Resolution Statement – 05620-24 Hamilton v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Blair Hamilton complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Women's football match is postponed after outrage over team signing a 34-year-old transgender goalkeeper, who was chosen by the league's first ever trans manager”, published on 2 September 2024.

2. The article reported on an incident involving a football team the complainant played for. It stated, “Sutton United's away game at Ebbsfleet in the London and South East Regional Women's League was postponed on Sunday amid controversy centred on a transgender goalkeeper.” The article went on to report "although not confirmed, it is thought that Sunday's game may have been postponed after some of [the complainant’s] team-mates refused to play in protest at her signing."

3. The article contained multiple images of the complainant. One of them showed the complainant sitting at a table on holiday and another showed her posing with her teammates.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it referred to a game being postponed due to her involvement. She said she had not been selected for the game and was not due to play.

5. The complainant also said the article was in breach of Clause 1 because it inaccurately reported that the game was called off because her teammates were allegedly scared for their safety due to the complainant’s participation.

6. The complainant said the article breached Clause 2 because it contained images which she said were taken from her restricted social media accounts without her consent - including a photograph of her on holiday - which she said was never intended for public consumption.

7. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the only reference to the game being postponed was clearly indicated as conjecture through the phrase “[a]lthough not confirmed, it is thought that Sunday's game may have been postponed after some of Hamilton's team-mates refused to play in protest at her signing” which it said was in accordance with Clause 1 (iv) of the Editors' Code.

8. The publication also did not accept the headline was inaccurate. It said it simply referred to the fact that the game was postponed following “outrage” over the complainant’s signing by the club. It said this was supported by an article it published two days later which stated the match was cancelled due to safety concerns prompted by the reaction to the complainant’s signing.

9. In response to the complainant’s concerns about privacy, the newspaper said its picture desk confirmed her Instagram account was public at the time the article was written and that was how the images were sourced. It argued the images did not show anything the complainant would have a reasonable expectation of privacy over – but rather simply showed her likeness.

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 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Mediated Outcome

10. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

11. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to remove the paragraph which referred to speculation the match was postponed due to some of the Sutton United team refusing to play, and a quote from a social media user which supported this. It also offered to remove the image of the complainant on holiday as well as the image of her with her teammates.

12. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to her satisfaction.

13. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.

Date complaint received: 06/09/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/11/2024