A. NEWSPAPERS OR PRINT PUBLICATIONS

YOU MUST FIRST COMPLAIN TO THE PUBLICATION ITSELF. They have 21 days to respond.

If you are not satisfied by the response, or do not receive a response you can then complain to one, or both of the regulatory bodies.

1) IPSO - The Independent Press Complaints Organisation. They are in charge of holding UK Newspapers and magazines to account.

You can either e-mail them at inquiries@ipso.co.uk, or use the online complaints form, or by post at:-

Independent Press Standards Organisation Gate House

1 Farringdon Street

London

EC4M 7LG

2) IMPRESS is the Independent Monitor for the Press and a Community Interest Company IMPRESS regulate more than 100 local news publications. They have a complaints process for members of the public based on a standards code like that of IPSO.

B) TELEVISION

1. ITV tel 03448814150, or e-mail viewerservices@itv.com

2. The BBC has its own complaints process. It has slightly different editorial guidelines because of the requirement for it to be unbiased and independent.

USEFUL RESOURCES

If you are a WRN Member with access to the Member's area you may find this post helpful when working on your BBC Complaint: How to complain to the BBC and get action FAST. IN addition along with the document, below, outlining the process.

Use the IPSO Editors’ Code to structure your complaint to the publication – this is vital because the same complaint will be forwarded to IPSO (or IMPRESS) if the publication rejects it.There are 12 clauses in the IPSO Editors’ Code Practice. . Clause One is the one you are most likely to use.

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.

v) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

Think about what you are objecting to and what clause in the editors’ code is being breached. For example, opinions are not a breach of accuracy. The publication must, however, make it clear when reporting opinions.

Newspapers are allowed to be biased if the content is identified as opinion. The BBC is different because of how it’s funded. It is not allowed to report biased opinions.

No matter how much you might dislike the article, if you can’t demonstrate a breach of editorial guidelines, your complaint will not be upheld.

Complain To The Publication

Publications will have a contact address on their website. They usually have a specific contact for complaints.

Email the offending publication or for the BBC, or ITV use the BBC’s complaints form.

Cite the specific clause(s) in the IPSO code that you feel have been breached. Be very specific about how the clause has been breached and give examples.

Give them facts not feelings – the bar for having a complaint upheld is high. You must demonstrate a clear breach of the code.

Keep a record of your complaint – when you complained, and any response from the publication.

Allow up to 10 days for the publication to respond to you, and try to agree a resolution, such as a correction, with them.

Complain To The Regulator

Only escalate to the regulator if the publication does not address your concerns to your satisfaction.

There are different regulators for different types of published materials Send the regulator a copy of all the correspondence you have had with the publication to demonstrate that you have attempted to reach a resolution.

The regulator may decide that your complaint has no merit. In this case, the complaint will not proceed.

If the complaint has merit, the regulator will let you know.

This was the initial complaint. Keep it short and as clear as possible.

Initial Complaint:

Please correct your article: Just let trans women swim in peace

Date of article: 05/09/22

Article URL: https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/06/just-let-trans-women-swim-in-peace-17306342/amp/

Editors’ Code clause breached

1 Accuracy

Article states multiple times that trans identified males are legally entitled to use women's single sex space according to the Equality Act 2010. This is untrue. The Act allows for single sex provision where that is "a proportionate means to a legitimate aim" - single sex toilets and changing facilities are proportionate.

Also, given there are 3 ponds at Hampstead Heath - one for males, one for females and one mixed sex, there is no case to complain of discrimination on the basis of sex.

Examples in the article:

• "the pond clarifying in 2019 that trans women were allowed to swim in [the women's pond] and use the changing rooms, as is their legal right under the

• Equality Act 2010"

• "The policy, simply, is law-abiding"

• "Access to places like women’s ponds isn’t just something I have a legal right to"

• "As it stands, trans people are legally allowed to use single-sex spaces based on self declaration, and have been for over a decade”

All of the above statements are incorrect and should be corrected.

Complaint was rejected because it was an “opinion piece”:

We note that this is an opinion piece and clearly marked as such, with the author’s details as a transactivist alongside the profile. The article concerns a trans woman, not a trans man, and we are satisfied the writer’s statements are fair and accurate. They refer to details available on the pond’s website and reflect many other official statements, including The Kenwood Ladies' Pond Association, which said recently:

"The City of London manages all the Hampstead Heath bathing ponds and decides the

policy around access for transgender swimmers in accordance with the Equality Act.

"More than four years ago the KLPA engaged in a lengthy consultative process and debate,

with members subsequently agreeing to maintain their support for the city's policy of

gender self identification. Neither position has changed. The KLPA will continue to listen

to the views of our members on matters related to the Ladies' Pond."

This followed an announcement in 2019 when the right of transgender women to use Hampstead Heath ponds was formalised in a policy.

The City of London Corporation (CoLC), which manages Hampstead Heath and its ponds, announced that it had adopted a new gender identity policy to make sure services in the area “are fully compliant with the Equality Act 2010 and do not discriminate against trans people”.

The City of London, confirmed that the ladies’ pond was open to transgender women. That was formalised in an announcement that the new rules would “ensure a robust and consistent approach to gender identity”.

We thank you again for your feedback but I’m afraid we stand by this piece and will not be correcting the statements for the reasons above.

This rejection was not accepted:

Whilst I recognise that opinion pieces will make claims about what the law should be, I was under the impression that even opinion pieces could not misrepresent the law.

There are two points of law here:

1. Is the KLPA’s policy of allowing male people to swim in the Ladies’ Pond compliant with the Equality Act

2. Do trans identified males (trans women) have the right in general to access single-sex spaces designated as female

Suella Braverman, as Attorney General, gave a speech on 12th August 2022. She does not agree that the KLPA’s policy is lawful:

‘’For the purposes of Gender Recognition Certificates, we do not operate a system of self-identification in England and Wales. But some service providers behave as if they have a legal duty to admit biological males who identify as females into women-only spaces, from rape crisis centres and domestic abuse refuges to bathrooms and changing rooms. In my view this is not in accordance with the law.”

The Attorney General gave this example:

By way of example a ‘women-only’ rule for a women’s judo class excludes all men and will be lawful under paragraph 26 if a joint service would be less effective, and it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It will no doubt put people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (e.g. trans-women, by that I mean a biological male who identifies as a female) at a disadvantage compared to those without that characteristic. But in my view if the benefit that it confers is sufficient to justify direct discrimination against the whole class of men, it will in almost all circumstances be sufficient to justify indirect discrimination against a much smaller class of trans-women.

This means that whilst it is lawful for the Ladies Pond to be exclusively for the use of female people (however they identify) it is NOT lawful for the Ladies Pond to be exclusively for the use of people who identify as women (whatever their sex).

Furthermore, the trans activist who wrote the article did not confine the article to the Ladies Pond at Hampstead, and for those generalised comments the KLPA’s policy is irrelevant:

"Access to places like women’s ponds isn’t just something I have a legal right to"

"As it stands, trans people are legally allowed to use single-sex spaces based on self-declaration, and have been for over a decade"

These statements are just not true and should be corrected.

The Outcome

Link to archived article: https://archive.ph/tByYZ

Link to corrected version: https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/06/just-let-trans-women-swim-in-peace-17306342/amp/