” nor did it imply that this was the complainant’s motivation.

12. The publication said the complainant was not described as a sex offender by either the tweets or the article and no “natural reading” of the article would reasonably infer that the author was talking solely about sex offenders. It said that not all individuals referenced were sex offenders and that the majority – six out of the ten – were not. The publication said the article did not suggest that the author was addressing trans individuals who had committed sex crimes. Rather, it said the contrary, given it explicitly referenced trans women who had not committed any such crime: "Rowling posted pictures online of ten high-profile trans people and described them all as women. They included double rapist Isla Bryson, whom she mockingly called a ‘lovely Scottish lass’, as well as model Munroe Bergdorf and TV presenter India Willoughby.”

13. The complainant did not consider that the clarifications proposed by the publication went far enough. She said that the only time she had tried on her sister’s underwear was when she was three or four years old, which was when her sister was also a child. The complainant said the definition of stealing was “to take something without the permission or knowledge of the owner and keep it", or to take away any object without someone’s permission and without intending to return it.

14. On 17 May, the complainant suggested the following clarification be published in a similar position as the original article:

"We have been asked to clarify that Katie Neeves was not the only 'UN Women UK delegate', as a Tweet pictured in a 3 April article implied. She was one of over 6,000 people from a range of genders and sexualities who were delegates to the 68th UN Commission on the Status of Women. As a delegate, she was there to learn and she did not represent the organisation in any way, as the tweet incorrectly implied. Katie Neeves has never stolen her sister's underwear (as the tweet incorrectly stated). She only tried them on, around the age of 3 or 4. Katie Neeves was included in JK Rowling's series of tweets, which also included 4 convicted sex offenders. We would like to clarify that Katie Neeves has never been accused of any such offence."

15. On 20 May, the publication offered to amend its previously proposed corrections to add the following sentence: “Also Katie has asked us to make clear that she never stole her sister's underwear as a child; she only tried it on”.

16. The complainant said it was important to make clear in any correction that she was three or four years old when she tried on her sister’s underwear and that she had never been accused of any criminal offence.

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

17. The question for the Committee was whether by including screenshots of the tweets in the article and reporting on their contents, the newspaper had taken care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information; and whether the reporting of the tweet was significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. The Committee therefore considered the context in which the tweet appeared in the article under complaint.

18. The article reported that the author had “weighed in on the appointment of Katie Neeves as UN Women's UK delegate” and included a tweet in which the author had said: “Katie Neeves has been appointed as the UN woman UK delegate […] A truly relatable representative!” The Committee acknowledged that the complainant was one of 6000 delegates who represented many genders, and the complainant’s concerns that the tweet could be read as suggesting that there was only one UK delegate – namely, the complainant. However, the Committee noted that the complainant was correctly described in as a “delegate” at the conference and considered that the additional reference as to whether the complainant was a “relatable representative” did not suggest that the complainant had attended the conference in another capacity, but rather was an expression of the author’s view as to whether the complainant, as a delegate, could be said to represent those who attended the conference. For this reason, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

19. The Committee next considered whether the article breached Clause 1 by including and reporting on a social media post of the author in which she had said the complainant “used to enjoy stealing and wearing her sister’s underwear”. The Committee first noted that the tweet had clearly been attributed to the author, both in the text of the article and given that the tweet was reproduced as a screenshot in the article. The Committee also noted that the complainant accepted that she had previously disclosed that she had tried on her sister’s underwear on one occasion when she was three or four years old. The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s concerns that neither the tweet nor the article provided further information about the circumstances in which this had occurred and her objection to the word “stealing” in circumstances where the complainant had simply tried on the underwear. The Committee considered that the tweet represented the author’s summary of what the complainant had previously shared at a training session, and in its report of the tweet it was not necessary for the article to include additional information such as the complaint’s age at the time or that this had occurred only once. Taking all these circumstances into account, the Committee did not consider that the way in which the article had reported on the tweet posted by the author was significantly inaccurate, given that the complainant accepted she had tried on her sister’s underwear without her knowledge or consent and where, given the informal style of the social media posts reported on, “stealing” had been used by the author as a figure of speech. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

20. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns that the leaked webinar the tweet referenced was secretly filmed without her permission. While the Committee understood that the complainant was concerned that the webinar had been recorded without her knowledge and “leaked”, there was no allegation that the publication had played any role in the recording or subsequent release of the video. It further noted that such concerns are not within the scope of Clause 1, which relate to the publication of inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information. For these reasons, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

21. The complainant believed including her in a list of individuals, which included four convicted sex offenders, inaccurately implied she was a danger to society and a criminal. The Committee noted that neither the text of the article nor the tweet said that the complainant had been accused or convicted of any crime, nor did they state that she was a “danger to society”.

22. In assessing whether reporting on the complainant’s inclusion in this list of ten individuals represented a breach of the Code, the Committee noted the context of the article: it reported on a list, made by the author, of ten individuals. What linked the ten women was the fact that they were – as the article reported – “ten high profile trans women” whom the author had connected with “trans ideology.” In such circumstances, while the Committee understood the complainant was unhappy with her inclusion in the list, it did not consider that reporting on the list implied that the complainant was a danger to society or a criminal. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

23. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

24. N/A

Date complaint received: 11/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/08/2024