01576-24 Neeves v Daily Mail

Summary of Complaint

1. Katie Neeves complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “The ten 'trans women' that Rowling dared to label as 'men'”, published on 2 April 2024.

2. The article – which appeared on page four - reported on X posts published by JK Rowling. The article reported “JK Rowling singled out ten trans women in her social media post. After writing about each person, the author added: ‘April Fools! Only kidding. Obviously, the people mentioned in the above tweets aren’t women at all, but men, every last one of them.’” The article named the ten trans women cited in the X posts which included the complainant. It said: “Katie Neeves: A trans activist appointed as UK ambassador to the UN Commission On The Status Of Women, who has confessed to stealing her sister’s underwear as a boy.” The X post itself did not feature in the print version of the article.

3. The article also appeared online under the headline “The 10 trans women that JK Rowling dared to label as 'men' on social media as Scottish hate crime laws came into effect”, published on 1 April 2024. This version said a “trans activist appointed as UK ambassador to the UN Commission On The Status Of Women, who has confessed to stealing her sister's underwear as a boy.” It included a screenshot of Ms Rowling’s X post which said “Katie Neeves has been appointed as the UN Women’s delegate. She switched from straight man to lesbian at the age of 48 and, in a leaked webinar, described how she used to enjoy stealing and wearing her sister’s underwear. A truly relatable representative!” The X post included a promotional image of the complainant as a UN women’s delegate with text at the bottom stating “*Delegates are joining with UN Women UK to make change and are not representatives or spokespeople for UN Women UK.”

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1. She said the re-published X post implied she was the only delegate for UN Women UK and that she had prevented a cisgender woman from representing women. The complainant explained she was one of over 6000 people of all genders who attended and that she had been singled out. She also said the text had referred to her as an ambassador which was inaccurate.

5. The complainant also said the article had inaccurately claimed she had stolen her sister’s underwear. She said she had never stolen her sister’s underwear. The complainant said that during a trans-awareness training session, she recounted one of her earliest memories which involved her trying on her sister’s underwear when she was aged three of four and her mother catching her. The complainant said by omitting her age, it implied she was older and the act was part of a sexual fetish.

6. The complainant said the article had also breached Clause 10 as it had referenced a story she had told at a private trans-awareness training which had been secretly filmed by an attendee and published on X.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the online version of the article included a screenshot of Ms Rowling’s X post. It said she was a well-known activist, and the premise of the article reported her high-profile series of tweets posted in advance of the controversial new Scottish “Hate Crime” law. The publication said the print version of the article did not include any screenshots and that it was reasonable to include the X posts only in the longer online version to illustrate the story. The publication said it would be clear to readers that the screenshots were Ms Rowling’s own views rather than claims made by the publication. The publication said it had clearly distinguished between comment, conjecture and fact by including the X post.

8. The publication said the screenshot of the X post included a promotional image which referred to “delegates” which indicated there was more than one delegate representing the UK. It also said that the brief text description did not say the complainant was the only delegate. On 28 May, 43 days after it had been made aware of the complaint, it offered to amend the online article to make explicit the complainant was one of many attendees.

9. The publication said the complainant said that she took her sister’s underwear, without her permission and concealed this fact from her family. It said, therefore, it was not inaccurate to characterise these actions as “stealing”.

10. The publication provided the X post which had published the video of the complainant, and had been in the public domain for more than two years. It showed the complainant talking about trying on her sister’s clothes when she was a child. The publication said it had not commissioned or recorded the video and had not published the video in the article. It said, therefore, that Clause 10 was not engaged.

11. The complainant said the publication should publish a correction and apology with similar prominence to where the alleged inaccuracies originally appeared.

12. On 17 June, the publication offered to make the following amendment to the online article: “A trans activist appointed as one of the 6000 UK ambassadors to the UN Commission On The Status Of Women, who said that as a 3 year old 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.'”

13. The complainant did not accept the publication’s amendments. She suggested the correction and apology should say: "We would like to point out that Katie Neeves was one of over 6,000 attendees, of all genders and that she has never stolen her sister's clothes (as our story incorrectly stated). However, she did once try on her sister's underwear when she was 3 or 4 years old. We would like to apologise for any distress or reputational damage caused." She said the correction should be published on the corrections page in the print version and underneath the screenshot of the X post in the online 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

14. The question for the Committee was whether by including screenshots of the X posts in the online 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 X post was significantly inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. The Committee therefore considered the context in which the X post appeared and was referenced in the article under complaint.

15. The Committee first considered whether the print version breached Clause 1 by reporting the complainant had “confessed to stealing her sister’s underwear as a boy”. 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 “stealing” in circumstances where the complainant had simply tried on the underwear. However, the Committee noted that the publication had explained 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, 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 childhood, the Committee considered that the reference to “stealing” when referring to the complainant’s conduct was used as a figure 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 reference to be significantly inaccurate in breach of Clause 1.

16. The Committee next considered whether the online version which reproduced the X post in which Ms Rowling claimed the complainant had confessed to stealing her sister's underwear as a boy breached Clause 1. The Committee first noted that the X post had clearly been attributed, both in the text of the article and given that the X post 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 X post 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 X post represented Ms Rowling’s summary of what the complainant had previously shared on the topic, and in its report of the post 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 the X post 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 as a figure of speech. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

17. Both versions of the article said the complainant had been “appointed as UK ambassador to the UN Commission On The Status Of Women”. The online version included a screenshot of the tweet which said “Katie Neeves has been appointed as the UN Women’s delegate. […] A truly relatable representative!” with an image of the complainant as a UN women’s delegate. The Committee acknowledged that the complainant was one of 6000 delegates who represented many genders, and her concerns that the articles referred to her as an “ambassador” and that they suggested she was the only UK delegate.

18. In this instance, the Committee did not consider the term ambassador to be significantly inaccurate, where the complainant attended the conference as a “delegate” and these terms are similar in meaning. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

19. The print article did not state the complainant was the only “ambassador” and was a brief summary of the content of the X post. Further the online version had included a screenshot of the X post which included a promotional image of the complainant with the text “Delegates are joining with UN Women UK to make change and are not representatives or spokespeople for UN Women UK” which made clear the complainant was not the only delegate. The Committee 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 Ms Rowling’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.

20. The Committee acknowledged that the complainant was concerned by the article’s focus on her, given that she was one of 6000 delegates that attended the conference. It 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 the article did not include any other information which was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

21. The Committee then considered the complainant’s concerns under Clause 10 in regard to the video of her discussing trying on her sister’s clothes. 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 the video was not included in the article. For this reason, there was no breach of Clause 10.

Conclusions

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

Remedial action required

23. N/A

Date complaint received: 11/04/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/08/2024