Dear Complainants,

I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “'The police will kill me before corona kills me': Two 18-year-old organisers of the London Black Lives Matter protest make incredible claim that they 'risk their lives on a daily basis' living in 'so racist' UK”, published by Mail Online on 2 June 2020.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has received a number of complaints about this article. In order to be able to respond in a timely manner, we have prepared a response which deals with the various concerns raised by complaints.

When IPSO receives a complaint, the Executive staff review it first to decide whether the complaint falls within our remit, and whether it raises a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

First, we should make clear that our response deals only with the concerns raised under the Editors’ Code of Practice. We noted concerns from complainants that the article and the associated reader comments may lead to a rise in hate crime, both against the article’s subjects and against the wider Black Lives Matter movement. Such concerns are the remit of the police, and any complainants who are concerned that a crime may have been committed as a result of this article may wish to address their concerns to the police.

Many complainants said that the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) by incorrectly stating that Tash was 18 years old, when she was in fact 21. Some complainants also considered that it was inaccurate to name Aima and Tash as the organisers of the BLM protests, and some considered that the publication implied it had the consent of Aima and Tash to publish the article.

IPSO is able to consider complaints from an individual who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice; complaints from a representative group affected by an alleged breach where there is a substantial public interest; and complaints from third parties about accuracy. In the case of third party complaints, we will need to consider the position of the party most closely involved.

In this case, we decided that these alleged inaccuracies related directly to Aima and Tash. In order to make a decision on whether the Code was breached, it appears IPSO may need to make findings on the degree to which these individuals organised the BLM protest, whether they consented to the article, and Tash’s age. To do this, we would require the involvement of an individual with first-hand knowledge of them, in particular with regard to the part they played in organising the protests. In addition, any ruling by IPSO on this matter would result in the publication of information about them, which might not be appropriate without their consent. In these circumstances, we considered that it would not be appropriate or possible to investigate and publicly rule on this aspect of the complaints without the consent of Aima or Tash. Because of this, we declined to consider these points of complaint further. For clarity, this does not affect the ability of Aima or Tash to make a complaint on these points.

Some complainants also said that the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because they considered that the statistics used in the article relating to BAME deaths in Metropolitan Police custody were either inaccurate, or not properly sourced. The publication referred to figures released by charity Inquest when reporting on the number of BAME deaths which had occurred in Metropolitan Police Custody, and linked to the Inquest website. We understand that complainants may dispute the accuracy of the figures released by Inquest, however, the publication cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of Inquest’s studies or its findings; the publication was entitled to report the statistics, as long as it did so in a manner that was not misleading or inaccurate.

Some complainants also found the article misleading as the statistics used in the article referred only to deaths in the custody of the Metropolitan Police force, and not to UK police forces as a whole. However, the publication made clear that it only used statistics related to the London Metropolitan Police Force; it did not report that these statistics related to UK police forces in general. We also noted that the article stated that “BAME people die disproportionately as a result of use of force or restraint by the police”. In light of this, we did not consider that the omission of UK-wide figures rendered the article inaccurate or misleading. For these reasons, we found no possible breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Many complainants said that the article breached Clause 2 (Privacy) by publishing photographs of Aima and Tash, along with their names, and because neither of them gave permission for their social media content to be re-published by Mail Online. In this case the parties directly affected by the alleged breaches of Clause 2 were Aima and Tash. As complainants were not complaining on their behalf as an authorised representative, we were not able to consider these aspects of the complaint further.

Some complainants also expressed concern that the publication may have breached copyright law by using images taken from social media accounts belonging to Aima and Tash. IPSO’s complaints process only considers concerns linked to the Editors’ Code of Practice and cannot determine legal matters.

Many complainants also said that the publication breached Clause 3 (Harassment) by visiting Aima’s family home without prior warning, and by “doxxing” Aima and Tash. This is again an instance where the directly affected first parties were Aima and Tash and their families. As complainants were not complaining on their behalf as an authorised representative, we were not able to consider these aspects of the complaints further.

Many complainants said that the publication breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) by not censoring pictures of Aima and Tash, when they had previously censored pictures of young white men who had mocked the death of George Floyd. Again, in this instance, the parties directly affected by the alleged breach of the Code were Aima and Tash. As complainants were not complaining on their behalf as an authorised representative, we were unable to consider this point of complaint further.

Many complainants also said that the publication breached Clause 12 by discriminating against black people in their coverage of the BLM protests. Clause 12 is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination; it does not address discrimination towards groups of people. Concerns that the article discriminated against black people in general did not relate to an individual. This meant that it did not engage the terms of this Clause. For more information about Clause 12 and how it works, this blog may be of interest.

Some complainants also said that the article breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) by intruding into the grief - both of Aima and Tash, and of the collective BLM protestors - over the killing of George Floyd. Clause 4 requires that, in cases involving personal grief or shock, a publication acts sensitively. While we acknowledge the grief felt by many over the killing of Mr Floyd, we found that such grief does not constitute personal grief such that would engage the terms of Clause 4.

Some complainants also said that the article breached Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime) because they considered that the article implied that the BLM protests were violent in nature. Clause 9 relates to the identification of the friends and family of individuals who are accused or convicted of crime. As the complaints received did not relate to this, the terms of the Clause were not engaged.

Concern was also raised that the article breached Clause 14 (Confidential sources) by identifying both Aima and Tash. Clause 14 states that publications have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources, however there is no indication that Aima and Tash acted as confidential sources for the purposes of the article, and so we found no possible breach of Clause 14 on this point.

Some complainants also complained that the article requested “Tips” relating to Aima and Tash. Requesting information such as this is not prohibited under the terms of the Editors’ Code, and so we could not make a ruling on this aspect of complaints.

Some complainants also expressed concern that journalists may have breached social distancing rules in the course of researching and writing the article. It should be noted that the Editors’ Code does not require, or regulate, the media’s compliance with guidance introduced by the Government in response to the Covid-19 crisis. However, IPSO also has a wider role in monitoring press standards and looking at key areas of concern. The current Covid-19 pandemic and the behaviour of journalists at this time is a priority area for our Standards Department. Therefore, while we are unable to take forward formal complaints on this point, these concerns will feed into our ongoing standards work.

You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us in the next seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made seven days after the date of this email.

We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.

Best wishes,

Emily Houlston-Jones

Cc Mail Online